| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said and simply came out with his soundbite in order to contribute to debate, not thought. I highlighted the fact that the number of violent offences has increased massively under the Conservatives, while the number going before the courts to be punished has fallen. If offenders are not brought before the courts, there can hardly be any deterrence. The hon. Gentleman obviously wants there to be punishment without even the bother of a conviction. The issues are more serious than his question implies and I am not going to allow the debate about violent offenders and the problem that we face in our society to be so trivialised.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been totally misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman, who has not even sought to address himself to my question.
Madam Speaker: That is a point for argument and debate, not a point of order.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's point was neither a point of order nor a sensible contribution to the debate.
On the basis of the very serious figures to which I have referred--I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants to divert
13 Jan 1997 : Column 28
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael:
I want to focus attention specifically on the new clause. I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Lady, if she can contain herself for a moment. I hope that her intervention will concern the subject matter of the new clause: the extension of supervision of offenders who have committed violent offences after their release from prison.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman:
I appreciate that the new clause concerns that, but the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the failure to secure convictions. Does he agree that the abolition of the so-called right to silence assists the courts in securing convictions?
Mr. Michael:
I knew that the intervention would have nothing to do with the debate. The matters that the hon. Lady is trying to raise were addressed by Opposition Members in 1994 during constructive debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and when we moved the proposals that were put forward by the royal commission, which the Government established to give them advice that they then ignored.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North):
It is the pantomime season.
Mr. Michael:
My hon. Friend suggests that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wants to participate in the pantomime season. I want to get away from such lighthearted contributions and address the serious topic of this debate.
The public have been scandalised by the evidence provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, which is based on police and Home Office statistics and reveals a massive increase in violent crime and a reduction in the number of those taken before the courts, found guilty and punished. Reoffending after being punished and sentenced, with which the new clause deals, is a serious problem.
The new clause gives the court the power to specify a longer period of supervision for offenders who have been found guilty of violent offences, so that they can be supervised after their release from prison for
I refer to Home Office research study No. 94 from 1987, "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", which showed that the reoffending rate of those on parole was markedly lower than would otherwise have been predicted from the characteristics of parolees based on an assessment of 16 factors that research has shown are related to the likelihood of reconviction. In other words, even when the fact that parolees were better bets than non-parolees had been fully allowed for, parole supervision still substantially reduced their reoffending rates. I underline that fact because the Minister of State said in Committee:
When resisting our arguments in Committee, the Minister argued that some violent offenders would be subject to automatic life sentences under clause 1. He said:
If the Bill is passed, the change in post-release supervision for any prisoner will depend also on whether he would have been granted parole. The Bill proposes that those who are released on parole would receive substantially shorter periods of post-release supervision than has been the case in the past. For example, a prisoner who is sentenced to six years and is granted parole at the first review is currently released after three years and supervised for 18 months, followed by an 18-month at-risk period. Under the Bill's proposals, he would be sentenced to four years and, on release, would be supervised for seven months with no at-risk period. If the Government agree to increase the supervision period to 25 per cent. of the sentence, the same offender would be supervised for a year with no at-risk period, compared with the current 18 months of supervision plus an 18-month at-risk period. If one believes that supervision is effective--as the Minister has argued--it must be clear that the situation will be worse in this respect after the enactment of the Bill.
The Government have pointed out correctly that a long-term prisoner who does not currently get parole would receive a longer period of supervision under the proposals. However, the amount of extra supervision in these cases will be minimal. For example, an offender who is sentenced to six years' imprisonment and who does not get parole is currently released after four years and supervised for six months, followed by an at-risk period of one and a half years. Under the Bill's proposals, he would--in accordance with clause 22--be sentenced to four years' imprisonment. On release, he would be under
13 Jan 1997 : Column 31
If the Government increase post-release supervision periods to 25 per cent. of the sentence length--as we suggest--the same offender would be supervised on release for a year, and that would be a considerable improvement. Even then, any increases in supervision for those who do not currently get parole would have to be set against the reductions in supervision periods for the majority of released prisoners. I am sorry to have to go into some detail but it is a detailed point, the result of which is an unsatisfactory level of supervision for those who have committed serious violent offences. That is the nub of my argument.
Clause 17, to which I have referred, provides that in the case of sexual offenders, courts shall order--unless there are "exceptional circumstances"--periods of post-release supervision equivalent to 50 per cent. of the term of imprisonment or 12 months, whichever is the longer. That is a parallel provision. If the court considers a longer period of supervision necessary--under conditions similar to those contained in new clause 1--it may order post-release supervision for any period up to a maximum of 10 years. But the clause applies only to those who are convicted of sexual offences, and not to those convicted of purely violent offences--although, obviously, the sexual offences referred to are in themselves violent incidents.
The case for extending supervision of sex offenders was clearly set out by the Government in their consultation document "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders" in June last year. In our view, the same arguments apply to offenders convicted of serious violence. The document said clearly that
If the Government do not accept the case for 25 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent.--I hope that the Minister will tell us about that--the need for such extended supervision will be even more essential, because of the extremely large reduction in post-release supervision periods for many offenders which would be the result of the Bill as it stands. Even if the Government accept that 25 per cent. should be the norm--an amendment has been tabled to that effect--the arguments for extended supervision for serious violent offenders are as valid as for sex offenders.
A Home Office research study in 1994 showed that 47 per cent. of violent offenders were reconvicted within two years, compared with 25 per cent. of sex offenders. That suggests that there is a greater likelihood of violent offenders reoffending. Comparisons are difficult because of the different nature of the offences, but that serious point should be taken on board.
No one familiar with patterns of sexual offending would be deceived by the relatively low reconviction rate, because the sex offences that remain undetected for various reasons cannot result in a conviction, but the rate of reoffending by violent offenders underlines the case for taking steps to reduce further offending on release.
The argument of the Home Office consultation document on sex offenders, that longer periods of supervision give the probation service a greater opportunity
"a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment".
Indeed, the new clause allows for a longer period where the court believes that it is
"necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation".
13 Jan 1997 : Column 29
That will pick up on the punishment given by the courts and will be as well as that punishment and not instead of it. It is important for Parliament to legislate for supervision and rehabilitation of offenders so that when they come out they are less likely to offend, rather than more likely to offend. We argue that the new clause is necessary for the protection of potential future victims.
The new clause is about protecting the public from violence. It would provide that a system of extended post-release supervision, similar to that which clause 17 will provide for sex offenders, should also apply to the most serious violent offenders--those serving sentences of four years or more. We are talking about not minor violent offences, but serious ones. Home Office research into the parole system has shown that parole supervision produces markedly lower reconviction rates than would otherwise have been expected from parolees' records and characteristics. There is also a substantial reduction in the gravity of offences as well as the rate of reoffending.
"I do not take seriously Home Office research that works on prediction rates. Any research that works on what a person might be predicted to do compared with what they have previously done is very flawed . . . one cannot rely on prediction rates of what some sociologist thinks offenders should have done when they were released."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 November 1996; c. 208-9.]
It is astonishing that painstaking and rigorous Home Office research, using objective factors that previous research has found to be linked to the rate of offending, should be dismissed by a Home Office Minister as simply what some sociologist thinks. That is even more astonishing given that statistical risk prediction scores worked out by Home Office researchers--and I am quoting a Home Office Minister's remarks--are currently in use by the Parole Board and that the Home Secretary's directions to the board require it to take into account any available statistical indicators as to the likelihood of reoffending. There does not seem much point in the Minister saying that he does not believe in predictions when the Home Secretary requires the responsible Home Office body to use the available statistical indicators.
The Minister appeared to realise the need to shift his ground and acknowledge that post-release supervision can reduce offending when he said:
"There is no evidence whatsoever that parole, rather than well-targeted and effective supervision, leads of itself to a reduction in offending."
If it is acknowledged that supervision can reduce reoffending, that is a powerful argument for the new clause, which would not retain the parole system but would extend periods of post-release supervision for serious violent offenders. In other words, on the basis of the Minister's remarks, he should support the new clause.
"Of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, we estimate that 120 would have been eligible for an automatic life sentence had the Bill been then in force."
However, 120 out of 1,900 is just 6 per cent. of the offenders concerned. What about the other 94 per cent.? The Minister argued that they would receive long prison sentences and, in consequence,
"would be subject to lengthy supervision on release."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 341-42.]
Let us examine the length of those supervision periods. The extent to which the Bill will affect post-release supervision periods for offenders depends on the results of the Minister's agreement in Committee to consider increasing post-release supervision from a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent.--a matter to which we will return later on Report.
4 pm
"as the length of post-release supervision for the majority of sex offenders is at present directly proportional to the length of the time spent in custody, the time on licence may also prove too short for effective work to be undertaken. The longer the period of supervision on release from custody, the greater the opportunity for the probation service to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk by arranging further treatment or helping the offender to avoid a relapse."
Those are the Government's logical arguments relating to sex offenders; they apply with equal force in the case of serious violent offenders. For identical reasons, extended post-release supervision of those convicted of serious violent offences is crucial if the public are to be protected effectively from such offenders.
longer period of supervision for sex offenders. I do not want radically to depart from the signal that we are sending that sex offenders are a case apart. They need special treatment and the public need special defences from them . . . Sex offenders tend to continue offending for much of their lives. That is a crucial point. Sex offenders get worse the older they get. Generally, violent offenders stop offending at an earlier age."
He also said:
"We all know that sex offences are particularly damaging to victims. That is why we treat them as a special case . . . Quite apart from the other reasons that I have given, I should be worried that the new clause might appear to devalue the currency."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 342-43.]
I accept that sex offenders are different and need different treatment, but I do not accept that it would devalue the currency if we also tried to protect the public by increasing supervision for serious violent offenders. Sexual offences and offences of violence can both not merely damage but destroy the victim's life; a whole life can be destroyed, even if the individual survives the attack. The case for extending supervision for sex offenders is widely accepted, and the impact of violent offences can also be especially damaging to victims. I hope that the Minister will accept that general point.
"to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk",
applies equally to violent offenders. To talk of devaluing the currency and departing from the signal that sex offenders are a case apart does not constitute a convincing counter-argument.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |