| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
("( ) ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public")
Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.
Mr. Boateng: The amendments advance the debate that we had in Committee. Hon. Members will recall a discussion of a semantic nature. We have taken into account the debate in the other place. Victims have always been at the heart of the Bill, and it seeks to ensure that the probation service, as a law enforcement agency, is bound to consider them. Victims' interests, needs and concerns are met day in and day out by probation officers as they carry out their important work, especially in the matter of public protection. Having heard the arguments and reflected on them, we are only too happy to accede to the amendments.
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): Even the Minister of State did not manage to keep a straight face when he made his extraordinary defence of an indefensible position.
Of course we are grateful to the Government for finally accepting the amendment, but it is a little incomprehensible that they should have resisted it right up to the wire and had to undergo a defeat in the other place. They were not at all willing to side with the victims in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
It is difficult to believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the interests of victims are at the heart of the Bill because the Government resisted the proposition that the service should aim to ensure that offenders understand the consequences of their crimes and that they are rehabilitated, both of which would work overwhelmingly in the interests of victims. The penal system, of which the probation service is a part, has always recognised that retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation are the aims of punishment, but rehabilitation plays no part at all in the aims of the service as set out in the Bill, for which the Government fought right up until the last ditch in the other place.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that addressing offending behaviour is a key requirement of people who seek parole. How much more important is it that those who remain in the community, moving among potential victims and generally at large and free to do as they please, should understand the effects of their offending on those who have suffered from it? How much more important must it be at that stage to rehabilitate rather than allow the offender to slide down the slippery slope to prison? It is not enough to say that such aims are generally understood.
We should remember that the aim of the Prison Service is clearly stated at every prison gate--to help prisoners to lead useful and law-abiding lives. If the imperative is so great in the Prison Service that it has to be stated clearly at the gate of every prison, why is it so much less a consideration in the probation service that it should not be explicitly stated in the Bill? It is wrong to exclude from the Bill explicit recognition of victims and of redemption. I am glad that, late in the day, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the need for that recognition, but he has offered no explanation of why the Government fought that to the last ditch in the other place. Why were they so bent on excluding the aims that offenders should understand the consequences of their crimes and should be rehabilitated?
The right hon. Gentleman is still just about managing to keep a straight face. I suggest that he comes to the Dispatch Box and says that the Government are not interested in making those aims primary aims. Rather than pretending that those were the Government's aims all along, he should admit that they lost in the other place and have given the fight up as a bad job.
5.30 pm
Jackie Ballard: As I recall, the long debates that we had on this topic hinged on the difference between aims and functions. At one point, we had a rather Alice in Wonderland argument about which was primary--a function or an aim.
I was never convinced that the Minister believed what he was saying about the difference between aims and functions. [Interruption.] I hope that that was not unparliamentary--I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of telling lies. I think that he knows what I mean. I was convinced, however, that he believes that one of the functions of the probation service is the rehabilitation of offenders, and that victims also have an important place in the system.
I continue to argue--I am glad that at the end of the day we have won the argument--that it is important to put that up in the top line as an aim of the probation service. I welcome the conversion that has occurred in relation to the amendment.
Mr. Boateng: I have heard what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said.
The right hon. Lady might have been a little more gracious and generous in her remarks, but perhaps that is asking too much. She will have read the discussions that we had in Committee. She will know that rehabilitation has always been in the forefront of the work of the probation service. Probation officers work in this area day in and day out. She does them no service by saying that they need reminding of the importance of rehabilitation and victims. They do not need reminding; we do not need reminding. We are happy to accept the amendment. I commend it to the House.
Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 5
Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 3, leave out line 5 and insert
("in respect of its area for the purposes mentioned in section 1 and for ensuring the performance of any other functions conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment on the board,")
Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 95, 99 and 102 to 105.
Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, I shall take a little time to explain the background to the measures that we propose, which build on existing arrangements to protect the public.
In introducing these measures relatively late in the day, we acknowledge the important public debate that took place following the tragic murder of Sarah Payne. All of us would want to pay tribute to Sarah's parents. Through this amendment and amendments Nos. 101 and 154, we have an opportunity to create a memorial for Sarah. This is a package of measures that can properly bear the name "Sarah's law".
The amendments build on and strengthen arrangements for risk assessment and management of sexual and violent offenders by putting those arrangements on a statutory footing. They require the relevant agencies to inform the public about their arrangements and they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the exercise of the new statutory duty, including the content of information to the public. They also put on a statutory footing and extend a duty to consult and inform victims, where it is their wish, about the release arrangements for the relevant offender.
We seek to build on the arrangements put in place by police, probation and other services. I pay tribute to the work that they do to protect the public against such offenders, who might be some of the most dangerous in the community.
In proposing the measures today, we seek to act as quickly as possible to improve the range of measures available to the police and other services to deal with serious sexual offences. Earlier in the summer we set up a major review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; it is in progress and it should be completed at the end of the year. Some of the aspects of the Act under consideration are complex and need proper consideration, but we believe that we should deal now with those measures that can be tightened quickly and effectively without waiting for the full review to be completed.
The harm that sex offenders cause victims is at the heart of the new measures. As further evidence of our intention to extend provision for victims, we are placing a new duty on the local probation board that builds on existing good practice and extends it to a greater number of victims. It will be a requirement that the victims of sex and violent offenders be consulted about whether they want to comment on the terms of the offender's release and, if so, whether they wish to be informed of or propose themselves any conditions that relate specifically to them.
Other measures, such as the proposed sex offender restraining order, will, although new, build on concepts in existing legislation. We ask the House to amend the Bill to include those new measures in memory of Sarah Payne, whose tragic death moved so many of us throughout Britain. It is important that we take this opportunity today to improve the protections available to the public, and we have done so. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I associate the official Opposition with the tributes that the Minister has rightly paid. The Minister will know that the Payne family's home is in a neighbouring constituency to mine and in my county. Everyone in the area and, as the Minister said, throughout Britain, was appalled by the crime, and it is only right that the Government should take the opportunity to make certain changes.
The Minister will appreciate that many later groups of amendments deal with related matters, so it might be more appropriate for me to deal in detail with the Opposition's response when we reach them. We recognise, however, that the Government see this group of amendments as part of a complementary series of amendments to address the issues raised by the Sarah Payne case and other earlier tragedies. The Opposition hope to build on the work done in Committee and in the other place.
In dealing with such serious issues, both Houses of Parliament are often at their best. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will recognise that the matters were addressed seriously by all members of the Committee and by their Lordships.
I do not wish to detain the House on this group of amendments because it would be more appropriate to discuss at length later amendments that deal in detail with sex offenders. There might be points of detail on which we disagree, particularly in the next group of amendments and in some later groups, but we hope that there will be a workable regime that will help to prevent any similar appalling crimes.
We recognise that this is a matter that no Parliament can ever get completely right. Sadly, there are wicked and evil offenders out there. We must do our best to try to create a framework in which the innocent, particularly children, are protected. I hope that the Bill, as amended, will go some way to doing that.
The Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench were right to recognise the way in which the Bill could be used to make some helpful changes. We reserve judgment on whether more will be needed in this difficult area, on which I will say more later.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |