House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Nov 1996 (pt 26)

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady mentioned the United States, but is she referring to the Oregon study or the Washington DC study?

Ms Cunningham: I shall cite one American academic who considered attempts right across the United States.

The Secretary of State referred to such a disposal--

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady unwittingly to mislead the House? There have been no pan-American studies, only studies in certain states.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman asks whether it is in order for the hon. Lady to mislead the House. Hon. Members should not wittingly mislead the House, and I am sure that the hon. Lady was not doing so.

Ms Cunningham: I was saying that there has been academic consideration of projects in the United States, as there presumably has been of those in England and Wales. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the projects in England and Wales, which are on his doorstep.

As I was saying, the Secretary of State referred to disposal such as electronic tagging in connection with reducing the number of prison inmates. We need to be clear that the Government do indeed have it in mind that tagging, or the restriction of liberty order, is intended to be a direct alternative to custody. In addition, I should like some idea of the sort of offences considered appropriate to be dealt with in that fashion.

I question the advisability of proceeding now with proposals for the studies in Scotland when the pilot schemes in Reading, Norfolk and Manchester are not due to report until March 1997. Perhaps I missed some details about the time scale for the Scottish studies, in which case I stand to be corrected, but surely it would have been more appropriate to await the completion of the trials in England and Wales, especially as the estimated cost of the

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1109

Scottish pilot studies is about £1.5 million. It would seem sensible to await a final assessment of the schemes in England and Wales before spending £1.5 million on studies that are to be set up without the knowledge and understanding of what is already happening.

Mr. Matthew Banks (Southport): In a spirit of helpfulness, I can tell the hon. Lady that while she was out of the Chamber my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Bill will provide the power to tag people over a certain age, and that there will be pilot schemes.

Ms Cunningham: I am aware that there are to be pilot schemes in Scotland; I am pointing out that the pilot schemes in England and Wales will not be completed until March 1997 and that, with the Scottish scheme estimated to cost £1.5 million, it seems ridiculous to commit ourselves to spending such a large sum without having seen the results of the English and Welsh pilot schemes. Saving money is supposed to be one of the Government's hallmarks.

One problem identified in the English study was the stigmatising effect of the tag, which led in one case to an offender being beaten up when the tag was seen--that is hardly something that we want to happen too often. Other problems include domestic friction resulting from lengthy curfew hours; the difficulty of obtaining employment while having a liberty restriction order--in part because of long curfew hours--and, perhaps more important, the marked reluctance of the courts to impose the orders.

As I understand it, so far the trials show that, after the first full year, in Reading, only five orders have been imposed out of a possible 460; in Manchester, only 49 have been imposed out of a possible 2,330; and in Norfolk, only 44 have been imposed out of a possible 2,280. It has been assessed that the trials cost £14,300 per accused, whereas probation orders cost about £2,500 per accused. I cite these figures because I am genuinely concerned and interested to know how the scheme will work in practice. As I said, I have not set my face against the idea, but I am concerned that it will not ultimately be productive and will cost a great deal of money.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire is no longer here because I wish to mention again the studies in the United States. They have been equally equivocal, leading one professor of law and public policy to say:

"There has been no effect on recidivism, no reduction in the prison population and no cost savings . . . The main sentencing effect is to ratchet up the prison population through a high number of technical breaches."

I hardly think that we want that to happen here. I understand that the Association of Chief Officers of Probation concluded that the United States experience was a shambles.

I appreciate the Minister's desperate desire to be seen to be doing something--anything--but he must not mislead the public as to the likely efficacy of the proposals. The experience of the trials is that electronic tagging is emphatically not a means by which young thugs will be kept in check. I am therefore anxious to know what kind of offender Ministers have in mind. I have an open mind on tagging adults, but I emphatically oppose any suggestion that it should be used as a disposal for the

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1110

under-16s. Although that proposal does not appear in the Bill, it is being trailed. As far as I am aware, there has been no consultation on it.

Clause 45 deals with the public defender system. Such a system seems to be being introduced by the back door. I particularly deplore the Secretary of State's decision to introduce it by stealth and without public debate. He has in mind a fundamental change of the operation of legal representation in Scotland, but he is trying to make the change without any sustained study or public debate. The idea seems to be driven by nothing more than a desire to cut the legal aid bill. His plan would remove freedom of choice of representation, which is extraordinary given the Government's otherwise slavish adherence to the free market.

To justify the charges of inefficiency levelled against the current system, comparisons are drawn with the systems in England and Wales and in the Netherlands, both of which are different from that in Scotland. Although a public defender system exists in some jurisdictions, there are flaws in the idea which should not be overlooked.

Whatever his or her title, a public defender will not be independent. How is it suggested that the conflict between duty to the client and duty to the employer be resolved? That problem is compounded by the unlikelihood of a client being able to choose even the individual public defender whom he or she wants.

There are real dangers to justice. I do not think that anyone in Scotland wants to follow the example of the United States, where far more public money is spent on prosecution than on defence. We have all had graphic illustrations of the difference that money makes in American courts. That has never been an issue in Scotland, and I certainly do not want it to become one. Public defender systems are notoriously under-funded. The Government do not inspire confidence on any sort of public funding.