---

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): Does the Minister accept that it important to do both: to impose a longer term of imprisonment and a longer term of supervision on the outside, as we advocate?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should read Opposition amendment No. 1, which is to be debated later. To quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, if that amendment was successful, its effect would be that a judge would

"avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so!"

It would drive a coach and horses through the main provisions of the Bill, in clauses 1, 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman is not right, therefore, to insist that the Opposition proposals would result in longer terms of imprisonment and longer supervision. They would result in longer supervision if the proposal that we are discussing became law, but if the remaining Labour amendments were passed, there would be many fewer seriously violent offenders in prison, because the Opposition proposals would drastically widen the exceptional circumstances part of the Bill.

I accept that I said that a period of supervision after release from prison can be valuable, especially if the person has spent a long time inside. We have provided for that in the Bill. As I told the House, I am minded to accept amendment No. 2, which suggests that the supervision period should be 25 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, not 15 per cent.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 37

However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth proposes longer supervision periods for violent offenders who receive the longest sentences, who already have the longest supervision periods. Some of those people will be eligible for the automatic life sentence under clause 1 and will be supervised for life. We estimate that, of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, 120 would have been eligible for the automatic life sentence.

Those who are not eligible will nevertheless receive a long prison sentence, during which time they should have access to treatment programmes to tackle their offending behaviour. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that if people are in prison for offences of violence, and if they have behavioural problems--I believe that the euphemism is "anger management problems"--those should be tackled. The best place to do so is in prison, where the person is under supervision 24 hours a day, not outside, where, as the Opposition proposals envisage, the person would be eligible for supervision of merely one visit to the probation officer every two months.

Programmes to tackle offending behaviour are important, and the Prison Service is keen to develop proposals and increase the work that is up and running. It is developing a treatment programme specifically aimed at violent offenders. It will be piloted in about six establishments during the current financial year, with the aim of accreditation before the end of 1997. A lengthy period of supervision following prisoners' release will allow for further action to build on the work begun in prison.

Unlike the present provisions on release, length of supervision will be commensurate with the length of the sentence. I understand that the present provisions mean that those who do not receive parole because they are judged to be at most risk receive less supervision than those who are paroled early.

Under the Bill's proposals, an offender who receives a four-year sentence will serve between three years and four months and four years and, on release, will be supervised for slightly more than seven months if the period equals 15 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, or 12 months if we increase the figure to 25 per cent. That is a significant supervision period. According to the minimum standards for supervision following release from custody, that would mean a minimum of 19 contacts between offender and probation officer. Of those 19 contacts, the first 10 would occur in the first three months, and that will not change under our proposals and under new clause 1.

That intensity of supervision in the first three months is in recognition of the fact that, if we are to have any success in heading off people from reoffending when they are released from prison, the key period is the first few months after release, when they have the problems of resettlement and reintegration into the community. That is when they are at the biggest risk of going astray--of returning to a life of crime. That is why all our efforts in supervising criminals when they are released concentrate on maximising our resources to get at them in the period immediately following release. It is important to do it then--not two, three, four or five years later.

Under our proposals, the person sentenced to three years and four months would have a minimum of 19 contacts with the probation officer, 10 of which would

13 Jan 1997 : Column 38

be in the first three months. If we increased that level of supervision to 50 per cent., it would not double the contacts, because the bulk of them happen early in the sentence. It would increase the contacts to 31 over the period, as opposed to 19.

I stress that supervision is most important when an offender is first released from prison. That is why the arrangements in the Bill for most offenders are the most cost-effective way of protecting the public from possible reoffending by a prisoner on release. New clause 1 would increase the period of supervision further by applying our special conditions for sex offenders. However, sex offenders are a special case, and the whole House had always recognised that fact--until our debate in Committee and today.

4.30 pm

Clause 17 proposes extended supervision powers, having regard to the special problems caused by sex offenders. In the consultation document that we published in the summer, we drew attention to the research evidence in that area. We know that men convicted for the first time of sexual offences often have a history of sexual offending that began many years earlier and which involves an escalation to more and more serious offences as they get more and more devious and clever at hiding their behaviour. The research also tells us that, once a pattern of sex offending has been established, the risk of reoffending can persist for many years and that, in most cases, the offender manipulates people and circumstances in order to set up the opportunity to offend.

Because sex offenders are in a special category of cleverness and deviousness, the provisions for extended supervision apply to all those who receive a prison sentence, not just to those who receive a relatively long prison sentence and who will, in any case, receive a substantial period of supervision on release.

It is sensible to target resources effectively, and that is what the Bill provides for: lifelong supervision for the most serious violent and sex offenders, and extended supervision for other offenders. There is a clear and specific need to provide that in the case of such offenders. For other offenders, however, supervision periods should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and proportionate to the prison sentence imposed.

We also know that the general trend is that the majority of young men committing violent offences tend to grow out of it in later life. As teenagers reach their 20s and 30s, the number committing violent offences decreases substantially.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) indicated assent.

Mr. Maclean: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding and agrees with me.

Thus the trend in the behaviour of violent offenders is exactly the reverse of that of sexual offenders. As young men who may be violent get older, their offending decreases; as sexual offenders get older, their sexual offending increases and becomes cleverer, more devious and more manipulative. That is why we need special arrangements for the supervision of sex offenders and why we need to keep it distinct from the supervision that we propose for other offenders.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 39

If supervision in the community is to mean anything, what matters is its quality rather than its quantity. There is no point in continuing it indefinitely, whether it is doing any good or not. I want the best possible supervision in the community when people are released from prison. That is why we must concentrate on clearly defined categories of offenders, and why we must concentrate our resources and target prisoners in the initial period following their release when they are most at risk of reoffending. The new clause fails to do that. For the reasons that I have given, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Tipping: I have listened to the Minister's interesting comments, many of which he made in Committee. They are characteristic of the argument that we have had throughout debates on the Bill. The Minister argues strongly that prison works because of its deterrent effect but, in so doing, he demeans the benefit of supervision in the community. He asked what was the value of a few more contacts with the prisoner's probation officer, then went on to ask what was the value of one visit to the probation service every two months.

One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is the Government's commitment to put significant extra resources into the Prison Service--perhaps as much as £140 million--yet they argue that the probation service needs no extra resources. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states that the Bill is cost neutral to the probation service.

The Minister argued that the Bill was about putting resources where they are needed. He has argued strongly that prison works. That argument implies that there is little need for community service and extended supervision after prison. I shall argue that both are needed.

It is vital that prison should be a positive experience. I was delighted to hear the Minister's comments about the new treatment centres to tackle violent offending. I am worried that the Prison Service will not be able to accomplish that. I am anxious about the number of people going into prison, and the pressure on prison governors and officers.

It is important, as the Minister rightly said, that when a prisoner is incarcerated for 24 hours a day, that time is put to constructive use, but the pressures on the Prison Service may militate against that. I have listened with great care to what prison governors have been saying recently. I am concerned that the value of prison for treatment, as opposed to deterrence, is not maximised.

Violent crime creates severe anxiety. People may be more troubled by the fear of crime than by the reality of crime. I know that, in Nottinghamshire, many people, especially women and elderly people, are extremely concerned. They lock themselves in their houses because they are worried to death about violent crime. Their fear is disproportionate to the risk. We must acknowledge that fear and respond, first, with severe prison sentences. I support the Minister in that respect. Secondly, we should not devalue the probation service.

The Minister and some of his colleagues have a history of running down the morale of professional groups and putting the blame for the problem on them. We must recognise the strength and value of the probation service, which would improve if it were properly resourced. It

13 Jan 1997 : Column 40

could be argued that some of the money that, under the Bill, is to be voted to the Prison Service should be diverted to the probation service.

There is a strong argument for examining the work of the Home Office research department. During discussion of the Bill, several Home Office research unit publications have been highlighted. I shall mention two: study paper No. 94, entitled "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", and a later paper, No. 136, entitled "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis". The Minister has misrepresented both. I read them during my vacation and they acknowledge the value of supervision following release from prison. The Minister said that prison works. I draw his attention to Home Office study paper No. 136 and to a key point on page 7, which states:

"there was no firm indication that community penalties outperformed custody or vice versa in preventing offending."

The Minister acknowledged the need to focus resources and to involve the probation service soon after a prisoner's release. I agree: the first three months after release are vital. However, people may face life crises following release from prison and continue to experience problems far beyond three months. I believe that we should proceed carefully in this area. We must acknowledge the importance of prison and the need for positive treatment and the reinforcement of good behaviour in prison. We must also use the probation service, both in prison--it is important to acknowledge that probation officers are losing their role in prison--and outside it.

I argue for long prison sentences and for extended periods of supervision outside prison. I know the real fears of women and of the elderly throughout the country about violent crime. We have a responsibility to acknowledge those fears and to allocate resources where they are needed. I argue that those resources are needed not only in prison, but to support the probation service. People such as the Minister must build morale in the probation service, but I am afraid that some of his comments today demeaned the service--which is in no one's best interests. We must fight crime together: we must all support the campaign if we are to win.

---