| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: I count myself among the hon. Gentleman's admirers. He adds enormously to the House in some ways, although not in others. He certainly approaches the issues with genuine care and, in matters that involve the Home Office, with a degree of erudition that is always welcome. I always listen carefully to what he says and was therefore disappointed that he did not make a speech this evening.
Names are important, but the Opposition have got the wrong end of the stick. I understand the reason for their amendments, and I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is much influenced by the National Association of Probation Officers. We can always rely on him to pray its name in aid of almost any proposition that he cares to adopt. However, he is unwise to do so in this case, because I know from discussions with probation officers that while they have a clear view about the name of their service--I understand that view and I have accepted their arguments--they are concerned about public ignorance about the content of the various orders that they invite the court to make.
What, for example, does the term "combination order" tell us about the content of such an order? We know that it combines elements of probation supervision and the
requirement to do unpaid work, and that it is designed both to punish and to rehabilitate the offender, but the name completely obscures those facts. The name "community punishment and rehabilitation order" tells us exactly what the content of the order is and describes what we are asking probation officers to do.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister suggests that I am unwise to pray in aid the National Association of Probation Officers, but its view could not be clearer; I have its briefing here, and it says:
- NAPO is opposed to the renaming of existing community orders. The phrase "probation order" has international resonance and recognition. Community service has a higher profile than the Home Office appears to believe.
Mr. Boateng: I shall not lose any sleep over that, because I do not believe that in this instance NAPO accurately reflects the concerns of its members. Before the hon. Gentleman prays it in aid, he ought to ensure that the cause in question is supported by its members. They tell me that they are concerned that the public should get a better grasp of what they do. The term "combination order" does not give them that grasp, and "community service" fails to tell them what work we ask offenders to do, and why we ask them to do it.
Many people volunteer to do community service because they want to help their neighbours or take part in a local community group, such as Homestart, a citizens advice bureau and so on. They serve the community voluntarily, but we require offenders to pay something back to the community that they have wronged. There is nothing voluntary about that; it is a punishment delivered in the community.
Mr. Boateng: I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): The Minister casts doubt on NAPO's ability to represent the views of its members on this matter on the basis that probation officers have been telling him something different. Will he clarify what measures he has taken to consult probation officers; how many have spoken to him on this matter; and what evidence he has to suggest that those views are more representative than those expressed by NAPO?
9 pm
Mr. Boateng: In my humble way, I can only share with the House what probation officers tell me when I visit probation services throughout the country. They tell me that they want people to have a better sense of what they do. That is what we want to achieve under our proposals.
Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to have aroused such interest.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people share his view
that community service is what the town mayor and borough councillors do, and that the victims of crime especially, for whom the Conservative party often claims to speak, will welcome the refreshingly frank statement that we are talking about community punishment?
Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I could not agree more.
Mr. Boateng: I suspect that I shall not agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has not yet spoken in the debate.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates a lack of agreement between us, given that we usually agree--at least socially, if not in the Chamber. Is he telling the House that the new terminology is clearer and more precise? Community service orders are widely understood and the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. Is he really telling us that they are not widely understood by the public?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, of whom I am fond, is over-egging the pudding when he says that the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. That is going a little too far. We cannot afford to be complacent; we must devise orders that tell their own story. The terms "community rehabilitation" and "community punishment" tell a story.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has made a serious allegation. He has suggested that the trade union which represents probation officers has sent briefings to hon. Members that do not represent their members' views. The leader of that union, Mr. Harry Fletcher, will be very concerned to hear that Her Majesty's Government prefer to believe the Minister's anecdotes. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying that perhaps two or three probation officers, who may or may not be members of NAPO, have made such points to him. However, we are talking about a briefing that has been sent to hon. Members on behalf of the probation officers' trade union. If he does not accept those views, will he accept those of probation committee members from his own party?
Mr. Boateng: The party affiliation of probation committee members is neither here nor there. I regret the politicisation of this criminal justice issue by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who is the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. He should think carefully before suggesting that any party political element is involved. We are concerned with the proper administration of justice. I have no doubt that NAPO performs its proper function in representing its views, but there is more than one view. Others hold views that are inconsistent with the position that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted--in other words, that punishment and rehabilitation are proper adjectives to describe the orders that we ask the House to approve tonight.
Mr. Dawson: In welcoming the conversion of Opposition Members to the concept of trade union rights and their enjoying social occasions with radical reforming
Labour Front Benchers, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have entirely missed the point? The very title of the new national probation service reflects the fact that we are taking the best of the past and renaming some of the most important elements of its work; and shows that we are intent on a new future and putting the bad old days well behind us.
Mr. Boateng: I could not have put it better myself and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the obvious truth that our proposals take forward the reforming, modernising agenda that we have developed around the national probation service.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: I should get on, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because he performed a moment ago, as those attending to the debate will have observed, a rather inelegant wriggle in back-tracking from his truly vicious attack on the integrity and representative character of NAPO. It is a matter of concern to me and to other Conservative Members that he should behave in such an unacademic fashion. He did not provide empirical evidence. Ordinarily I greatly admire him, but does he think that such a contribution is worthy of a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law?
Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's tongue is so firmly in his cheek as to give him a positively hamsterish appearance. There is no way that anything I have said or done could possibly bear the interpretation that he puts on it. We really must get on with debating the amendment in hand. For the reasons that I have outlined--a desire that sentences should be understood--we have adopted these names. I hope that, on reflection, Opposition Members will come to accept them and in time, as I believe they will, welcome them and recognise the good sense that underpins them.
The Opposition have raised the aims of the service in Committee and on Report and I want to deal with whether the amendment would achieve the end on which we all agree. We all share a belief, on which Labour Members have acted, that we ought to bring victims centre stage in the criminal justice system. That is why the Government enacted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and why we are taking the Bill forward. All contribute in their way to ensuring that victims take centre stage and that we establish a greater emphasis on restitution as part of the process of our law. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on victims and support for victims, not least because we increased substantially the grant aid to Victim Support and enabled it to extend its work to cover magistrates and Crown courts. The Opposition signally failed to do that when they had stewardship of the criminal justice system.
We do not accept the amendment, although we well understand where it is coming from. It simply does not meet the requirements of a statutory implementation of the aims of such a service, as it is too narrow and it would underpin some but not all the functions and activities of
that service. For example, the function and activity of preparing reports to advise the courts could not be carried out in such a way as to meet the wording of the amendment. We support entirely, and have developed a range of, accredited programmes which have been shown to reduce the risk of reoffending. Those programmes are being delivered by the probation service and the Prison Service together, and are central to the successful rehabilitation of offenders. That has been done: that is happening. We do not need an amendment like this--poorly drafted and inelegant--to encourage us to proceed in a direction in which we are already proceeding. It adds nothing; indeed, it is a distraction and a possible source of confusion.As for amendment No. 189, I recall that in Committee we did not feel able to accept the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). The amendment would cause the statutory warning to be disapplied to certain cases within the first three months of an order, rather than its being applied to all unacceptable failures to comply with an order. Our position has not changed. If offenders are not returned to court immediately after a first unacceptable failure to comply, a final warning letter must be sent to them explaining the consequences of any further such failure. Clause 48 puts that warning on a statutory footing, and imposes on the probation service a duty to return an offender to court no later than immediately after a second unacceptable failure. That reinforces the new national standard introduced in April.
As I have said before, the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour and, where necessary, to provide evidence such as medical certificates, appointment cards and details of a family crisis, showing that he had a good reason to miss an appointment.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |