| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is always the difficulty in relation to the Liberal Democrats' approach to the issue. They seek--no doubt with the best will in the world--to be understanding and considerate, but they have missed the point here. The best way to bring about the change or correction--the purpose of the disposal, after all is to change and correct offending behaviour in a community context--is, from the word go, to lay down clear parameters as to what is or is not acceptable. In some instances--as the hon. Member for Taunton will know from her experience--this may be the first time any such parameters have been set in those lives. In doing that, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot get away with.
Jackie Ballard: I guess that the Minister will know what I am about to say. It is very much because it will
be, for some, the first time that parameters have been set that I am suggesting that those concerned need time to learn to adjust to those parameters. Given the three-month period that we are suggesting, it will be clear that any breaches after that period will result in serious consequences.
Mr. Boateng: There is a fundamental difference between us on this matter. We are both agreed as to the end; what we want is compliance. The question is how to get there. Many of the people we are talking about will have been given opportunity after opportunity in the past. They will have received a community penalty in place of a possible prison sentence. There has to be an understanding from the beginning that this opportunity is not given lightly. It is a privilege that will be lost if there is not compliance. That is our considered view. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we believe that the amendment would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one expects low standards, one will get them? If someone spends the first three months on an order learning that they do not have to obey it because they lead a disorderly life, they are likely to want to plead the same way over the following three months.
Mr. Boateng: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who speaks from experience on these matters. We do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendment, which would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting an order most need to be reinforced. The amendment tries to introduce a distinction between unacceptable failures to comply that simply does not exist.
The real distinction is between acceptable and unacceptable failures. That is a question of judgment--a judgment that can take into account a variety of factors. Making that distinction is the professional role of the probation service within national standards and associated guidance. All unacceptable failures to comply are serious and should be dealt with accordingly. We simply cannot accept the philosophy that underpins the amendment and I hope, for that reason, the hon. Member for Taunton will not push it to a vote.
I wish to refer to the Government amendments regarding the extension of electronic monitoring to offenders in the community. That is a separate issue from the debate that we have had about home detention curfews. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, notified the Committee of our intention to table certain amendments to our new exclusion provisions. These would preserve a victim's right to know the relevant terms of the orders, while curtailing their right to more sensitive information about the offender.
The provisions that allow for the extension of electronic monitoring could be used in a variety of circumstances. I much appreciated the support of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in that regard. An electronically monitored exclusion order, for example, could be used to help prevent a known shoplifter from entering premises in which he was accustomed to steal, such as a shopping centre. Or an offender could be
excluded from a house for the purpose of protecting an individual who lives there. In such a situation, it is eminently reasonable and sensible that the person being protected by the terms of the order, or requirement, should know its terms. If an offender who hangs about the house of a woman during the night is excluded from those premises--I have given an example of the hours between 8 pm and 8 am--the victim should know that that is the case. That will tell her exactly what she should be able to expect within the terms of the order--in other words, when the exclusion order is in effect and when it is not.9.30 pm
Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister appreciates, there is an identity of view between the two sides of the House in relation to the importance of these matters, especially those involving domestic and family violence, on which we had some good debates in Committee. However, will he make it clear that he will keep these provisions under review, especially in the light of the danger, of which he is aware as I am, that sometimes in a domestic violence case there can be wrong on both sides?
Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that I would put it like that. I do not know about wrong on both sides. If there is domestic violence and somebody has been the victim of it, that is wrong. I do not care what is on the other side.
Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry if I did not clarify my point. There can be domestic violence by either spouse against the other. The Minister will have seen cases, as I have, where someone is made the subject of a county court order and constantly allows that order to lapse or be breached, and there is violence on both sides. That is my concern.
Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. When there is a development in the law of this nature and when there is a link between that and the development of technology, it is always important to keep matters under review. It is undoubtedly the case that technology can give reassurance to both sides in a domestic dispute. It provides irrefutable evidence and avoids a situation in which one person says yea and the other nay. That is a difficult situation for a court to untangle, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to that. Technology will avoid that.
Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister clarify for the purpose of the debate that an individual who is subject to an exclusion order would be guilty of its breach if he were to enter the property or immediate environ of the person protected from him, and if he were to communicate with that person either by telephone or in writing?
Mr. Boateng: That would depend on the order. Most orders include contact, directly or indirectly. In those circumstances, yes, there would be a breach.
We have talked about these matters in terms of domestic violence, and rightly so. The provisions give an immediate value-added element to the development of technology in this area. I also see them as having a real impact in terms of a certain category of offences committed in shopping malls and shopping centres. There will undoubtedly be an advantage for the managers of those centres or spaces.
I think that it was last year that I saw an example in Wood Green, where there is an excellent relationship between the local police, local retailers and the private security firm that provides the security in Wood Green. The scheme is clearly being implemented in the interests of reducing retail crime, and those concerned have access to the information that X, Y and Z have been tagged. They will then know, given the machinery that they might install in the mall, when someone is in breach of an order.
Dr. George Turner: On a topical subject, might such an exclusion order apply to football grounds?
Mr. Boateng: How very topical. I understand that we have lost 3-2. Yes, the order would certainly have a use in football grounds.
This has been a good debate. We have shared a range of opinions, there has been remarkable unanimity and some probing questions have been asked. My mind, which was very much open to the input of hon. Members of all parties, has been developing in relation to the affirmative resolution and final warning provisions. I am very glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Buckingham that those provisions will apply to community orders listed in schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and the list may be amended by affirmative resolution.
On that happy consensual note, I commend the Government amendments and ask the House to reject amendment No. 122.
Mr. Bercow: I support the amendment, because it is so eminently reasonable and so manifestly sensible that it could be damaging to the reputation of our politics for the Government to insist on rejecting it. The House and the wider public should be aware of that.
I returned earlier the compliment that the Minister kindly bestowed on me and said that I had a great regard for him. I believe that he is a truly brilliant man, although in all fairness he must yield in terms of brilliance to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). As the late Enoch Powell was wont to observe, one sometimes encounters people who are so clever as to be unable to see the simplest point. In this context, that is peculiarly applicable to the Minister.
The amendment is sound, reasonable and fair and suffers from only one political disadvantage: it was tabled by the shadow Home Office team. For that reason, I suspect, the Minister said to his advisers, "I beg you, I kneel before you, I beseech you to offer me some excuse to oppose the amendment." I greatly regret the fact that the Government have decided to do that. I believe that it is wrong and unfair, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.
My second criticism of the Minister is that he violently abused the National Association of Probation Officers. He was challenged to provide the evidence discrediting its claim to represent its members. The Minister is a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law, yet he was reduced to saying that his impression from his chats with probation officers in his perambulations around the country was that they disagreed with the national leadership. That was a triumph of anecdotalism over the professional integrity and representativeness of the association.
My third reason for disappointment in the Minister is that he has backtracked on the welcome humility that he displayed at Home Office questions on 13 March. On that occasion, I welcomed his sensible climbdown on the name of the probation service. In deference to the representations that he had received, he dropped his silly idea of renaming the body with a very long-winded title.
My anxiety is that I have paid a price for my silence in the intervening period--a silence for which the Minister roundly criticised me this evening. I took my eye off the ball, and the right hon. Gentleman used the opportunity to get his own back. It clearly stuck in his gullet 91 days ago to withdraw his proposed renaming, and he now proposes the renaming of a series of penalties. He is wrong to do so. There is no empirical justification for the proposed change. His intention to go ahead with it makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of, or has not taken to heart, the wise adage of Lord Falkland, who said:
- When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |