---

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice.

I have just discovered that on Friday, while I was here, along with many other hon. Members, trying to do something about cold weather payments and the wind chill factor, a Minister visited my constituency, but did not have the courtesy to inform me that she was going there. Her visit was televised in my constituency and she attended at least three functions there. Unfortunately, I am not able to raise the matter with the person in this House, because she lost her seat at the last election. I should be grateful, therefore, for clarification from you on how I can make representations to the Baroness--the former right hon. Member for Wallasey--who visited my constituency on Friday without informing me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has made it clear that all Ministers should inform hon. Members when they visit their constituencies and that all hon. Members should also have the courtesy to do the same if they visit another constituency. I am sure that the right hon. Lady will read Hansard tomorrow.

New clause 8

Release licences

'4.--(1) This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer and who are not released on:
(a) life licence; or
(b) supervised release order; or
(c) compassionate grounds.
(2) A prisoner to whom this section applies shall be released on licence which shall (unless revoked) remain in force until the entire period specified in his sentence (reckoned from the commencement of the sentence) has elapsed.
(3) A person released on licence under subsection (2) above shall comply with such conditions as may be specified in that licence by the Secretary of State.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above and to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (5) below to vary or cancel any condition, a licence granted under this section shall include a condition requiring that the person subject to it--
(a) shall be under the supervision of a relevant officer of such local authority, or of a probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area, as may be specified in the licence; and
(b) shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 654

(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time under subsection (3) above insert, vary or cancel a condition in a licence granted under this section, but no licence condition shall be included on release or subsequently inserted, varied or cancelled except after consulting the Parole Board.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State shall be treated as having consulted the Parole Board about a proposal to include, insert, vary or cancel a condition in any case if he has consulted the Board about the implementation of proposals of that description generally or in that class of case.'.--[Mr. McFall.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

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

We have tabled the new clause because we want to enhance public safety. The Government's proposals do not do so, but our provisions will strengthen that aspect of the Bill. The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 provides for non-parole licences, under which any prisoner sentenced to more than four years but not granted parole can be released on licence until the sentence expiry date. The arrangements in that Act enhanced public safety as well as rehabilitation.

The Bill alters those arrangements, as only life parolees and those made subject to a supervised release order by the sentencing court will now be under direct supervision. The sheriff or judge must say at the time of trial that the long-term prisoner will be subject to a supervised release order. All other long-term prisoners will have no supervision, but will be liable to recall following a further offence.

We are surprised that the Government are diminishing the public safety aspect, as well as diminishing the potential to help people to be rehabilitated back into the community. After implementation of the 1993 Act, the new parole licences came into effect in May 1995, so there has been no time to evaluate them. The Minister of State, who is dealing with this Bill tonight, put through those measures in the 1993 legislation, with the support of the Opposition.

In our opinion, public safety will be increased if all long-term prisoners are supervised until their sentence expires. Longer-term prisoners include those who have committed very serious offences and could constitute a further risk. Why will the Government allow those individuals to be released into the community again--or allow the possibility of their release--without that supervision? Surely the Government are putting public order at risk--a risk that they should not take.

The new clause covers those sentenced for the offences of dishonesty and of theft by housebreaking, and especially repeat, serious and violent offenders--one category that has been increasing. The professional criminal and thief would, therefore, be brought into mandatory supervision on release, giving the public that protection. That comfort must be available. It is the Government's duty to provide it and, through the new clause, we are pressing them to take heed of it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We believe that the public are best protected by targeting supervision on those identified as posing a risk, which is the most effective way of deploying resources.

The public rightly expect to be protected and rightly expect those charged with the protection to focus on offenders who may endanger them. Attempting to

20 Jan 1997 : Column 655

supervise everyone regardless of risk or need, as the new clause sets out to do, would deflect attention away from those offenders who pose a threat. That is not the best way to protect the public. Supervision can achieve its objective only if it is focused and targeted. Near misses are not good enough.

The Bill will allow the sentencing court to identify offenders whom it considers may pose a risk to the public on release and impose a supervised release order on them. We have also provided the Crown with a right of appeal in those cases where it thinks a supervised police order should have been made but was not.

Dr. Godman: Is the Minister's position on this important issue supported by members of the parole boards, or do they have serious reservations?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what each member would say, but I believe that targeting supervision would be regarded as a common-sense measure, and having an untargeted, unfocused approach would not meet the requirements.

We are not persuaded that the approach proposed in the new clause would be effective, so I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the motion.

Mr. McAllion: I am disturbed by the Minister's remarks and the cavalier fashion in which he dismissed the new clause. For example, he said--I do not think that anyone will disagree with this statement, anyway--that we have to target such resources as we have in the probation service and local authority social work departments on those offenders who pose the greatest risk to people in the community. He then dismissed the new clause, saying that it would cover everyone. I direct his attention to the first sentence of the new clause, which states:

"This section applies to all prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment or terms of imprisonment totalling four years or longer".

Some years ago--in 1994, I think--in the White Paper that the Minister issued, as the Minister with responsibility for law and order in Scotland, he pointed out that, in courts, a distinction is made between offenders who are dealt with under the summary procedure, which is usually regarded as involving less serious crimes, and offenders dealt with under the solemn procedure, which involves very serious crimes indeed.

Under the solemn procedure, prisoners can get sentences of three, four or five years, so, by the Government's definition, all those offenders who are sentenced to four years or more are guilty of extremely serious offences. The Minister may think that those who commit serious offences are not a threat to society, but I think that most people in Scotland would disagree.

Supervision on release was covered in the White Paper, and there the Minister struck a very different note from the one that he struck a few moments ago. He said:

"Protecting the public did not end with clarity in sentencing",

and I agree with him. It is not enough to play the game played by the Secretary of State, who poses as a tough guy who will deal with the criminals by making sure that

20 Jan 1997 : Column 656

they spend more time in gaol. We must go further than that to protect the public in Scotland from the serious criminals who would be covered by the new clause.

5.30 pm

In the White Paper, the Minister said:

"The public need to be reassured that the Government is doing all it can to prevent further offending."

If the Minister wanted to do all he could to prevent further offending and to protect the public, he could begin by reading the new clause, which deals with those matters, but he took a different line a few minutes ago.

In the White Paper, the Minister also said:

"To this end we are making early release from custody contingent not only on good conduct in prison, but also on participation while in custody in appropriate strategies to address and change offending behaviour."

Nobody would be too concerned about that remark. He continued:

"The responses to the Government's consultation exercise strongly supported the principle of release on conditions intended to enhance public protection."

The Minister said that the response to the consultations was a demand for release on condition, to ensure that offenders who came out of the gates were properly monitored and looked after, and that probation officers and social workers were available to deal with them during the period in which they were still in the community serving the part of their sentence that had not been served in gaol; but now he shrugs off the idea with a few casual remarks. The new clause would cover just about everything to which he referred.

Does the Minister not know that the vast majority of those in Scotland's prisons are serving sentences of less than four years and that only the most serious offenders are serving sentences of four years or more? He is telling us that it is all right for serious offenders to be allowed back into the community without supervision. Perhaps he is concerned that it would might cost money to look after them properly and to protect the public, but that is not what he or his colleagues will say when they go back to Scotland to fight the general election; then they will say that law and order is a priority and that the Government spare no expense to maintain it and to ensure that people throughout Scotland are safe in their communities. The Government have the nerve to dismiss a new clause that would do precisely that.

Only when a serious offender reoffends will the Government do anything about it. They have shown themselves to be weak, not strong, on law and order. Unless the Minister changes his tune, everyone back in Scotland--not least his family--will look at him and say, "Failed again, Minister. You've got it wrong once again."

---