Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 4, 5, 8 and 16 relate to the obligations imposed on the Parole Board by Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 7. Clause 3 adds terrorism and explosive offences to the category of the enhanced dangerous offenders sentencing scheme. Cases will be referred to the board for a decision about release instead of offenders being eligible for automatic release after serving two-thirds of their term. Clause 4 extends this to all such offenders serving extended determinate sentences. Clause 5 applies a similar provision to other offenders convicted of serious crimes, as listed in the schedule, who will be subject to discretionary rather than automatic release between the halfway and end points of their sentence. Clause 7 creates a new release test for recalled prisoners to be applied by the board under which the Secretary of State or the board has to be satisfied that it is highly unlikely that a prisoner would breach a condition of his licence.

All these measures are likely to increase the pressure on an overstretched and underresourced Parole Board. The Government estimate an increase of 1,100 hearings a year by 2030, rising by an estimated 50 next year, 400 by 2020 and ultimately requiring an extra 1,000 prison places. As the Prison Reform Trust points out, the Ministry of Justice has form in these matters. When indeterminate sentences—IPPs—which we will be debating later were introduced, the ministry, under a previous Administration, estimated an increase in the prison population of 900, but by the end of last year 5,335 people were serving IPP sentences, two-thirds of them beyond their tariff date.

This was in good measure a result of the failure, frequently commented upon in this House and beyond, to provide the necessary resources to the Parole Board to prepare people for release and rehabilitation. As the Prison Reform Trust reported, offending behaviour programmes are scarcely available and limited in their scope and effectiveness, and it is inherently difficult to demonstrate reduced dangerousness and pass the high safety threshold for release. That was in 2010, when numbers were smaller and staffing greater. Moreover, as the Prison Reform Trust points out, the Government’s impact assessment of the provisions of the Offender Rehabilitation Act estimated that 13,000 offenders would be recalled or committed to custody a year, leading to an extra 600 prison places being needed. Have the Government looked into the real impact of the Offender Rehabilitation Act on this situation to date and as anticipated in the near future? Further, what assessment have they made of the effect of the recent Supreme Court judgment in the Osborn case requiring the board to hold more oral hearings, which last December alone had increased by one-third in indeterminate review cases to just under 400 in a month and to 90 in indeterminate recall cases?

The board warned in its annual report, as it appears from today’s Daily Telegraph, that the number of oral hearings could increase from 4,500 a year to as many as 14,000, and at an additional cost of £10 million. What is the Government’s response to this estimate? The Minister has apparently indicated that an extra £3 million will be allocated to the Parole Board. How does that square with the board’s own estimate of the potential cost? What is the Government’s estimate of the impact on prison numbers and on the work of the board of the Secretary of State’s latest headline-grabbing decision that no prisoner may be transferred to an open prison if he or she has previously absconded, which is apparently already building up a backlog of Parole Board hearings? How do the Government expect the board to cope with these pressures when it has already lost 20% of its staff and when its members are now having to use an unreliable video link system to conduct hearings—another example of the problems associated with rushing headlong into the all too frequently costly and inadequately tested application of IT and electronic systems?

All this is set against a background of massive overcrowding in many prisons with the attendant problems that that poses for prisoners and staff, and with the system too often being pared back to one of simple confinement. The chief inspector has spoken of dangerous instability in the prison estate and has pointed out that despite some recent high-profile cases, there is a very low failure rate for release on licence. Further questions arise over the Government’s apparent intention, as reported in the Times on 21 June, to transfer responsibility for the administration of recall cases to the magistrates’ courts. Can the Minister tell us whether this is the Government’s policy, because of course the report may be wrong, and if so, what consultations have taken place with the Parole Board, the Magistrates’ Association, the judiciary and other interested parties? Is there an intention to pilot such a concept before rolling it out?

It really is time for the Government to adopt less of the kind of muscle-flexing populism that is so often exhibited by the Secretary of State and more of the considered approach we have come to expect of the Minister. These amendments are designed to ensure that the Parole Board is fully engaged with any plans to implement these measures and that Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise and approve their implementation on the basis that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that the pathway to rehabilitation is properly and securely paved. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to add to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Beecham on the make-up of the review of the Parole Board. My understanding is that at present Parole Board members can either sit as a single Parole Board member or as two or as three. They can be a mixture of lay people and lawyers. It is of course desirable that the more serious the case, the greater the legal training and the more appropriate the experience of the people sitting on those hearings. I also wonder whether the Minister can comment on the possibility of using lay magistrates to sit on parole hearings. Is this something that the Ministry of Justice is willing to consider? We have a resource in the pool of magistrates throughout England and Wales, so is the ministry considering the use of magistrates in parole hearings? The whole subject of the Parole Board is extremely important, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham, and is something that needs to be managed very carefully, given the reduction in the resources being made available to it.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said in amplification of his noble friend Lord Beecham. In addition to saying that £3 million would be made available, the Minister has been quoted as saying that a number of changes are to be introduced to ease the pressure on the Parole Board. In addition to the possibility of lay magistrates being used, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, can the Minister outline exactly what those changes are? I am quite certain that the Supreme Court introduced the Parole Board in oral hearings because it was satisfied that the board gave a fair hearing to people, and that was how it operated. I would hate to think of some of the parole decisions being reduced to bureaucratic decisions taken by officials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that it is normal that the Front Bench on this side finishes any debate before the Minister answers, but I really have a bad feeling about the clause and I want to support the amendment. The provision smacks to me of the outcome of lobbying by those who will have highly remunerative contracts, if it comes to pass. We are not hearing any costings on this, and I would very much like the Minister to tell us what it is going to cost the public purse. As others have said, there are circumstances in which it is very useful to tag someone when there are concerns about whether they might not respond to the ordinary inhibitions on their liberty during a period of parole, but I am concerned about it being used in this wide way. Behind the provision is the lobbying by those private sector companies that now make a great deal of money out of this very kind of thing. Have any costings been done? How much will it cost the public purse?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I want to pick up on the point that my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws has made and speak to Amendment 13, on the review of this extension of tagging. My honourable friend Dan Jarvis made the point in the other place about possible unforeseen consequences of this extension. I was talking to a magistrate colleague of mine only last week, and she pointed out to me that the new GPS tags are physically much larger than the existing tags used today. That means that they are possibly easier to remove—but there is another possible consequence, in that they need charging much more often. The existing tags do not need recharging because the battery lasts for the length of the period that the person is tagged. Potentially, that raises a whole series of issues with offenders—people out on bail or offenders in the case that we are now discussing—who are not properly recharging their GPS-driven tags. My understanding is that they would have to do it by an induction loop; it would not be a physical connection. That could raise a lot of unforeseen consequences, which is why I reiterate my support for Amendment 13, so that it can be looked at when the provision comes into force.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the effect of Amendments 9, 10 and 14 would be, as my noble friend Lord Marks said, to remove from the Bill the provisions which would allow for compulsory electronic monitoring conditions to be imposed on offenders on release from custody. This would leave the use of these conditions on a discretionary basis, as they are now under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. I understand that there are some concerns about how these powers will be used. Therefore, it may be helpful if I take some time to explain how the provisions would work and why the Government consider them necessary and important in our drive to deliver a more effective sentencing and rehabilitation framework.

I emphasise that legislation has been in place for some years to provide for the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of release, both to monitor compliance with other conditions, such as curfew or exclusion conditions, and to monitor the offender’s whereabouts as a condition in its own right. The limitations of the current technology have meant that, in practice, electronic monitoring has been used so far simply to monitor compliance with a curfew. However, we are reviewing the electronic monitoring contracts, which provides us with the opportunity to take advantage of new, cutting-edge technology that will enable us to track offenders in the community.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments applies to Clause 15, which concerns the use of cautions. Cautions have been used for many years as an effective tool in the toolbox of the police officer and the criminal justice system in general, to give a proportionate response to low-level offending where the offender has admitted the offence. There have been issues where it looks as though cautions have been used for offences that look to warrant a more serious response. The public rightly get concerned about reports of cautions being used in cases of serious violence or sexual offences.

I should say first that the Opposition support the sentiments behind the clause. Our amendments in this group, and our intention to oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill, are just to ensure that there is a debate in your Lordships’ House and to probe and test the Government’s thinking on these matters at this stage. Depending on their response, we may want to bring some of this back on Report.

The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, were interesting and may prove to be a better way of dealing with the issues at hand. However, I do not want to come to a conclusion on that matter just yet; I want the issue probed much more in your Lordships’ House.

It would be helpful, certainly to me and perhaps to the whole House, if the Minister could set out in responding what he thinks the exceptional circumstances are. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the public interest, I need to know what the difference is and where both noble Lords are on this question. If the Minister could give us some indication of that, I would be very grateful.

Will the Minister help me further? Clause 15(2)(b) talks about,

“the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”.

Will it be the DPP or his staff who decide these matters? If that is the case, is the noble Lord, Lord Marks, not correct that the regional prosecutor may be the right person to go to? His amendment may have some merit on this issue.

The amendment in the group tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Beecham would insert the word “senior” before “police officer” in Clause 15(5). We still leave it as the decision of the Secretary of State to specify the rank by order, but putting the word “senior” in the Bill makes it clear that Parliament’s intention is that these important decisions to create an exception—to determine whether exceptional circumstances have to merit this decision—need to involve a senior officer.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that I am speaking after my Front Bench friend, but I want to make a couple of points. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the general intent of this group is to lower the hurdles by which cautions would be administered as a whole. He set out very clearly a different approach, but I think it is right to say that it is a lowering of the hurdles as a whole. As he said in his introduction to the amendments, we have seen a reduction in the number of cautions which have been administered in recent years.

I want to make a point that I have made in other contexts. The Government have set up scrutiny panels to review the appropriateness or otherwise of cautions that have been put in place. I thank the Minister for writing to me about this scheme. There are various pilot schemes which are following models in different parts of the country. They are in their very earliest stages and do not cover the whole country. Therefore my question for the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is about whether it is a bit premature to bring these sorts of amendments forward, when we do not have a proper answer to the question about whether the scrutiny panels are properly reviewing cautions and whether the group of people who sit on those scrutiny panels are satisfied that cautions are being appropriately administered. We do not even know exactly how those scrutiny panels will report their findings, let alone what those findings are. I understand that this is a debating point and that these are probing amendments, but I wonder whether putting forward this alternative approach is a bit premature.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I invite the noble Lord to deal with the proposition that his question ought to be referred to the Minister. Clause 15 is extremely restrictive of the use of cautions, and if it is premature to reform the rules for the use of cautions or the regime under which cautions are administered, as the noble Lord suggests, it is surely premature to reform it in the very radical, restrictive way proposed by Clause 15. The noble Lord is right to suggest that my amendments reduce the restriction, but at the same time they nevertheless preserve some restriction. The radical amendment is the new clause.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

I take the point the noble Lord has made. I was really seeing this in the wider context of not just cautions but of out-of-court settlements as a whole. As we know, in London, for example, there are many tens of thousands of out-of-court settlements. Many of them are not cautions but other forms of out-of-court disposals which should be addressed by the scrutiny panels as and when they are running. Nevertheless, the point the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made is a fair one, and I acknowledge it.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, although some of the contributions were about the group that follows and the stand part on Clause 15, I will speak to the amendments in this group. If noble Lords have any additional comments when we get to the next group, I shall cover the specific issues relating to Clause 15 at that time.

The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Marks, while well intentioned, would have a detrimental effect on how simple cautions are administered. It is only right and proper that cautions are given only when justified. Serious offences should be prosecuted and offenders should not be able to get off with a simple caution. It is therefore right that the decision to administer a simple caution is taken at the most appropriate level commensurate with the offending behaviour. The propositions set out in Clause 15 follow the review of simple cautions conducted by the Government last year and were developed in conjunction with the police and the CPS.

Perhaps I may refer briefly to Clause 15. It already creates the appropriate levels of authorisation based on the seriousness of the offence when deciding whether to give a simple caution. Amendment 21 would affect the provisions on indictable-only offences. The clause provides that a simple caution can be given only for such an offence where a police officer determines that there are exceptional circumstances and the Director of Public Prosecutions consents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked for examples of exceptional circumstances and when it would be appropriate for the police to administer a repeat caution. I do not want to be drawn at this juncture into trying to determine what “exceptional circumstances” should or could mean. They are operational matters that would be unique to each case. However, there is specific guidance to this which is used by the police, and those factors are taken into account when determining where there are exceptional circumstances. Specific examples include the age of the offender, culpability, remorse and the mental health of the offender.

The rank of the police officer will be specified by order made by the Secretary of State. However, we anticipate that the order will specify the rank of at least superintendent. This mirrors the position in the current guidance on adult simple cautions. The amendment would remove the senior police officer from the decision-making process. In practice, the role of the DPP will be undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service. The regional office of the CPS should be best able to determine for operational reasons who should make a decision about whether a simple caution for an indictable-only offence should be given, and it is not right that we should restrict this to the regional chief crown prosecutor. In practice, the chief crown prosecutor may well determine that the decision is his or hers to make, but we should not be so prescriptive as to set this out in legislation.

Amendments 22 and 23 would require the regional chief crown prosecutor to decide whether to give a caution for a specified either-way offence, and separately non-specified either-way and summary-only offences where the offender has been convicted or cautioned for a similar offence within the last two years. The clause as drafted makes it clear that these decisions must already be taken by a police officer of a rank specified by the order made by the Secretary of State. It is envisaged that the Secretary of State will determine that the decision to give a simple caution for a specified either-way offence will be made only by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. For non-specified either-way offences and summary-only offences, it is envisaged that an officer of at least the rank of sergeant will determine whether a simple caution should be given. Escalating all these decisions to the regional chief crown prosecutor would hugely slow down the decision-making process to administer a simple caution and would increase the burden of bureaucracy on both the police and the CPS. In difficult cases the police can always consult the CPS. It is also worth noting that the public interest test in Amendments 21 to 23 is already exercised by the police and, where relevant, the CPS under the existing guidance on simple cautions when determining whether to give a simple caution. It is also anticipated that revised guidance will require the public interest test to continue to be exercised in the same way, and therefore there is no need to replicate this in statute. It is a level of detail that is best set out in guidance.

Amendment 24 seeks to ensure that a senior police officer would determine whether there are exceptional circumstances such that a simple caution can be given where it otherwise would not be, and whether an offence is similar to a previous offence. It is only right and proper that simple cautions should be given only when justified. Serious offences should be prosecuted and offenders should not be able to get off with a simple caution. It is therefore right that the decision to administer a simple caution is taken at the most appropriate level commensurate with the offending behaviour.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to go through the Bill and address various points. First, Part 1 is concerned with dangerous offenders, in Clauses 1 to 5 and Schedule 1. The effect of these new offences and new release conditions will be to increase the prison population—an increase of about 1,000 prisoners over the coming period, as the Government said in their impact assessment. When I attended the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group around Christmas time, we heard from the Parole Board about the pressure that it is currently under. Given the existing backlog of cases for parole hearings and the Osborn judgment, I think it behoves this House to look very carefully at the Bill in Committee to examine how realistic it is that the Parole Board will be able to meet the increased expectations following the Osborn judgment and the provisions within this part of the Bill.

I move on to Clause 15 and the matter of cautions. I welcome the proposal to restrict cautions to summary and either way offences and to limit the use of repeat cautions. It is of extreme importance that cautions have public confidence. There has been legislation for scrutiny panels—which I have mentioned in previous Bills—to look at whether they are being appropriately administered. Scrutiny panels are being piloted in different parts of the country and I know there are schemes in place to look at the consistency of the various roles of scrutiny panels. It is clear from the legislation that it is for the police to lead the set-up of the scrutiny panels, but it is unclear to whom those scrutiny panels report and what is to be done with their findings. To give the House some idea of the scale of the issue, in the Metropolitan Police area in 2012-13 there were some 70,000 out-of-court disposals, and the current proposal within London is that there will be two meetings of a scrutiny panel each year in each judicial business group area. Therefore, I do not want to be too sceptical, but I am doubtful whether that level of scrutiny is going to be sufficient to assuage doubts about the proper use of cautions.

I move on to Part 2 of the Bill and young offenders, which are dealt with in Clauses 29 and 30 and Schedule 6. As we have heard throughout the afternoon, and Ministers will be very aware, there is near universal opposition to the secure colleges idea. The various pressure groups that contact noble Lords are universally against these proposals. I understand the Government’s objective to reduce the cost of detention training orders and to enhance the educational provision available to young offenders. I understand both those objectives. The objections to the secure colleges will be well known to Ministers: the families of children will inevitably have to travel further to the colleges, and there may well be a mixing of different age groups and ability ranges so the colleges will have to be very carefully managed so that the different elements of the college are appropriately separated. I know the Minister in the other place, Jeremy Wright, has promised to publish secure college rules. I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could say when we might expect to see those and whether we could expect to see them before Committee stage.

I have two specific questions which, so far as I am aware, were not asked in the other place. First, will it be open for secure colleges to take 18 to 21 year-olds? Clearly, they would be managed separately from those under 18, but would it be open for secure colleges to take 18 to 21 year-olds if there was space available? The second question is whether it would be open for local authorities to refer young people to a secure college if they have no criminal conviction. My understanding is that this is the case—rarely but it is the case—in secure children’s homes, but would it be available for the secure colleges?

I spent some of yesterday afternoon looking at the Youth Justice Board’s website. There are 75 youths in custody in the East Midlands and 48 in the east of England. Therefore, when one considers the new build site for Glen Parva in Leicestershire, there is obviously an inadequacy of youths to go to that site, so it is self-evident that the youths would have to come from further away. However, we have had larger dedicated juvenile prisons in the recent past. First, Wetherby could take 360 prisoners plus a further 48 in a special purpose-built unit, but its capacity has now been reduced—mothballed—to about 200, so there is capacity there. Secondly, Hindley became a juvenile-only prison in 2009, with 450 places but because of falling numbers and after four and a half years it was resplit into 248 juvenile offenders and 192 18 to 21 year-old prisoners. The point that I am making is that building capacity is not the central issue, which is surely to provide the enhanced education. The £80 million cost is a lot of money. We do not know where it is coming from, but I suspect that many noble Lords, and certainly many pressure groups, would think that it would be better spent on enhancing education provision rather than building new buildings.

I move on to Part 3 of the Bill and the single justice procedures in Clauses 36 to 40. I agree with the Bill’s proposal that a single magistrate can convict and sentence high-volume, low-seriousness cases; this is when a defendant pleads guilty or agrees to the procedure or does not respond to notifications. I have sat on hundreds of these cases, and I am very glad to agree with the procedure. I say to my noble friend Lord Beecham, who is not in his place, that one magistrate is more than sufficient and you can, under current rules, sit with two magistrates. The Magistrates’ Association has raised a concern that this change in procedure should not be seen by the public as a lessening of the rigour with which criminal cases are dealt with in a magistrates’ court. To this end, the MA has come up with two alternative suggestions, which I may move as amendments in Committee. The purpose of the suggestions is to publish the courts’ list in a readily accessible way so that people can be confident that procedures are going through in a public way.

I move on to the committal of young offenders to the Crown Court, in Clause 41. I welcome this clause, which was introduced at the very last minute in the other place. If the Government have any estimate of the numbers of young people who they think will be sent up to the Crown Court under this provision, I would welcome that information. The Carlile report, which was a very good one, of course went much further than this in terms of trying many more cases concerning youths in the magistrates’ court. But this clause is a welcome step in the right direction.

On Part 3 and the costs of criminal courts, in my view it is wrong in principle that people should pay their court costs; it is the role of the state to provide the court’s services, so the state’s laws can be properly administered. I accept that my point of principle is weak when it relates to rich foreign businessmen who seek to resolve their contractual disputes in British courts. But from where I sit, as someone who regularly sits in magistrates’ courts, a very high proportion of the people I see are poor and on benefits. It is inevitable that imposing a mandatory court cost will make poor people poorer and more likely to plead guilty to reduce the potential court costs. Does the Minister think that that is fair? At the very least, magistrates and judges should have discretion about how much of the court costs are actually applied.

I want to make one comment on judicial review, and specifically on children, who are the most vulnerable. They cannot pursue these matters themselves and I would support any move in Committee that seeks to protect children with regard to judicial review.

Finally, in wrapping up, my noble friend Lord Beecham described this Bill as a pot pourri and then went on to give us a lesson in etymology—that it is not necessarily something that smells nice but could be a mixed pot of meat. We will see which is the correct interpretation in the coming weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I said in opening that I anticipated that the Bill would receive scrutiny of the highest order by your Lordships, and this Second Reading debate has given an indication of the level of scrutiny that your Lordships’ House can anticipate where all these provisions are concerned.

It has been a full debate and I will have an opportunity to read carefully all the contributions that have been made—as indeed will the Secretary of State. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not respond to every single point that was made, time being what it is. If I single out some points, I hope those whose points are excluded will not feel that they have gone unrecognised or that they will not be appropriately responded to in due course. It has been an intensely serious debate, although references to Philip Larkin, John McEnroe and Walter Matthau provided slight light relief during its course. Unfortunately, few noble Lords were as brief or as accommodating as my noble friend Lord Black.

I can, however, begin with what I hope will be one or two reassuring propositions. First, there was a suggestion that there might need to be an amendment to deal with what has been described as “revenge porn”, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Barker. There seems to be a great deal in that, and I am happy to meet them and consider any suggestions to include it in the Bill.

I said in opening that I would also consider amendments to satisfy, I hope, some of the concerns about the role of interveners in judicial review proceedings. I do not want to give the House the impression that I am thereby, as it were, handing over a blank cheque, but I am anxious, if possible, to accommodate some of the concerns of many noble Lords in this area.

The noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Low, referred to a campaign, if I can call it that, from Families Left Behind and the suggestion that there should be some statutory duty imposed on the sentencing tribunal to take into account the effect of the sentence on those who may be left behind when somebody is deprived of their liberty. In my limited experience as a judge, this, and the consequences thereof, will first of all be considered by a judge in sentencing. The probation service will be aware of the consequences and local authorities have their own duties that will usually be triggered by the information that is available in court. Noble Lords may be right that some slip through the net. I will certainly consider any suggestions along the lines that have been described.

On the question of the meaning of the words “et cetera”, raised by my noble friend Lady Barker in the context of malicious communications, I think it is defined in the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It deals with all the various communications one would expect it to cover in the light of modern media.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised, as he has done many times before, the question of IPP prisoners and their plight. I look forward to debating any amendments in that respect in more detail. I responded to a debate on 27 March this year—in some detail, I hope—but I fear I will not be able to satisfy him today. There are no current plans by the Secretary of State to exercise the power to amend the Parole Board’s release test for prisoners serving such sentences.

I noted that the party opposite was silent on IPP prisoners. I am still not quite sure what its position is, and whether it opposes the very fact that the sentencing power was repealed as a result of the intervention of the former Lord Chancellor. I fear that I cannot help the noble and learned Lord for the moment, but I hope he will acknowledge—if not overtly, then tacitly—the fact that Ministry of Justice officials have been endeavouring hard to help him by providing details for the purposes of preparing this speech, and, indeed, any further interventions.

I was not aware that I had the pleasure of a meeting forthcoming with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to describe better the definition of rape on the internet. I look forward to that. I am sure that the Government, the Opposition and all noble Lords have similar intentions where this is concerned. We welcome any advice on trying better to define what the evil is that we all aim to stem.

I respectfully endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said about personal injury claims and the evil that the Government are trying to eliminate. Frankly, we do not think that a judge will have any difficulty recognising fundamental dishonesty. We are talking not about a schedule that contains some slight exaggerations or minor inaccuracies, but about fundamental dishonesty. If we ask a jury to decide a question of what is dishonest or not, surely we can entrust a judge to decide whether, in appropriate cases, there is fundamental dishonesty. The Government are appalled by the explosion of litigation in claims that involve, frankly, lying and fraud. Whether through the Claims Management Regulator or through this particular clause, I am sure that we share with all noble Lords the desire to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate it.

The redefinition in statutory terms of misconduct in public office was broadly welcomed, although not by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. There are some areas where it may not possibly apply. We do not think that police officers should be singled out, but on the other hand they are in a position where they serve the public in a very high-profile context. We cannot avoid the fact that there have been instances of police corruption. The Government consider that putting a clear offence on the statute book is not to persecute the police or to single them out as opposed to other public employees but to make clear the nature of the offence and, in appropriate circumstances, to provide the basis for a prosecution.

A number of noble Lords asked about the Parole Board and about the impact on its workload of the provision in Part 1. The provisions that will have the greatest impact on the Parole Board are the new discretionary release arrangements for extended determinate sentences and certain child sex and terrorism offences. However, it will be quite some time before the first of these cases starts to filter through the board and we have taken account of that. We are working with the Parole Board to assess the impact of the Osborn judgment. Additional in-year funding has been provided to the board, as well as an increased budget allocation for 2014 and 2015.

The offence of wilful neglect was mentioned by, among others, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Barker. The House is well aware of the background to this offence and why it was considered necessary to make it part of the statute book. I listened carefully to concerns about the range of legislation that may apply in neglect cases and I accept that there may be a degree of overlap. However, where that occurs, it is for the police and the CPS to determine the most appropriate offence to pursue. The CPS regularly provides guidance in this respect. We think that it is far better to close any gap in working practice to arrive at the best solution than to retain even the possibility of any lacunae in the law.

My noble friend Lady Barker had a specific query in relation to Section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act. If I may, I will consider the point that she raised and write to her.

I come to the area of perhaps the most difficulty—the question of secure colleges. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said in her excellent and informative speech that it was one thing to point out the number and cost of young offenders who were currently accommodated in various institutions and who reoffended but another to move to the proposition that secure colleges were the answer. I hope that I do not mischaracterise what she said. Equally, one could turn that round and say that those bare facts simply do not justify the status quo. The status quo is not, we suggest, an appropriate response to this dreadful cycle of reoffending. We suggest that secure colleges, with their emphasis on education, are a solution. Of course, no one can guarantee the success of any solution to this recurring problem but we hope that this one will provide a real concentration of education, which most of these young people have never had before.

A number of anxieties were expressed in very firm terms about secure colleges: the question of different ages and different genders, and the possibility that secure colleges will be remote geographically. I will be hosting an open session for interested Peers to share our initial designs for the pathfinder secure college. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will consult on our approach to the secure college rules ahead of Report.

I was asked whether it was our intention to replace all secure youth accommodation with secure colleges. Our long-term vision is for a network of secure colleges across England and Wales. That transformation cannot happen overnight, and we are committed to improving existing provision for young people in custody.

I very much hope that as a result of no doubt probing amendments and further information, which I shall be happy to provide, your Lordships’ House will share the Government’s vision of secure colleges to deliver high-quality and broad-ranging facilities that can meet the diverse needs—often special needs, I accept—of young people in detention. It requires something that simply cannot be achieved in a small local facility—desirable though such facilities are, as was well described by my noble friend.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

Before the noble Lord leaves the point about the network of secure colleges, does it follow that there would be three secure colleges to deal with the whole of England and Wales? There would be around 300 children in each college, making about 1,000 altogether? The noble Lord said that a few secure children’s homes would be retained. Does it therefore follow that there are to be three secure colleges for the whole of England and Wales?

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage in the Bill, I shall be brief. I feel strongly about the probation reforms being proposed by my noble friend, but particularly those for offenders who have served less than 12 months. I say this having served in the Home Office and having spent some time looking at some of the rehabilitation programmes needed for problems such as drugs and alcohol. Many people suffering from these problems had been in custody and—particularly those with drug addictions—had contributed to the figures that we cite in this House. I quote only one: 58% of adult offenders released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffend. Governments in the past have not addressed this. There is rightly a lot of focus on those who have served longer sentences for more serious crimes. However, if my noble friend now wants to address reoffending after shorter sentences, we have learnt in both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office that if you can find the methodology to address something at the beginning, when it is low level, you can prevent it becoming something much worse. Although in this House we often talk in terms of statistics, we are talking about lives. We are talking about the lives of victims, and in this case about the life of someone after discharge from prison. Finding a way in which we can bring people from short prison sentences to taking their place in society and reducing the recidivism that often goes with such offenders is worth while.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, whose experience we all respect. It seemed from what he said that a lot of information unavailable when this legislation was introduced is now available. However, he has concerns about government contracts. He particularly mentioned those issued by the Ministry of Justice, but I think that over many years people in both Houses would put a question mark over their confidence in government contracts of many kinds. We have all seen that they do not always deliver as promised. As somebody who has served on the Public Accounts Committee for six years, I am only too well aware, having dug into many government contracts, just how badly some of them have turned out. That applies to Governments of all political persuasions.

I wonder if there is some way, in responding to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and to the House, in which my noble friend can make sure that a light shines on those contracts that can be followed by Members of this House after the legislation is passed. Clearly, payment by results is built into these reforms, which in itself will give a very factual account of how successful they are. However, if I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, correctly, he is looking for something that happens earlier than that, before we get to the end of the process. He is looking for reassurance that the process itself is as robust as it can be.

I say respectfully to the noble Lord that preventing the legislation progressing as it should is not perhaps the only option that the Minister could consider in making sure that those in this House who are interested in not only the outcome but the process have an opportunity to have much more information available to them. That is not to say that any process will be perfect from start to finish, but I think the noble Lord is trying to say to the Minister that we should pick up any problems earlier rather than later. If that is what he is saying, it is a very valid point to make. Could my noble friend find a way to look at this so that, if the legislation progresses as my noble friend has outlined, we could be particularly careful that the process that is followed is transparent, notwithstanding the fact that, as we all understand, commercial confidentiality is in place when contracts are initially awarded?

I hope that my noble friend will accept from me that I believe that this is a very worthwhile reform for the probation service. Many years ago, long before I came into politics, I undertook a course with the probation service and worked with it in a voluntary capacity. As a Member of Parliament, I had a great respect for, and often had to call on, the probation service on behalf of constituents. So I am somebody who values its work greatly, and I would hate to see the proposals for reform that my noble friend is bringing to the House today in any way undermined by a delay in their implementation. I am sure that he will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, and I hope that he will find a way through this so that the House can proceed. I believe that these reforms are much needed and that the sooner they can start, the better.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, wanted to concentrate, like the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on what has changed since a very similar amendment was debated on 25 June last year, having been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is worth recalling that, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, on that vote not a single Cross-Bencher supported the Government’s position. Since then, the Bill has been through the House of Commons, the vote has been reversed and the Government have done a lot of work, as I acknowledge.

In the debate on 25 June, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, concentrated his remarks on a leaked government risk register. Since then, a second risk register has been published by the probation service in November 2013, which spoke of the likelihood that the government programme would fail to be,

“delivered either in scope or within the timescale set by ministers”.

It should be noted by noble Lords that, if it were not for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Beecham, there would be no debate at all on the timetable for the privatisation of the probation service. It is through their initiative that we are having this series of debates in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quoted the Justice Committee chairman, Sir Alan Beith, so I shall not repeat that. We have also seen the Government slit the timetable, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

What I really want to say is that, although we have heard about the changes that the Government have made and about some reports, what we have seen is a sense of increasing alarm in the probation service and among probation officers themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is shaking his head, but I, like many noble Lords, have an 18-page document from the National Association of Probation Officers which goes through the concerns that it has in detail. These concerns are now more specific than they were, as it has been able to respond to the Government putting more flesh on the bones. There is no doubting the sense of alarm among probation officers.

I believe, as I am sure do all noble Lords, that the probation service deals with some of the most dangerous people in our country and some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and that everyone who joins the probation service does so with the best of motives. We have heard about the concerns that they have about their careers changing course and being asked to take on responsibilities that they did not expect. This House owes it to the probation service to review the timetable and to follow the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so that we can be satisfied that we are not wrecking a probation service that has served us so well over many years.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

I understand the intention behind the amendment, particularly in terms of promoting the best interests of the child and the child’s welfare, but I also feel that the signal it would send would not be the right one at this stage. I have heard the president talking about this, and I think that at the moment his mantra is, “It can be done, it will be done, it must be done”. It is all about turning around the culture from one of delay to one of urgency, with all parties involved in this—that is, the judiciary, local authorities, CAFCASS and others—doing all that they can to ensure that these cases are dealt with as quickly as they can be and in a way that is commensurate with the best interests of the child.

I was very much reinforced in this recently. I attended the National Children and Adults Services Conference in Harrogate on Friday. It was a very good three-day event with a number of Ministers and others speaking. I went to a specialist workshop all about completing care proceedings in 26 weeks. Several academics, particularly from the University of East Anglia, presented some initial findings from the research that they have been doing into the impact of the new public law outline to try to move to a 26-week time limit, and particularly the impact of what is called the tri-borough project with Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham. I have been to visit that project myself and the results, frankly, are extremely impressive: already 50% of cases are being resolved in less than 26 weeks.

Even with the knowledge that we were going to have this clause in the Bill or at least debate it, national case duration averages were already coming down from what was something like 49 weeks to about 37 weeks, and they are on a downward trajectory. While I fully understand the case that is being made for those very exceptional cases where the extensions will be needed, there is sufficient flexibility in the Bill as drafted for that. I would be concerned about anything that diluted this very important message about trying to move away from delay in the family court system.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not briefed by the NSPCC but I have a brief from the Magistrates’ Association, which makes it clear that it also supports the 26-week time limit but also agrees that there should be specific extensions for eight weeks where people can apply to the court. It would probably be most helpful if I raised the questions that the Magistrates’ Association has raised in the brief that it sent me. Before I do so, though, I want to make the point that the examples of exceptions that my noble friend Lady Jones gave are very far from theoretical, because two of those examples I personally dealt with in the past month. They were very real examples of something that I understood very clearly.

The first of the questions that the Magistrates’ Association raised in its brief to me is really a concern that an application for an eight-week extension should resist that extension being a contested hearing, and obviously the decision of the court should be final. If there is to be a contested hearing on an eight-week extension, though, it should be as short and focused as possible. The second point that the Magistrates’ Association made was that it is not clear, from the association’s understanding, that there is any limit to the maximum number of successive extensions. The association’s final point is to ask whether there is any right of appeal if a lower court—although perhaps “lower court” is not the right expression—decides not to grant an extension. Is there any right of appeal to a higher jurisdiction?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her intervention in support of these proposals—I am also grateful for my momentary promotion. It gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Lord Justice Ryder when he was with the Family Division. He did a lot of ground-clearing in this area, not least bringing in some very useful comparative statistics which allowed us to see the variety in performance of courts, which was affecting children at a vulnerable time of their lives. When this exercise started, it took more than 60 weeks in some cases to come to a decision. The tri-borough project also demonstrated in advance of this legislation that this could be done more quickly. Certainly, the robust leadership that Sir James Munby has given in implementing the Norgrove proposals has meant that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, a culture of delay has been replaced by a culture of urgency. That is much to the credit of what we are proposing.

We all agree that delays in decision-making, whether by local authorities or in courts, can be very damaging. They can add to emotional insecurity and affect children’s prospects for returning to or finding a permanent loving home. Introducing a 26-week time limit for care and supervision cases will send a clear and unambiguous statement to all parts of the family justice system about the need to reduce delay. Removing certain cases from the ambit of the 26-week time limit at the outset, as proposed by Amendment 62, would undermine this effort.

I recognise that these cases deal with important and complex issues and not all will be able to be completed within this timeframe. The court will therefore have the discretion to extend the time limit in a particular case beyond 26 weeks if that is necessary to resolve the proceedings justly. The clause carefully strikes the necessary balance between putting in place a maximum 26-week time limit to tackle delay in all cases and allowing sufficient judicial discretion to extend time where necessary to resolve the case justly, having explicit regard to the child’s welfare.

Requiring extensions to last for a maximum of eight weeks at a time will help ensure that the court is focused on resolving cases as quickly as possible. To allow the court to grant an extension without imposing any limit as to the length of the extension, as proposed by Amendment 63, would potentially allow cases to drift. This could undermine the aim that we all share, of reducing unnecessary delay. There will always be some very complex cases which it may not be possible to complete within 26 weeks. Where that is the case, the court will be able to extend time, where necessary, to resolve proceedings justly. It is important, however, that we keep a clear focus on resolving cases as quickly as possible, and specifying a maximum eight-week limit on the length of extensions will ensure that this happens. There is, however, no limit on the number of extensions that can be sought.

I recognise the concerns of the noble Baronesses and have seen how successful intervention models such as the Family Drug and Alcohol Court approach can be. That is why I am very pleased that the Government are continuing to provide funding of £150,000 in each year of 2013-14 and 2014-15 to continue the development and rollout of the FDAC. As part of our funding of FDAC, we are proposing to continue work that will enable this model to meet the 26-week time limit in most cases. Proceedings in the FDAC model currently take the same time on average as standard care proceedings, and we believe that the 26-week time limit can be applied successfully in most cases.

I think I have just answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the Family Procedure Rule Committee. On the basis of its specific expertise, the committee has been invited to consider whether to further elaborate on the matter to which the court is to have regard in order to support Clause 14, and we await its response. The court rules may set out the matters to which the court must, may or may not have regard when making the decision whether to grant an extension to the time limit. It is, rightly, the remit of the FPRC to consider whether to make court rules under the clause; it is a statutory independent non-departmental public body responsible for making these rules of the court. Before making the rules, the FPRC must consult such persons as it considers appropriate, and we will update the Committee on the FPRC’s work before Report.

I am not sure whether there were any other matters that were specific to this; the questions come thick and fast. Yes, there was one: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Benjamin, raised the question of whether the 26-week time limit would impact on kinship care and whether it would be shoehorned into a one-size-fits-all solution. We are aware that, in spite of everyone’s best efforts, occasionally relatives are not identified until late in the proceedings. However, the 26-week time limit should not impact on kinship care. It is not for the courts to decide whether it is Granny who the child goes to; rather, it relates to the choice of the permanence plan being a relative if possible, followed by adoption or long-term foster care. After all, the court does not decide which adopters the child goes to when it agrees to a plan for adoption. We are continuing to use programmes such as family group conferences before proceedings start in order to identify family members from the onset of cases. In addition, we are working in partnership with the Children’s Improvement Board and the College of Social Work to support the continuing improvement of social work practice. Of course, the court retains the power to extend the case for longer consideration if necessary.

The public law measures in the Bill will tackle the damaging delays that exist throughout the system. These delays can deny children the chance of a permanent home and have a harmful long-term effect on a child’s development. The measures will also refocus the system so that the child’s best interests are part of the process. Our measures strike the necessary balance between tackling delay and allowing sufficient judicial discretion to resolve proceedings justly, and I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw these amendments.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Lords Chamber

This amendment modestly suggests that these young offenders sentenced to a DTO should have continuity of their oversight by the specialist youth offending services until they are 21, in the knowledge that this offers the best chance of reducing their reoffending in the future. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, in the general thrust of her amendments. Her introduction made clear the vulnerability of this group of young people and its importance in terms of their being very likely to reoffend. She also made the point very forcibly about the excellent work done by the youth offending teams, and that is something which I see very often.

It is my understanding that currently the youth offending teams can agree to continue working with any young person who turns 18 while they are sentenced. They will make that decision based on how well they know the young person. In my experience, if they know them even relatively superficially, they will commit to carrying on working with them for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has given, such as the benefits of continuity and continuity of supervision.

Perhaps inevitably, I ask myself whether members of the youth offending team should be obliged to work with these young people if they hardly know them. I came across a case quite recently where a young man pleaded guilty to robbery with a knife and was looking at a two-year sentence. He had been in London for only a relatively brief time and was pretty much unknown to the YOT which had the responsibility for him. Is it right that the members of the team should have no discretion in whether they have continuity of supervising this young man when they do not know him? That is a practical problem. I agree with the noble Baroness’s general points that if there can be continuity it is preferable. We need to give discretion to the professionals involved. My experience is that they certainly will want to continue supervision if at all possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, described Amendment 15, which gives the YJB responsibility up until the age of 21, as “whistling in the wind”. Here again, I agree with the sentiments behind this, but can see a number of practical problems, not least that parents or responsible adults are very often encouraged to be part of the sentence process. That may well not be appropriate for somebody who is over 18 but under 21. One would have to look at the sentences if one were to make that amendment.

There is a very serious piece of work to be done looking at the outcomes of YOTs versus the outcomes of adult probation providers for the 18 to 21 year-old group, because they have a different approach. I would say that the YOTs have a more caring approach, if I can use that word, to the people they deal with. The noble Baroness has raised a very profound question regarding people in the 18 to 21 age group and I agree with the general thrust of what she is saying. I presume she is not moving to a vote, so I leave it at that with my general support.

[Lord Woolf]

My Lords, I would like to express my general support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has proposed and said and also for that which has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I venture to suggest that anyone who has experience of dealing with young offenders in the courts would come to exactly the same conclusions as they have expressed. They have very good reasons to advance their comments. The position of those aged 15-plus to 18 is a particularly difficult area which has been neglected largely by the approach of the criminal justice system until now. I particularly urge that what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has said about that group is taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

16: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty for all providers of probation services to participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes
(1) Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (formulation and implementation of strategies) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “responsible authorities” insert “including all future providers of probation services”.
(3) In subsection (1)(a)(i) after “disorder in the area” insert “to include participation in, and accountability to, community safety partnerships, and co-operation with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, Amendment 16 would put a duty on all providers of probation services to,

“participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.

Following Second Reading, I entered into correspondence with the office of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on this question and was referred to Section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which places duties on various responsible authorities to formulate crime reduction strategies, which in practice is done through community safety partnerships. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, argued that there does not need to be further legislation on this matter and stated:

“Integration at local level works best when it is not mandated centrally”.—[Official Report, 5/6/2013; col. 1217.]

London Councils, which has briefed me on this amendment, argues that there is clear evidence from the Work Programme that commissioning services from the market, when applied on a large scale and managed on a national scale, can lead to low levels of engagement with local partners and therefore low levels of effectiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that community safety partnerships have a role in performance managing the future delivery of contracts. There should be accountability measures within the contracting process and action should be taken where providers fail adequately to work in partnership at a local level. Community safety partnerships should have access to performance data from prime and subcontractor providers in order to have a local oversight of delivery. Although I was very grateful for the advice that I received from the noble Lord’s office, the purpose of these amendments is to put meat on the bone so that local authorities can properly play an influential and well informed role in managing local provision of services. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the three joint presidents of London Councils. I have seen the briefing from that body and support the points that have been made. I entirely agree with my noble friend that “bottom-up” is best, but sometimes structure is needed to allow these things to function well. I am not sure whether the example I am going to give is appropriate, but I will give it anyway.

In the London borough of Sutton, where this issue is “bottom-up” but structured, there is a very interesting partnership between the local authority and the police. The structure is such that there is joint management of certain services provided by those two parts of the public sector. Sutton tends not to go in for strident self-publicity so it does not seem to have made very much of this, but what it has done is extremely interesting. The joint management whereby the two arms are brought together works well as there is joint accountability. Whether or not that is a good example, I take the point about the need sometimes to have a framework. It is much better if that can happen locally but facilitation through legislation does not go amiss. If the Government still maintain that there is no need for this, are they considering issuing any guidance? I would rather not have central government guidance on what should happen locally, but sometimes a little prompting is helpful.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Amendment 16 seeks to ensure that all providers of probation services are required to,

“participate in, and be accountable to, community safety partnerships and to co-operate with crime and disorder reduction partnerships and local integrated offender management schemes”.

As was said in Committee, the Government are clear that nothing we do to tackle reoffending will work,

“unless it is rooted in local partnerships”.—[Official Report, 5/6/2013; col. 1217.]

I have seen how that works in practice. We absolutely expect future probation providers to engage with the relevant statutory partnerships. It will be in providers’ interests to work with other partners to achieve the best results. Our payment mechanism, which will reward reductions in reoffending, will incentivise them to do so.

In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord seeks to ensure that all probation service providers are both members of, and accountable to, community safety partnerships and other crime reduction initiatives such as integrated offender management. Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 sets out who should be the responsible authorities for the reduction of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour as well as for reducing reoffending. A provider of probation services will be a responsible authority for these purposes where the arrangements entered into with the Secretary of State provide for it to be a responsible authority.

As a responsible authority, current probation providers already have a number of obligations including being involved with the formulation of the local CSP strategy and plan for community safety, attending CSP meetings and sharing depersonalised information with the other four responsible authorities. Community safety partnerships are subject to overview and scrutiny by the local district council. As a responsible authority, providers of probation services already participate in this process. Nothing in this Bill will amend or change the Crime and Disorder Act. Providers will need to demonstrate how they will work in and strengthen local partnerships if they are to be successful in bidding to deliver probation services. Specifically, we are including a requirement for providers to evidence in their bids how they will relate to and incorporate integrated offender management arrangements into their proposal and contracts will reflect this. I hope my noble friend is reassured by that.

We are reviewing the current statutory partnership requirements to ensure they are appropriately assigned and discharged in the new system and we envisage that the contracts will reflect the statutory partnerships providers are required to participate in. Furthermore, the National Probation Service and contracted providers will be required to develop effective operational and strategic partnerships with each other and agree their respective roles and responsibilities in relation to statutory partnerships to minimise duplication and maximise effectiveness. Once the system is up and running we will monitor local partnership working as part of obtaining assurances of the delivery of services and we will liaise with police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other relevant partners as appropriate.

I understand the noble Lord’s concern. Indeed, he approaches these issues with great expertise and I appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, I fear that some unintended consequences may arise from it. The amendment would in effect mean that every provider of probation services in an area, no matter how big or small, would have to participate in and be accountable to community safety partnerships and other crime and disorder reduction partnerships. Different areas of the country will have different partnerships, of different sizes and with different challenges. The right approach is to look at this carefully before deciding which provider, at which level, is a responsible authority. A tailored approach, rather than a blanket one, seems to me to be the right way forward.

I have outlined the existing legal responsibilities and requirements on providers of probation services and reiterated our commitment to local partnerships, together with the steps we are taking to ensure that our reforms are rooted in local partnerships, so that offenders can access the broad package of support they need to get their lives back on track. I have also outlined potential unintended consequences of the amendment. I hope, with the clarifications I have given and the assurances I have made, that the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that appropriate requirements are being reviewed and that the Government are reviewing which provider may be appropriate at which level. He went on to talk about monitoring local partnership working. It seems to me that all of this is under review and we should have a better idea at this stage of the Bill what the actual requirements are going to be. London Councils has raised these concerns with us. The London Probation Service accounts for 25% of the whole country. If it is unclear and worried, as it clearly is, surely it has a right to expect more than just more reviews about appropriate levels. Surely there should be more meat on the bone— to use the expression I used earlier—about what the responsibilities of the local authorities will be and what information they will receive. Having said that, I hear what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

17: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of probation services
In any scheme (including pilots) for the supervision of offenders under sections 2 to 6, probation trusts and local authorities shall not be precluded from tendering for or commissioning contracts.”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, Amendment 17 would make it possible for probation trusts to be able to tender for or commission future probation service contracts. The Government have said that it is open for probation trusts to convert to mutual status and to bid on that basis. I understand that assistance would be provided to trusts that wished to change their status into a mutual organisation in order to bid for the contracts. A mutual organisation would need its own financial backing and therefore any risk would be on the new financial backers of the mutual organisation and not on the Government. The Government argue that probation trusts as public bodies must not take financial risks. However, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham, there are many examples of government public bodies taking financial risks. In this context, it has been deemed that they must not take them.

If the new mutuals were to bid and win then of course the risk would be on their backers and not on the Government. This begs the question as to why the Government are unwilling to take on the financial risk. Do they believe that the contracts will be too risky for the public purse? It also raises the question of the need for the public probation providers to maintain competition with private providers. We have seen in recent years—I am thinking of the prison service—where the public sector has bid and won contracts back from private providers. My argument is that you need to maintain competence in the public sector in order to keep the private providers honest.

It is surely in the Government’s interest to maintain public sector competence and public sector capacity to ensure proper competition in the future. If there is inadequate interest, as there many well be, among probation trusts to convert to mutual status, what action will the Government take to ensure that this competition is maintained? It is very difficult—I would argue impossible—to oblige people to take on financial risk. The Government clearly want to offload their own financial risk. The argument and the purpose of this amendment is that is overwhelmingly in the Government’s interest to maintain public sector capacity to provide proper competition for the private sector. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for setting out his reasoning behind this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord McNally for doing a sterling job as a Whip on this amendment. Never let it be said that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not quick on his feet. I think he has broken all records in rushing over to the Box.

Amendment 17 would ensure that probation trusts and local authorities are not precluded from tendering for or commissioning contracts. As was said in Committee, I agree with the general intent of ensuring that existing providers, where much of the knowledge and expertise lies, should be able to compete for contracts, a point well made by the noble Lord. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.

We want to see the broadest and most diverse market for the delivery of offender services in the future so we want as many organisations and entities as possible to be able to bid to deliver services. Nothing in our proposals specifically excludes public bodies, although such entities would need to be capable of bearing the financial and operational risks associated with the delivery of these services under payment by results. Delivery or commissioning by probation trusts themselves would be unlikely to meet those criteria given that we have announced that we will be dissolving trusts in their current form and creating a new national probation service.

However, I agree that we should do all we can to ensure a level playing field, as the noble Lord stated, for all those interested in delivering services. That is why our competition process is designed to allow a range of different kinds of entities, including alternative delivery vehicles and mutuals designed by individuals within the existing probation trusts, to be able to bid to deliver services. We have also increased to 21 the number of areas we want to commission services across in order to ensure that contract package areas are of a variety of sizes and values. This is to enable more medium and small organisations to join bids in order to take part in the delivery of services. I know that the Secretary of State himself is very keen to see small and medium organisations as part of this process.

A number of staff within probation trusts have already expressed an interest in being part of a mutual to bid and deliver services. On 20 May, the Government announced a package of measures to support the voluntary sector and mutuals. In particular, the Cabinet Office’s mutuals support programme is providing intensive one-on-one support to prepare the first cohort of seven fledgling probation mutuals for competition, including coaching on legal, financial and commercial issues. The contracts for this support, totalling more than £500,000, have recently been awarded.

Local authorities may also play a part in the delivery of the new services—for example, as part of a provider’s supply chain—and will also be able to commission rehabilitation providers to deliver additional services in line with their own priorities. The amendment has changed somewhat from the one tabled in Committee to ensure that probation trusts and local authorities are not precluded from also commissioning contracts. The Government remain firmly of the view that commissioning contracts on the scale proposed and on a payment by results basis will be most effectively and efficiently carried out by a national function.

We are committed to commissioning and providing services that meet local needs, and we will ensure that the commissioning process is informed by engagement at police and crime commissioner and local authority levels. Probation service local delivery units will support the gathering of intelligence on needs and priorities at a local level, including from key partners—for example, local authority needs assessments—to feed into the commissioning process.

Contracts will be responsive to changing demands and priorities at local and national levels, new legislation and the wider commissioning context. Where commissioning priorities need to be adjusted, this will be done in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, raised the issue of apportionment of risk. He made a very valid point and it is one on which we have also been in discussion with officials. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that specific matter. It is a concern and I, too, have sought clarification on it. He was perfectly right to raise it.

That aside, with the assurance that I will write to the noble Lord on that point, and with the other reassurances that I have given him about the proactive work within government to ensure that all organisations have an opportunity to bid to deliver services in a variety of ways, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response. He talked about a number of probation mutuals which are being established and which will be bidding for elements of work. My understanding is that these are smaller organisations than at the probation trust level and that they will be dealing with a particular expertise which is within the existing probation trusts. My point is that the organisations that form mutuals or that bid in some way will need to be large scale. If they are to be only smaller parts of probation trusts, then that expertise may be lost to the public sector, which was the burden of my introductory speech.

Having said that, I am obliged to the noble Lord for undertaking to write to me on the question of risk and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia]

I am delighted to support this amendment, which sets out a new clause before Clause 12 and deals with the presumption in favour of community sentence orders, as has been rightly pointed out. This is very much a probing amendment to see how the Minister will react. I will be brief. My noble friend Lord McNally, the Minister, is aware that every time we have discussed legislation on sentencing, particularly lower-level sentencing, I have advocated a cautious approach in favour of community sentence orders in place of custody.

Prison sentences of less than 12 months are the argument that we are putting forward. We all know that under the present provisions, custodial sentences of less than 12 months achieve very little corrective behaviour. On the contrary, we have seen that the impact on an individual without supervision can be very damaging indeed. We want to avoid this risk. Our amendment would help guard against the risk that the welcome provisions of the Bill for post-release supervision for short-term prisoners could lead to the courts imprisoning more people. At present, courts may decide in borderline cases not to imprison an offender because supervision in the form of a community sentence is more likely to divert him or her away from offending. However, with the new supervision arrangements, the court might feel that by imprisoning the offender for a short period it can get the best of both worlds—both the punitive impact of imprisonment and supervision of the offender when he or she is released.

We have discussed similar provisions in previous legislation. The custody plus provision that we introduced at one stage is history now, but we know what happened to it. This would be a short-sighted view as even a short period of custody can lead to an offender losing accommodation and a job and fracturing family links, all of which make it more likely that he or she will reoffend, which is contrary to the provisions that we will discuss in our debate on rehabilitating offenders. Sentences of less than 12 months are too short for a sustained attempt at rehabilitation in custody but are long enough to damage the community ties which those supervising offenders can build on in trying to prevent them reoffending.

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of options available to the courts when dealing with offenders. We know about simple things, such as matters of conditional discharge and fines. There are also community service orders, probation orders and attendance orders. These are just a few of the alternatives, yet prison remains at the heart of our criminal justice system, with other penalties often referred to as alternatives to custody. I believe that my noble friend Lord McNally is on the right track in the way in which this Bill deals with rehabilitation. He is right in putting the emphasis on society to try and deal with more offenders in the community rather than in prisons. That is not in doubt. We are now seeing the impact, which is less use of prison and a drop in the crime rate—a remarkable achievement by the coalition Government. No longer does the argument apply that prison works.

We are not suggesting that grave offences should in general attract other than long sentences, but past experience has led us to believe in two important principles of sentencing. This is not original, radical or revolutionary. In essence, it fits in with many Court of Appeal judgments over the years. First, the court should send to prison only those whose offending behaviour makes any other course unacceptable. Secondly, those who are sent to prison should stay there no longer than is strictly necessary. The amendment is designed to meet the Government’s objective on matters of rehabilitation. We should do this by avoiding the unintended increase in prison sentences. This would be an important discipline that would help against that unintended consequence. This probing amendment would make it possible for my noble friend the Minister to discuss the merit of our proposal with the Sentencing Council and to examine the possibility of setting up some indicators so that the process is adequately monitored.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. As he said, the current position is that an offence has to be so serious that a custodial sentence is imposed, but his amendment would put in place a presumption in favour of a community sentence. The additional part of his amendment is that special reasons have to be given in open court. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, if it is appropriate to ask him, is: what might those reasons be? Would a breach of previous community orders be a special reason for it to be announced in open court that a custodial sentence will be passed? While I am sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment, I am open-minded about how it will be applied in court.

The Government’s impact statement highlighted the potential risk of increasing custodial sentences of less than 12 months because the sentencers themselves know that there will be a licence followed by a supervision period, which might be attractive to them. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, making that same point in an earlier debate. My experience is that magistrates and district judges are always reluctant to commit an offender to prison and understand very well the current wording of the guidelines that an offence has to be so serious that only custody will do.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting amendment, which, as I said, I support. It will be for the practicalities of the Government to see whether there is a change in sentencing behaviour if the Bill goes through unamended. I am doubtful whether sentencers will change their behaviour; there will not be more custodial sentences because of the additional supervision period. Can the noble Lord, Lord Marks, give an example of the special reasons, to which he alluded, that might be appropriate for a custodial sentence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 30 in the same group. Amendment 26 concerns rehabilitation activity requirements, which are essentially instructions to an offender to attend appointments or to participate in activities. These are imposed as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order by a responsible officer, defined for these purposes as a probation service provider.

This amendment will ensure that such requirements do not conflict unnecessarily with the caring commitments or family circumstances of the offender concerned. That object will be achieved by requiring the responsible officer to have regard first to,

“the suitability of any appointments having regard to any caring commitments the offender may have and the compatibility of activities with the offender’s family circumstances”,

and, importantly, by,

“the suitability of activities and place specified … if the offender is responsible for a child and it is desirable that the child accompanies the offender”.

This may well be the case for people who have responsibility for children, cannot simply leave them and have to take them along to the activity.

Amendment 30 is designed to achieve a similar outcome for any other requirement that might be imposed as a result of such an order. It would amend Section 217 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That section currently requires the court to ensure that such requirements avoid conflict with, under Section 217(1)(a), “the offender’s religious beliefs” and, under Section 217(1)(b), the times at which the offender,

“normally works or attends any educational establishment”.

It would be entirely reasonable and desirable to add to that list of matters that are not to be conflicted with a requirement that orders avoiding conflict with the offender’s caring responsibilities. That is what Amendment 30 seeks to achieve.

These amendments are consistent with the Government’s desire to ensure that rehabilitation measures in this legislation are targeted particularly at helping women offenders, who often face particular difficulties within the criminal justice system. They would make the Bill more sensitive to those difficulties and to the demands of family life. The amendments are primarily aimed at avoiding conflict for women offenders who are the subject of community orders or suspended sentence orders, and are designed to enable them to fulfil the requirements of such orders without making it unduly difficult for them to meet the demands of caring for families. However, the amendments are gender-neutral, as you would expect, because many male offenders have similar commitments. It is important that appointments and activities can be arranged in a way that does not interfere unduly with family commitments, be those commitments to take children to school, to be at home when children are at home without alternative childcare or to look after elderly or disabled relatives. The same goes for all requirements, whether unpaid work requirements, curfew requirements or any others. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I support the general thrust of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. As he said, they would oblige a responsible officer to have regard to the offender’s caring commitments when arranging a community sentence.

My understanding of the present position is that in probation reports, done by what will be the National Probation Service, probation officers will take into account personal circumstances when making recommendations to the court on the likely sentence. It would be the responsibility of the responsible officer that the sentence is completed as required by the court and in a timely manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 32. I suspect that on Amendment 31 I am in for a little more teasing from my noble friend Lord McNally. The noble Lord shakes his head; that is a shame. In that case I am in for more teasing from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad.

Clause 16 would insert a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with regard to the permission that is required before an offender who is the subject of a relevant order may change residence. In new Section 220A(4) we are told that there are two grounds available to either the officer or the court, which in effect is the appeal body here from a responsible officer’s decision. I would like to be completely sure that these are the only grounds. I am sure that they are, but I wanted to make the point.

We also wanted to add another provision which would, in effect, alter the presumption in these circumstances. When refusal was given, there would not simply have to be an opinion that a change of residence would be likely to prevent compliance with a requirement or hinder rehabilitation; it would go further. The purpose of the requirement or the rehabilitation would have to be significantly less likely to be achieved if the offender were to change residence. The reason is that a restriction on moving one’s home or one’s household—possibly having to move because of family problems such as the offender and partner splitting up, or because there are job prospects somewhere easier to reach from a new home—are all extremely important and part of rehabilitation. I am not convinced that every possible circumstance is covered by subsection (4)(a) and (b) of new Section 220A. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised some interesting points about the role of the responsible officer when an offender applies to change their residence. When considering this amendment, I immediately thought of all the potential problems that might arise. There is also the general point about the level of independence of judgment of the responsible officer when considering these applications. Two questions came to my mind. What would be the position if somebody with a series of convictions for domestic violence wanted to move into a house with a new girlfriend? That might hinder rehabilitation; it would be a judgment that would have to be made by the responsible officer. I do not know what the result might be. I am not sure that the responsible officer would necessarily be told that that was the situation.

Conversely, what would happen if the girlfriend wanted to move into the offender’s current address? If told about it, the responsible officer may have a responsibility to the new girlfriend to ensure that she is informed of the offender’s previous convictions. These are difficult matters which need a lot of expertise to be able to deal with them and there needs to be guidance—maybe non-statutory guidance—for the officers. In general, I am sympathetic to the amendments which the noble Baroness has moved, but I am conscious that there may well be many problems with making those decisions.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his contribution.

Before responding to the substance of the two amendments, it may be helpful if I briefly set out the purpose of Clause 16. In essence, it would place a new duty on offenders serving community orders or suspended sentence orders to seek permission from their responsible officer or from a court before changing their residence. It replaces the existing requirement for offenders simply to notify their responsible officers after they have moved. It is intended to deal with cases where an offender moving from one probation trust puts at risk the effectiveness of their rehabilitation. For example, a move to a different area may bring to an end an established relationship with the offender’s supervisor. Instead, they may have to start again with a new supervisor from a different probation trust or, in the future, a different rehabilitation provider.

Noble Lords will know that the personal relationship between offenders and their supervisors is important to reducing reoffending. Evidence suggests that offenders with a positive relationship with their offender manager are less likely to offend. This will be particularly important with a move to a through-the-gate model of support, where an offender may have had contact with the same mentor or supervisor before and after release. Another example is a case where a specialist programme that the offender is attending is not available in the area that the offender is proposing to move to. In such cases, a court or responsible officer may consider that ending participation in that programme may set back the offender’s rehabilitation.

Clearly, there are many reasons to support, rather than prevent, an offender changing residence. For example, an offender may be moving to live with family or to take up a new job. We recognise that there will be many cases where a move would not have any negative impact on rehabilitation or on compliance with the order. For example, it may be a move of only a short distance which does not prevent the offender attending required appointments. Even with a long-distance move, programmes may be available in the new area that are equally as appropriate as those in the old area. We recognise this and have built it into the way that the clause is structured. The clause limits the circumstances in which a court or responsible officer can refuse permission to change residence to only two scenarios: where the move is likely to prevent the offender complying with a requirement of the order; or where the move would hinder the offender’s rehabilitation.

Amendment 31 would make explicit that these are the only grounds on which a court or responsible officer can refuse permission to change residence. However, the effect of the way that the clause is drafted is to provide already for these two circumstances, and only these two circumstances, to be grounds for refusal. I am very happy to make that clear to my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I hope that, on that basis, she will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who always comes to these matters with great experience and expertise, gave the example of an offender who had been committed for domestic violence. This situation would require a subjective assessment to be made and it would be for the responsible officer to weigh it up in the risk assessment. This is the sort of decision that professionals make on a daily basis. I listened with great care to the noble Lord’s suggestion about looking at the guidance. I am sure that we will look at it, and I take on board the comments that he made in that respect.

Amendment 32 would provide that a court or responsible officer cannot refuse an application to change residence unless the offender’s rehabilitation or compliance with a requirement of the order would be significantly less likely to be achieved. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend on a number of points. First, even if a move is likely to prevent compliance or would hinder rehabilitation, courts and responsible officers will still have to balance this with other factors. For the purposes of this clause, both courts and responsible officers, whether probation staff or from the voluntary or private sectors, are public authorities within the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998. This means that they are required to balance the impact of the proposed move on rehabilitation or compliance with the order against the offender’s interests in making such a move. They will have to consider the availability of rehabilitative support in the area that the offender wishes to move to, and the extent to which an offender could comply with a requirement in the new area. They will also have to consider the offender’s Article 8 rights. For example, an unemployed offender may wish to move to take up a new job or for family reasons—for example, if their partner is taking up a new job or if a parent is unwell and they need to provide them with care or support. In many cases, factors like these would outweigh concerns about compliance with a requirement or continued rehabilitation. It would be open to a responsible officer to take the order back to court to ask for it to be varied or revoked to suit the offender’s new circumstances.

I would also point out that the clause provides the safeguard of allowing offenders to apply to the court for a decision in cases where the responsible officer has refused permission to change residence, so in cases where offenders feel there are compelling reasons to move which outweigh any potential impact on compliance with a requirement or rehabilitation, they would be able to apply directly to the court to reconsider their case. I hope that these points reassure my noble friend, and, indeed, all noble Lords, that this clause provides a means of supporting the continuity of rehabilitation in cases where a change of residence could put it at risk without impinging on offenders’ wider family or work commitments. With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “1 day” and insert “less than 29 days”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall also address Amendments 3, 5 and, in passing, Amendment 3A. Amendments 1 and 3 are designed to give greater flexibility to a sentencing court. As the Bill stands, everyone sentenced to a period of custody of one year or less will be given a period of 12 months’ supervision from their day of release. This, of course, is something that we welcome as a useful addition to the armoury of the probation service. However, there will be cases where this period of supervision is excessive, disproportionate and unnecessary. A court imposing a short custodial sentence of, say, 29 days or fewer will be well aware of the alternatives available—namely, a community order, which could itself have been more punitive and more rehabilitative. If, nevertheless, the court decides on a short custodial sentence, I would argue that it can be safely assumed that no rehabilitative action was required and therefore it should not be unnecessarily imposed on the offender.

Amendment 5 addresses the same point and is also designed to reduce the burden on the probation service. It provides that a court can direct, on advice from the probation service, that there need be no period of supervision. I should say that this would be in exceptional cases. The sort of cases that I am thinking about relate to the one-off nature of an offence where the offender is of previous good character, there were physical or mental health issues, or the offender is extremely old. Another factor might be the length of time that has elapsed between the date of the offence and the date of conviction where there had been no offending during the interim period.

The purpose of the amendments is to give the courts greater flexibility and prevent disproportionate and unnecessary supervision. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the previous debate, yesterday we were fortunate enough to meet the Justice Secretary. The argument he advanced in response to these amendments was that there needs to be a stable cohort of offenders who are to be managed by the private probation providers. He went on to say that the new group of offenders who are to receive this new supervision need to be a stable group so that a proper assessment of reoffending among this group can be done on a year-on-year basis. The purpose is to make an accurate calculation of the payment by results of the private contractors and, most importantly, to assess the success or otherwise of the additional supervision to be provided.

I completely understand that argument. In my professional life I have done many similar calculations and I know it is very useful to have a stable cohort when making those calculations. But I would argue through these amendments that that simplicity and clarity of calculation should not be set above the interests of justice of the offenders themselves and, however low the level of supervision which will be imposed on these people, there will still be an additional cost. In the interests of justice for the offenders and a reduction in costs, I have tabled these amendments.

I turn briefly to Amendment 3A in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. A number of amendments address the transition of offenders from under 18 to over 18. The object of all these amendments is to try to maximise the input of the YOT service and to work flexibly with the probation service. This issue may be addressed in Clause 6(4), which will introduce new Section 106B(4)(b), and may well cover the points raised in this amendment. Nevertheless, I hope the noble Lord will address this point about maximising flexibility for the YOT service and enhancing its ability to work constructively with the private probation providers. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for the way in which he moved that amendment. During Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, told us about his experiences as a sitting magistrate and the frustration that magistrates often feel when they see offenders with long histories of offending coming before the court time and again. The noble Lord told us how magistrates genuinely feel that they use custody as a last resort. In all the discussions that I have had with anybody who has had an experience of the magistracy, that emphasis has been made. The Government share the frustration of the magistracy. They seem to be almost forced into successive custodial terms because of the cycle of repeat offending. That is exactly why we have brought forward the Bill. It is why Clause 1 extends release on licence and why Clause 2 tops up that licence with additional supervision.

The Government believe that the only way we can break the high level of reoffending among this group of offenders is to end the current position whereby they walk out of prison after half of their sentence with no support and no incentives to seek support to change. That is why Clause 1 applies licensing conditions to all custodial sentences of more than one day. I will explain why in Clause 1 licences apply to a sentence of more than one day, before I turn to the Amendment 1 of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. First, there is a practical consideration. The headline sentence imposed by the court is, as the House knows, halved. It is not possible, nor practical, to halve a half day of custody. It is also the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will be aware, that there are some minor cases in which the court decides that an offender could serve their sentence by spending a day sitting in the court. So, for practical purposes and to retain the power of the court to sentence to a day in court, we applied the licence and the new top-ups of this supervision to sentences of more than one day.

Amendment 1 would raise that minimum period to sentences of 29 days or more. In other words, a sentence of 28 days or less would result in unconditional release with no licence conditions, no top-up supervision, no power to recall the offender and no way to rehabilitate the offender other than the hope that they volunteer for support. A significant number of offenders who the noble Lord and his fellow magistrates sentence to custody receive a sentence of 28 days or less. The latest statistics from 2012 suggest that around 13,300 adult offenders received such a sentence. The reason why many of those offenders receive sentences of 28 days or less is that their history of offending makes the offence more serious, therefore justifying a custodial sentence. It is exactly because these offenders have failed to break their cycle of offending that they received the short custodial sentence in the first place, and it is because they have been released from short sentences with no support that they continue to offend and receive yet more short prison sentences. This is exactly the group that we should be targeting for supervision. It is a group of offenders for whom we should do everything possible to help them face up to the issues that have caused them to offend. Some of them will reoffend when under supervision and some will not comply with the licensed conditions, but that has to be better than the current position, where they are simply imprisoned and released, only to reoffend and be imprisoned again.

I understand why the noble Lord tabled this amendment but, given that it will not provide the courts with more discretion and will leave a significant number of offenders without support, I hope that he will consider withdrawing it. As the Secretary of State explained at our meeting last night, the intention is to have flexibility and common sense in terms of the treatment that is applied during that period of supervision. By the way, that was not a secret meeting—all noble Lords were invited and I was very grateful to those who did come along to hear him. At the very beginning of this debate, I would also make the point that we must not think of the period of supervision as punishment; it is a period of help and support, which we hope will help people to avoid reoffending.

I now turn to Amendments 3 and 5, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. These relate to the top-up supervision covered by Clause 2, which will introduce a new Section 256AA, applying supervision to all offenders with a sentence of,

“more than 1 day but less than 2 years”.

That means that the period of licence will be topped up with additional supervision so that the two, taken together, amount to 12 months. Amendment 3 essentially follows from Amendment 1. If Amendment 1 was adopted, those serving 28 days or fewer would have no licence, and Amendment 3 would mean they would have no top-up supervision either. I have already said why the Government disagree with Amendment 1, and it follows that we would not support Amendment 3 for the same reason. It is a small point, and I do not want to labour it, but I assume that the noble Lord, in Amendment 3, meant to refer to more than 28 rather than 27 days, since his Amendment 1 related to sentences of less than 29 days—that is, 28 days or fewer. In other words, a sentence of 28 days would fall between the two.

Amendment 3A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to amend the categories of offenders who receive top-up supervision under Clause 2. Amendment 3A would exempt offenders sentenced in the youth court when they were under 18 from receiving top-up supervision, even if they were 18 when released from custody. I note that the amendment does not seek to extend this exemption to those sentenced when under 18 in the Crown Court. I understand the concerns, which my noble friend Lady Linklater has also raised, and we will return in later amendments to the question of supervision for those released from custody who have reached 18. However, I would say now that the Government believe that our commitment to provide 12-month supervision should apply to all those aged 18 and over, when they reach the point when they would be released from custody. We of course recognise that young offenders who have just turned 18 can have different needs from older, adult offenders, and we will expect providers also to recognise this difference and to tailor their supervision to the particular needs of this group.

--- Later in debate ---

We believe that by bringing all offenders within the compass of the Bill but by giving providers a good deal of flexibility in application we will avoid some of the problems that these amendments imply. The provision in this Bill determines only the overall period in which supervision will be available. It does not specify what that supervision should involve or how intensive it should be. That will be for the providers to decide, working within the framework set by this Bill. That is where we give providers the room to innovate, to see what works and, crucially, to pay for what does work. Applying top-up supervision to all offenders and then setting the appropriate level of supervision is a much more practical approach than deciding at the time of the sentence not to supervise an offender only to realise too late that they do pose a risk of offending and would benefit from supervision. I hope in the light of these explanations that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

I thank the noble Lord for those answers. He said in addressing Amendments 1, 3 and 5 that the supervision period is not a punishment; it is a support for the offender to help them get back and stay on the straight and narrow. That is true but it is nevertheless a court order and there will still be the scope of breaching the supervision period, which is a very important factor.

Amendment 5, in particular, sought to exempt certain individuals, and that decision would be the decision of the court but with the advice of the probation service. Surely the probation service, which is very well experienced in these matters, together with a bench of magistrates or justices or district judges would be in a position to see the exceptional case where it was not necessary to have a period of supervision.

Nevertheless, I will reflect on what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I do not think that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf need apologise in any way for the amendment. There is no suggestion of arrogance in spelling out duties such as these. In the past 30 years, we have had about 30 criminal justice Acts, whether they carried that name or not, and I would be very surprised if one were not able to find in each and every one of them some structure not unlike that proposed by my noble and learned friend. If one thinks of the very basis of a prison sentence, at least 25 years ago that structure was spelled out in a way that some might think embarrassing to a sentencer, because it seems to me that no sentencer would ever conceive of approaching the problem in any other way. The statute states that the sentencer has to consider whether the offence that has been committed is serious enough to justify imprisonment in the circumstances and that he must then go back to see, in the light of all the circumstances, including the personal circumstances of the defendant, whether it is necessary for there to be a sentence of immediate imprisonment. In one respect, one could say that that is utterly insulting. Could there ever have been a sentencer so lacking in understanding and conscience not to approach his or her duty in that way? Yet, as a circuit judge, I had to look at that section day in, day out, and I found it utterly reassuring. I plead the point that there is nothing wrong in spelling out a duty, even though that duty might be obvious to everybody looking at the situation.

Like so many others who have been involved with the criminal courts, I have taken the view that men commit offences on account of all possible features in the range of human wickedness. In the case of women, it is very different. The splendid report on women in prison written some years by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, reinforced the point that many of them are not criminals at all and should not be in prison. I am not saying that some of them have not committed truly horrendous offences, but that must be a very small proportion, and a very high proportion of women in prison should not be there. Including these principles in legislation, obvious though they are, would do no harm whatever.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, Amendment 9, which is part of this group, would add a mental health assessment as a supervision requirement in Schedule 1. As noble Lords will be aware, a high percentage of prisoners suffer from mental health difficulties, and the purpose of the amendment is that the sentencing court should be able to add a mental health assessment as a requirement that would benefit offenders when they came out of prison. Of course, it is far more desirable that this is picked up far earlier upstream, but there may be occasions where it has not been picked up, and it is obviously an issue. Sentencers should be able to add this as a requirement, so if it is not going to be picked up in prison it will be when the supervision period starts. That is the purpose of Amendment 9.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I am making a guest appearance on the Front Bench and am in the unenviable position of making a speech that is far more moderate than the tremendous speech made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

It is common ground between all political parties that reoffending rates are far too high. This problem is particularly severe for prisoners who serve sentences of less than a year. It is also common ground that if reoffending can be reduced, this will reduce the number of victims and the overall cost to the criminal justice system. It is worth recording that the probation service is not responsible for those leaving prison who have served sentences of less than a year, so it would be wrong to blame it for the current high reoffending rates, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said. The figures we have heard this afternoon are stark. The most prolific group among those committing some 600,000 crimes are the 60,000 or so people who receive sentences of a year or less, as we have heard from a number of speakers today. Some 60% of this group are reoffenders and many go on to reoffend multiple times. Certainly in my experience as a magistrate, the vast majority of people I have sent to prison have offended multiple times while serving community sentences. It is comparatively unusual to send somebody to prison who has never offended while serving a community sentence.

The Government’s stated objective is to drive down reoffending. They will use the Offender Management Act 2007 to privatise large elements of the probation service. That measure and this Bill will provide private supervision in the community for the majority of offenders. The Government’s objectives can be divided into two parts. The first is the privatisation itself with payment by results, about which we have heard, which comes across as little short of an article of faith on the part of the party opposite. The second part is the administrative mechanism by which this is to be achieved. Under the Bill, there is to be a welcome expansion of support for offenders who leave prison having been sentenced to a year or less in custody.

On the first objective, the Government intend through this privatisation to make sufficient savings to fund the expansion of support for those leaving prison. On the Secretary of State’s figures, some 45,000 offenders will gain support financed through these savings. The Government cite the example of Peterborough Prison, where additional support has been provided to leavers financed by social impact bonds. I have read the independent assessment of the project and agree that there is good reason to be encouraged by it, although the project it is in its early days. Surely, the central point is the additional money provided for the project. That is the main reason why it is successful. As we heard from my noble friend, the Secretary of State himself is a repeat offender when it comes to the Work Programme, and he is unsurprisingly very cagey about the commercial arrangements likely to be entered into with the service providers. Surely it is appropriate for the House to know the scope of the payment-by-results contracts, their likely structure or even the Government’s definition of payment by results in this context. I know very well from my own experience that drawing up large complex contracts where both parties are breaking new ground is an unnerving experience. There is every reason to believe that things could go wrong, so it is reasonable for the House to be given reassurance on the structure of the contracts to be entered into.

It is, of course, regrettable that the pilot schemes initiated by the previous Secretary of State were abandoned by the current incumbent. I also believe that commissioning should be managed to maintain a diversity of providers. This point has been made and I know that it is addressed in the strategy document issued by the Government last week. I make the simple point that the greater the number of contract packages, the greater the scope for smaller service providers.

I return to the Bill and the Government’s second objective, as I have characterised it. This raises a whole raft of practical questions about the competences and qualifications of those who will support the offenders in the community, their payment and responsibilities in the event of breach. Indeed, as we have heard, 25% of offenders move between different case offender levels. What happens if, for example, an offender starts drinking? Would that be reported to the court? It is of central importance that the courts have faith in the probation service providers to bring to court in a timely manner offenders who have breached their conditions. I am not sure that any member of the public will distinguish between people being supervised in the community who have served a short prison sentence and those being supervised in the community who are on community sentences. There is a risk that the project could be undermined if there is inadequate supervision of those who are released from prison sentences.

It is worth reflecting that the Government are proposing to transfer many thousands of probation staff to different employers. A number of noble Lords have mentioned the invaluable work done by the probation service. It has to be said that under the new arrangements members of the probation profession will get a narrower range of experience as there will be a binary system, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Beecham. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the possibility of a probation officer charter. I do not know whether he proposes to take the idea forward in the Bill but it is an interesting one. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle spoke about the dissipation of expertise through the new arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, wants an assurance from the Minister about the future prospects of the probation service. I was interested to hear him ask for that. However, I think it would be very difficult for the Minister to give that assurance given that those staff will be employed by the private sector.

It is also worth saying that co-operation on the ground between the various providers is key to the success of this venture. Nothing must be done which undermines this. A number of noble Lords have said that this is really centred around the local authorities working with a number of providers. It is the day-to-day management of these different providers of housing, YOT, social services and so forth, which is key to making any community sentence successful. I also note that the noble Lord has made positive comments about restorative justice, and it is said that he will be giving new comments about that in due course.

A number of organisations have contacted me about the centralisation of the commissioning process. First, I welcome that the police and crime commissioners will be part of the selection process of new providers. However, I want to mention one organisation in particular, and that is London Councils. It is particularly concerned that this would not be an appropriate arrangement for it. In London the PCC is the mayor, there are 33 local authorities, and there is an existing structure which could be used for the commissioning process. The Government often state their commitment to local services, local decision making, and local accountability. This is a question which I intend to explore at a later stage of this Bill.

I want to say, in brief, a word about the perspective of the courts on this. They are of course the sentencing body. Clearly, the recently introduced LASPO arrangements, whereby prisoners on sentences of less than one year are unconditionally released at the halfway point in their sentence, are to be reversed. Now there will be requirements on release. The standard requirement, as we have heard, will be a rehabilitation activity requirement, and the courts will have new breach powers. I make a number of comments on this. First, when the sentencer announces the sentence in court, it should be very clear what actually is to be said, because it is not always clear to magistrates and judges what one should actually say about the length of the period in custody, the period on licence and the period on supervision. I know from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that his ministry will be working with the Judicial College and working out suitable arrangements for this.

We had a number of very interesting comments in this Second Reading debate, and I want to address a few of them. First, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, quite rightly talked about the huge importance of education. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, set out how important it is. I used to be a trustee of the Wandsworth prison visitors’ centre and we provided to all the prison visitors education facilities at some cost—computers and the like. I have to say, very depressingly, that they were almost completely unused by the visitors to Wandsworth prison. While I wholeheartedly agree with the objectives, I note that the group of people we work with can be resistant when we are trying to introduce education programmes.

A number of noble Lords spoke about other matters which could be introduced to this Bill. We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady Healy, about women offenders not being specifically discussed. We also heard a very interesting idea from my noble friend Lord Beecham about a court for veterans, which I hope he will take forward.

I want to raise a point that was mentioned by a number of Peers. That is the possibility of an increase in the overall custody levels because magistrates or sentencers would be using a custodial sentence for people who breach these sentences. In my experience, magistrates use custodial sentences as an absolute last resort. This is not a new problem. It is a very real dilemma when one has a repeat breacher of a community order, for example, for perhaps a relatively minor matter, but they just do not comply with the provisions of the community order. I believe that magistrates should, as a very last resort, have the possibility of enforcing custody, otherwise there will be even less incentive for certain people to comply with their community order.

Finally, I want to pursue the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, about the transition from youth to adult, and the work from the YOTs to the probation service. This was not addressed by any other Peer. It is a very important and practical point, and as the noble Baroness very rightly said, the YOTs—the ones I have worked with—have a more nurturing role, if you like, in trying to help young people. When they move to the probation service, it is quite often an unpleasant surprise for them. I hope we may explore that more fully.

In conclusion, we have the introduction of a payment system which is untested anywhere in the criminal justice world, the abandonment of the pilot schemes, and the removal of the 35 probation trusts and their replacement with a centralised commissioning service. We will judge this Bill in the wider context of the Government's rehabilitation strategy. We agree with many of the specific provisions of this Bill itself. Reducing reoffending while maintaining public safety must be any Government's objective, but ill-thought-out policies based on an unproven ideologically driven funding policy risks the very services which this Bill seeks to enhance.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

My Lords, I support the gist of the amendments as they have been spoken to. I apologise to the Committee for turning up a bit late for this important debate. I emphasise the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the sentence itself is the punishment, if one wants to use that word, rather than necessarily the elements within the sentence.

We recently dealt with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and the relevant training for magistrates and sentencers up and down the country is under way right now. In that training sentencers are told that suspended sentences could have no requirements at all, so that the suspended sentence is itself the punishment for the offence rather than any requirements that may be added by the sentencing Bench. In my view this clearly shows that the Government also agree that the sentence itself is the punishment and that there is no requirement at all in certain, admittedly rather unusual, circumstances for there to be any particular elements to that sentence. Therefore, I do not see what the need is for “punitive” in the first place. I agree with previous speakers that it is a piece of political grandstanding and does not add anything to the Government’s objectives as they are already being rolled out in the training of magistrates in relation to the previous criminal justice Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my Amendment 2 is designed to find out rather more about the reasons behind the Government’s thinking and how paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 is to be interpreted. The schedule clearly states that where a court makes a community order that must include,

“at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment, or … a fine”

unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Government have decided that there will be exceptional circumstances in around 5% of cases. It is not clear why the Government are going down this road. Their own impact assessment refers to research that has been undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, as I understand it. The impact assessment states:

“Offenders who receive supervision, punitive requirement (unpaid work or curfew) and a programme requirement were less likely to re-offend and committed fewer re-offences within a 2 year period of the community order, compared to those who receive supervision and a punitive requirement”.

It then goes on to say:

“There was no impact on re-offending of adding a punitive requirement to certain other specified combinations of requirements”.

Finally it says:

“Adding supervision to a standalone punitive requirement reduces re-offending”.

Most people would regard those statements as not exactly a ringing endorsement of the value of a punitive requirement. Further on in their own impact assessment, the Government come out with this statement:

“The Government considers that community orders are currently not sufficiently demanding for offenders”.

Is that all of them? All community orders are not sufficiently demanding? If that is the case, then what do the Government intend to do to make all community orders more demanding, since that does not seem to be referred to in any documentation? I hope the Minister will tell us whether that statement in the impact assessment represents the Government’s view when they say:

“The Government considers that community orders are currently not sufficiently demanding for offenders”.

It does not say some of them. It does not say the third that do not include the punitive element. It just says they are not sufficiently demanding for offenders. The Minister will, no doubt, respond to that point and tell us how the Government intend to make the community orders sufficiently demanding in their view.

It says further on—in paragraph 37 if the Minister is interested—in the impact assessment, which is, as I understand it, the Government’s own document:

“Given the need for community orders to remain proportionate to the offence committed, delivering a clear punitive element to every community order may, in some cases, cause certain requirements to be substituted by punitive ones. The research that we have undertaken does not tell us about the impact on re-offending of replacing requirements with more punitive ones”.

In other words, the Government do not know what the implications of their proposal will be for rehabilitation. Yet they are still proceeding. There is no other interpretation that can be put on that extract from the Government’s own impact assessment.

We have previously raised the issue of the victim surcharge and I would like to talk a little about that. The victim surcharge is for offences committed on or after 1 October this year—the beginning of last month. It will be, with no apparent exceptions, £60 where a community order is given as a sentence to an adult offender. Since for offences committed before 1 October this year there was no requirement to include a victim surcharge where the sentence was a community order, will the victim surcharge of £60—which I believe is now mandatory with a community order—be regarded as the equivalent of a fine, as referred to in proposed new subsection (2A) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16? If it is, we need not concern ourselves much more with this part of Schedule 16, since every community order will automatically include what is, in effect, a fine, albeit called a victim surcharge, and meet the requirement to include at least one requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment or the imposition of a fine.

If the new £60 victim surcharge for an adult offender, and £15 for a youth offender, which has, I think, just been made mandatory where a community order is imposed, is not to be regarded as a fine under proposed new subsection (2A) in paragraph 2 of Schedule 16, then why not? From the point of view of the offender, the effect is still the same whether it is a £60 fine or a £60 victim surcharge. They still have to pay the money or run the distinct risk of more severe action being taken, including the possible loss of liberty. This £60 victim surcharge is a new penalty to be paid by the offender, since it applies only to offences committed since the beginning of last month. It was not in existence at the time the Bill was being drafted. Has the victim surcharge of £60 to be imposed where there is a community order changed the situation and if not why, why not?

We have a situation at the moment under the Bill where presumably the court, with a so-called non-punishment community order, could levy a very small fine of, say, £15, because of the financial circumstances of the offender. That fine would be deemed to be the equivalent of a punishment under proposed new subsection (2A). The court would then have to impose a victim surcharge of £60—some four times higher than the £15 fine, which could cause the offender much greater difficulty in terms of payment. However, that would not be deemed a punishment under the terms of the proposed new subsection. That does not appear to make a lot of sense or have much logic behind it.

The wording of our amendment, which substitutes “may” for “must” would, among other things, enable the court to decide that the £60 victim surcharge, which is payable when a community order is handed down as the sentence, was sufficient as a punishment element, and the court would not also be required to include either a fine or a further requirement imposed for the purpose of punishment, as currently appears to be the case under proposed new subsection (2A).

I do not intend to go over other points. They have been eloquently made, and repetition would achieve nothing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to all the points raised and questions asked in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

Well—

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord.

[Lord McNally]

If the noble Lord is going to help me, I will certainly sit down.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

Yes, I was going to help the noble Lord. There are nine listed in that list whereas there are 12 possible as part of the community order. Maybe that is what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, meant: the additional three that are not listed.

[Lord McNally]

I will take that lifeline gratefully, but if there are other matters I will write to the noble Lord. I still cannot find the exact line.

It was requirements other than unpaid work, curfews or exclusions. I am now back on track. That takes us back to the point—we are now going full circle. Obviously, the concept of punishment is more likely to mean curfews, unpaid work, exclusions et cetera but, as we discussed earlier, it may be that there are other impositions which, for that particular offender, would be seen as a punishment. The court would have that flexibility to so define them. I hope that helps and I am sorry that I lost the thread. I am assured that I am on page 8. These notes are extremely useful.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for implying that he had not been an assiduous attendee. That was cheap. He asked a good question and I hope that I have now clarified it.

The point was that I was referring to the research that we had done. The consensus was that for the majority of offenders certain requirements are likely to be more punitive than others. As I said, the requirements they most commonly mentioned were curfews, other restrictions on liberty such as exclusion or prohibited activities, and unpaid work. That is why the Government expect to see an increase in those measures.

Finally, on Amendment 11, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that it is not the Government’s intention to detract from the court’s existing obligation to have regard to the five purposes of sentencing currently set out in Section 142(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If these provisions are agreed by both Houses, courts will continue to be required to have regard to all five purposes, whether that is punishment, rehabilitation, reparation, and so on. It will continue to be a matter for courts as to what weight they place on each requirement when sentencing a particular offender.

I remind noble Lords, though, that some purposes are likely to be more relevant than others for particular sentencing powers. For example, courts’ powers to discharge offenders absolutely or conditionally are predicated on the assumption that, in the circumstances of the case, it is inexpedient to inflict punishment. Similarly, while a fine can punish and deter an offender, it may do little towards the purpose of public protection. At the other end of the scale, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that for any offender, the deprivation of liberty that results from an immediate custodial sentence remains and represents a punishment.

In these examples, the nature of the sentence being considered may draw courts’ attention to some purposes of sentencing over others, but courts are still bound to weigh the relevance of all five purposes of sentencing. The same is true of these provisions. While courts will be required to determine whether the circumstances of the offence and the offender justify imposing a requirement for the purpose of punishment, they will still have to weigh this against the relevance of other purposes when determining the overall sentence. Nothing in this requirement prevents a court imposing a single requirement that fulfils multiple purposes of sentencing or imposing multiple requirements to meet multiple purposes.

I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I will of course read these debates carefully. I hope that noble Lords will read them, too, because they will find a recurring theme of flexibility and trust in the judiciary and its judgment which should deflect some of the worst fears that have been expressed about our intentions. Our intention is to carry forward a rehabilitation revolution and put effective community sentencing at the heart of that. I fully appreciate that this House, particularly in these two debates, has done its proper job of fine-toothed combing what we propose and seeking assurances about our intentions. I hope that, on reflection, noble Lords will feel that, as it will work and with the flexibility we are building in, some of their concerns are not justified. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.