| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): In judging these proposals, should not our paramount concern be the safety of the public, and especially the safety of children? It cannot be right to have dangerous people in the community when there is a real belief that they may commit serious crimes, particularly when, as in the case of Michael Stone, the person himself seeks secure treatment.
It is clear that there is a range of issues to be decided when it comes to the Government's proposals. That being so, I ask the Home Secretary two particular questions. First, what will be the standard of proof when deciding whether an individual has a recognised severe personality disorder and is a grave risk to the public? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman refers to regular quasi-judicial reviews of detention and the person's detention. How frequent will such reviews be? If a system can be devised, which is both fair and protects the public, I, for one, would support that.
Let me put an additional point to the Home Secretary. He has rightly talked about sex offenders, but is there not a bigger problem here? Not just the unconvicted are involved; convicted sex offenders, some of whom have served longish sentences, are released from prison into the community in the near certainty that they will offend again. The result is that persistent sexual abusers--who, during their lifetime, can have dozens of victims--have their career of abuse interrupted by prison, but not halted by it.
Is not one way forward to give the courts more power in sentencing and, in particular, to make possible the wider use of life sentences for sex offenders, in some circumstances? Would that not have the advantage that an offender would not be released until there was some confidence that he would not reoffend? An offender could
be released on licence, and could be recalled. He could be made subject of a positive requirement--for example, that he should continue to have treatment. He would be subject to those conditions for the whole of his lifetime.
Does the Home Secretary agree that, if we are properly to protect the public, there should be extra provisions--for the unconvicted, but also for convicted sex offenders who, all too often, are released into the community and then offend again?
Mr. Straw:
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support in principle that he has offered to the proposals. I understand that he will want to comment in detail when he sees the consultative document.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the standard of proof. That will be dealt with in the document, but we are looking for a standard of proof similar to that which applies within the mental health provisions--one that is bespoke for judging those matters and, above all, as he rightly said, for establishing whether a serious personality disorder poses a grave risk to the public. The protection of the public must be the paramount consideration when the courts are judging whether to make an order of this kind. The period, too, will be the subject of consultation. The Butler committee proposed that these reviewable sentences should be subject to review every two years. That will be one of the options raised.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I agree that these powers ought to be available to the courts in respect of those who are being convicted of offences as well as those who are not before the courts for any sentence. The answer is yes. As I made clear in my statement, these powers would apply whether someone was before the courts for an offence or not. If someone is before the courts for an offence--no matter what the nature of the offence is and even if it does not normally carry a heavy penalty--it would be open to the courts, subject to the criteria being met, to impose one of these indeterminate, but reviewable, sentences.
Such a sentence would be passed not as punishment in respect of the offence, but properly to protect the public and to deal with a situation that has rightly alarmed hon. Members on both sides of the House. A known sex offender who has been convicted of only a relatively minor offence that by no stretch of the imagination could reasonably carry a life sentence, and who is about to be released, could tell prison staff that he knows that he cannot control himself and will commit further offences. At the moment, however, nothing can be done to prevent the release of such a person, if he were sentenced before 1992.
I believe that the current range of life sentences available to the courts is broadly satisfactory. It is being reviewed in the context of the sex offender review, which the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), recently announced. That availability, however, depends on the severity of the crime, whereas I am seeking to ensure that there is no longer a lottery--a matter of chance--in respect of whether someone who plainly poses a grave risk to the public is or is not detained. If such people pose that grave risk, and they suffer from a severe personality disorder, and whether or not they are before the court for an offence, and regardless of what kind of offence it is, they ought to be the subject of this kind of order.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South):
As the Home Secretary acknowledged, this is an extremely grave step,
Mr. Straw:
The estimates of the total number of people suffering from such severe personality disorders and who are currently at large vary considerably. The best estimates that I have been given are that the number currently at large--not in the hospital or prison system--is between 300 and 600 and that the total number of people who suffer from such disorders, the vast majority of whom are, thankfully, detained under the Mental Health Acts or in prison, is some 2,700. However, those are only estimates.
I accept entirely my hon. Friend's second point--that people should not be written off as untreatable. Somebody may be deemed untreatable by a particular group of psychiatrists, but be susceptible to treatment by clinical psychologists, psychoanalysts or psychotherapists, or just within a therapeutic community. We should not write anybody off. Above all, the root of our concern must be the risk that such people pose to the public.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey):
For this significant but very small group of people, the prospect of having a careful consultation is welcome because it is important to get the balance right. Does the Home Secretary agree that, in protecting an individual's liberty when that individual has not been convicted of an offence, the state has a duty to ensure that the test of what evidence is sufficient is met only if the most widely agreed, sufficiently high and tightly defined definition justifies that loss of liberty when set against personal or public safety? If that view is shared across the Floor of the House, will the Home Secretary assure us that an individual or his advocate will always be able to trigger a review, that reviews will not occur only at the instigation of other authorities, and that that will be reviewable by the courts?
Does the Home Secretary agree that this reform exercise can be done properly only in the context of the Mental Health Acts? We must take the opportunity of breaking down the barrier between the prison medical service and the national health service, so that those with illness or personality disorders, whether offenders or not, are looked after by the same professionals. We shall therefore have a consistent assessment of need and risk.
Mr. Straw:
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says--of course, the criteria must be clearly defined. We are talking about taking away the liberty of individuals who have not been convicted of a proportionate criminal offence. It is a very grave step to take. None of us should be under any illusions about that. It would be preposterous if we were to treat such a matter lightly.
By way of reassurance, I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that the medical profession and mental health tribunals already have substantial experience of depriving people of their liberty where individuals with severe personality disorders are also classified as treatable; thus,
this is not an area where there is no experience, and we shall seek to build on the experience that exists. I agree that an individual must be able to trigger a review--it would be unacceptable if they were not--but on a periodic basis.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the prison health service working more closely with the national health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are working on plans, which we shall announce to the House in due course, to achieve that end.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of what he has said could have been read in today's newspapers, and it is an insult to the House that we should read in the newspapers a statement to be made by a Minister? Although I recognise that there is a problem here, has my right hon. Friend looked at some of the precedents: internment without trial in Northern Ireland was justified on exactly the same basis--that people who had committed no offence should be kept out of the public domain without a trial? In the Soviet Union, that practice was widely followed because it can be easily abused. Will he take very seriously the arguments that have been made, namely that these matters should be dealt with under the Mental Health Acts and the Government should not take powers that allow them to put away anyone who, in their judgment, could potentially be a danger to the community--although such people no doubt exist?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |