---

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Govan): One of the Government's main roles should be the protection of the public. I am not convinced that the Government are taking the new clause sufficiently seriously from that perspective. I can understand why the Government want to economise on the supervision of prisoners once they have been released, but they should take much more seriously the need to ensure that people released in such circumstances are provided with support, which would result in fewer of them reoffending and enhance public safety.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 657

We would support the system proposed by the Government, with some targeting, but proposed subsection (4)(b) specifically says that the person released

"shall comply with such requirements as that officer may specify for the purposes of the supervision."

That would obviously allow the supervising officer an enormous degree of discretion. It would ensure, for example, that people were seen to be taking steps to address their offending behaviour and perhaps, with the help of the supervising officer, to find employment or obtain further educational qualifications that would make them more employable and therefore less likely to offend.

All the evidence shows that those who are most likely to reoffend are those on the very bottom of the employment ladder. The amount of supervision and assistance that can be provided by a local authority officer, to encourage someone to seek employment, careers advice, education or training, is quite considerable. People who are released from prison and who are not immediately in danger of reoffending might drift back into criminal behaviour simply because they are alone and lack supervision.

The Government should take more seriously the need to safeguard the public, and should not ignore our constructive proposals.

Dr. Godman: I support the new clause. I am pleased that my hon. Friends want the parole board to have an important function in such cases. To my mind, the Minister and his officials have in recent times sought to reduce the important role played by the parole board in dealing with people released into the community. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important for the parole board to play a central part, and it is perhaps even more important for the public to be protected.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I stated earlier, we believe that supervision is most effective when focused. The courts are required to focus supervised release orders on precisely the category referred to: those who are convicted of rape and other violent offences.

Local authorities cannot supervise all released offenders to the level needed to ensure public safety. The task cannot successfully be spread across all offenders. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have adapted our proposals on supervision. Supervision, through supervised release orders, will be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders, and at the discretion of the court in other cases.

For those not subject to supervision, the provisions of clauses 33 and 34 provide an incentive to good behaviour on release. The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) mentioned the potential to help. That is not diminished by the Bill. The national standards for the supervision of released prisoners provide that all persons released from custody can, within 12 months of their release, seek support and assistance from the local authority.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 658

We believe that the provisions in the new clause would be undiscriminating, and therefore wasteful of resources, and that the courts are well able to recognise those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public.

Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the White Paper--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I had finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I call Mr. John McFall.

Mr. McFall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister says that he cannot spread the provisions because it would be too expensive, but that supervision would be mandatory for serious sex and violent offenders. He should understand that we are saying that those long-term prisoners who have committed serious offences should be subject to supervision. If, as I believe, he is saying otherwise, he is showing disregard for public safety. The Opposition want those individuals to be supervised.

It is no use for the Minister to say that the provision cannot be mandatory and cannot apply across the board. If it was good enough for the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Minister and approved by the previous Secretaries of State--the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)--why is it not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State today? Will the Minister maintain the provisions of the 1993 Act?

The 1993 Act was implemented after the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands, when Secretary of State for Scotland, established Lord Kincraig's committee to consider parole and other issues. It took three years, if I remember correctly, to report back to the Government, but its recommendations were accepted by all parties. I was leading for Labour in the Committee that considered the Bill when the Minister asked us to accept them. He said that all long-term prisoners needed supervision. We took him at his word; why is he breaking it now?

Mr. McAllion: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister, who rather uncharitably refused to give way to me earlier.

In their latest figures, which cover 1994, even the Government accept that 83 per cent. of prisoners in Scotland serve sentences of less than six months. The number of people who will be affected by new clause 8 is small. It is beyond comprehension why the Government should resist the idea of supervision of serious offenders when they are released back into the community. The Minister mentioned some of the cases that will get automatic supervision; should he not also mention the cases that will not be covered by his provision but would be covered by ours?

Mr. McFall: My hon. Friend makes a good point: 83 per cent. of offenders are in prison for less than six

20 Jan 1997 : Column 659

months, and there is no supervision for them when they get out. Why should that principle apply to those who serve long sentences and to violent or serious offenders?

The Minister begs the question when he says that it is up to the court. Can he imagine a sheriff--or, more likely, a High Court judge--giving a 10-year sentence and saying, "Well, my boy, lest I forget, you should be subject to a supervisory release order when you come out"? There is every chance that judges will not utter those words, which means that such people will be a danger to the community when they come out. The Secretary of State smirks at that, but the 1993 legislation was introduced by his Government and made those very points. Why is he introducing this Bill against the wishes of his hon. Friends, the Kincraig committee and others? It must be recorded that the Bill is being introduced by the Secretary of State at a whim. He consulted no one.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am surprised, after all this time, that the hon. Gentleman has not got the basic substance of the Bill into his mind: the point is that people should spend longer in prison as a result of their sentences and should not be out in the community under supervision. We believe that they should be in prison. The provisions for supervision after they have served the sentence of the court are an additional protection. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that.

Mr. McFall: The right hon. Gentleman is being patronising. We are talking about long-term prisoners who are released under provisions made by the Government. The Opposition believe that, when the Government decide to release such prisoners, they have a duty to the public to ensure supervision. I hope that that gets through to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davidson: Is it not a bit much for the Secretary of State to argue that he is interested in increasing sentences, and that we are not, when it was Labour who demanded in Committee that the sentence available to judges for the third convictions of drug traffickers aged over 21 should be increased from seven to 10 years? The Government defeated that proposal in Committee. We are interested in increasing sentences for such people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the Government's refusal to accept the new clause was let slip by the Secretary of State when he said that local authorities could not supervise to the level required? Does that not show that it is a question of finance and nothing else?

5.45 pm

Mr. McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend.

I remind the House that it was the Opposition who brought up the cases of Gavin McGuire and John Cronin, who were released from prison. We want adequate supervision for such people. They were released under provisions introduced by the Government. We want long-term supervision, not the blemishes on the criminal justice system that the Government have allowed. That is why we have tabled new clause 8. We want increased public safety.

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the Government's defence of their refusal to accept new

20 Jan 1997 : Column 660

clause 8 is based on the fact that violent or sexual criminals have been dealt with elsewhere? However, crimes such as burglary will not be treated seriously enough by the courts; supervision after release will not be mandatory. The Government are releasing burglars into the community without the requirement for supervision. On top of all their other charters, we now have the burglars charter. Burglars are to be released without supervision, which will ensure that the public are put even further at risk.

---