| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jackie Ballard: I know what the Minister is saying, but I think he accepts that many such offenders have a chaotic life style. Does he not also accept that it will take time for a supervising officer to help an offender to change that life style? The proposed three-month period is not intended to go against the spirit of what the Minister is trying to achieve; it is simply intended to provide the necessary time.
Mr. Boateng: We have considered the issue carefully. We moved to the new national standard in April, after a period during which a lighter touch was applied.
We are satisfied that we must begin as we intend to proceed. There is scope for judgments on whether failures to comply are acceptable or unacceptable, and I would expect the considerations mentioned by the hon. Lady to be taken into account in the determination of whether a failure was acceptable or unacceptable. If an individual was in the process of responding positively, and restoring order to a chaotic life style--and, in that context, was able to establish, by means of medical certificates, appointment cards or the provision of other details, why there had been a failure to attend--such an individual could be judged on that basis.
Judgments could be made, on a case-by-case basis, by supervising officers, in accordance with national guidance. We are not talking about removing the capacity
of the individual making the judgment to work with the offender, and to work with the grain of that person's vulnerability. We are saying, "This is the standard that we expect of you".Unlike the official Opposition, we do not propose an automatic return to court for each unacceptable failure to comply. I am sure that the hon. Lady is under no illusion in regard to where they are coming from. They are not coming from the same place as her. We have seen with our own eyes the attempt to concoct an alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party--an unholy alliance, if I may say so, in the context of this aspect of enforcement.
9.15 pm
Our proposals are pragmatic. They give some discretion to take account of personal circumstances when considering enforcement, and give offenders a chance to respond to a warning about their future conduct. Therefore, we will not be returning offenders to court unnecessarily, but we cannot permit repeated failure to comply, or lax enforcement.
Jackie Ballard: I shall not respond to the comments about the unholy alliance because I am sure that the Minister will have observed that Liberal Democrats vote with the Government when we think that they are right and with the Opposition when we think that they are right. It is not about whom we have alliances with; it is about the issues.
May I probe the Minister a little more and make sure that I understand what he has said? Is he saying that, if the personal circumstances of an offender are such that he has turned up late for two or three appointments in a row, for reasons that he does not have appointment cards to prove--it is because of a chaotic life style that he is working towards changing--the probation officer will have discretion not to breach that offender automatically, or is he saying that the officer will have to breach him automatically?
Mr. Boateng: I am saying that the national standards are there. The law is there on the context and circumstances in which someone needs to be returned, but it is important to remember that the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour. He will have had an opportunity to produce evidence where it is appropriate.
Judgments will have to be made. People will make them in the context of what they know of the offender. Therefore, a professional judgment must still be made, but we say that the public cannot be expected to have confidence in community penalties unless they are rigorously enforced. Where there is a failure to comply that is deemed to be unacceptable, it is serious and must be dealt with. The probation officer needs to be in a position to make those judgments.
Mr. Brady: Will the Minister confirm that simply saying by way of explanation that one has a chaotic life style would not be sufficient to convince the court?
Mr. Boateng: Of course it would not, and I would not expect it to be sufficient to convince a probation officer. I do not want to be flippant about it, but those of us who
have worked in that area in whatever capacity--whether as lawyers, social workers, probation officers or justices sitting--all know that people come up with the most absurd excuses. They seek to hide behind the notion of a chaotic life style as an excuse for not getting their act together, yet they manage to get their act together remarkably when it comes to the act of signing on and when it is something to which they attach value and importance. We are trying to move towards a situation in which an offender comes to attach value and importance to the court order. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that offenders cannot flout or ignore a court order and that, if they do, such conduct will not be condoned by their probation officer.At its best, the service shows that, where offenders are faced with consistent discipline, and with determination and rigour in terms of enforcement, they respond to that certainty. That enhances the offender's view of the court order. It enhances compliance and the public's confidence in community penalties generally. That is why we want to put the warnings to offenders on a statutory footing.
The amendment attempts to apply the statutory warning scheme only to the so-called more serious cases and, further, only to such of those cases that arise after the first three months since the commencement of the order. It is misguided to allow that grace period to enable someone to come to terms with the discipline of the order. Offenders need to come to terms with it from the word go, and to be helped and assisted in doing so.
Amendment No. 189, as drafted, would not have any practical effect. Offenders in the first three months of their order would simply be given a non-statutory warning for an unacceptable failure to comply and, in accordance with national standards, be returned to court no later than the second such failure. They would face the same penalty for a breach--usually imprisonment--as offenders who are given a statutory warning. That is what the national standards are all about. The amendment would, therefore, remove the deterrent effect of the statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting such an order most need to be reinforced.
Mr. Bercow: It would be helpful to the House, in seeking to evaluate the amendments in this group, to know whether the regulations flowing from the unamended clause would be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?
Mr. Boateng: We have always taken the view that certain categories of regulation should be subject to the negative procedure, and that others should be subject to the affirmative one. I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman pushes me on it, to share my own view on the issue--on which I do not have a closed mind. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was even kind enough to suggest that I was noted for my open-mindedness on these issues. Indeed, I could not be more open-minded on an issue than I am on this one.
My mind is currently veering towards the notion of a negative resolution--[Hon. Members: "Oh, no."]--but, if my arm were twisted, I could be persuaded that an
affirmative resolution might be more appropriate. What does the hon. Gentleman think about it? Which would he prefer?
Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Minister. In what might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of a time-out in basketball, he could always consult and look for further and better advice. He will not be surprised to know that my own advice, especially after being chastised by him for my uncharacteristic silence in this debate and in our previous consideration of the Bill, is that we should have the affirmative procedure. That procedure--so that members of the public are aware of it--entails providing the opportunity for substantial and considered debate on the regulations' merits, rather than the quite scurrilous process whereby the Government ram them through the House in accordance with the negative procedure, which facilitates no debate at all.
Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Then again, he would say that, and I have no doubt that, in his position, I would say the same. I myself am not necessarily persuaded of the need for national standards to be established by any order-making power. Nevertheless, if that is an idea that he has, I am only too happy to consider it. I shall write to him and let him know how my mind develops on that particular issue. I should return to the substantive issue.
Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: I really must not continue giving way like this. However, I will on this occasion.
Mr. Hayes: I do not want to disrupt the joust between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)--especially as I have no knowledge of netball or whatever it was they were dealing with--but I, too, should like to return to the substantial issue. It seems to me--perhaps the Minister will confirm it--that amendment No. 189 is less fair to offenders. Loosening the requirements in the initial period may confuse and bewilder offenders, making them feel that they have more latitude than they really have and that they can play fast and loose with the service. Ultimately, therefore, rejecting the amendment, as the Minister recommends, would be fairer not only to society as a whole, but to offenders themselves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |