---

14 Oct 2003 : Column 43W—continued

Criminal Proceedings

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has (a) to introduce a national protocol for the disclosure of third party material in criminal proceedings and (b) to implement Lord Justice Auld's recommendations on disclosure. [128355]

Paul Goggins: Work on a model national protocol between the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police and local authorities on the exchange of information in the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases has been completed. I understand that the CPS Policy Directorate is hoping to issue the model protocol to local CPS areas, police and local authorities in the near future.

Sir Robin Auld's report of his Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales made a number of recommendations on the law on disclosure. The Government's response was published in the Annex to the White Paper, "Justice for All" (column 5563).

Sir Robin's recommendation that there should be a single disclosure test to replace the present two tests is included in the Criminal Justice Bill, currently being considered by the House of Lords. His other recommendations for improving prosecution disclosure were considered in the context of the joint CPS/Police disclosure project. Revised Joint Operational Instructions were issued to the police and CPS in December 2002 and became fully operational in June 2003. The Government is considering how best to take forward Sir Robin Auld's recommendation that consideration should be given to a new statutory scheme for third party disclosure, in the light of the work on the model protocol.

Custodial Sentences

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the deterrent effect of the length of a custodial sentence. [128547]

Paul Goggins: It is extremely difficult to measure the deterrent effect of sentencing separately from its other effects. Apart from serving as punishment, sentences can impact on crime in a number of ways, through incapacitation, reform and rehabilitation, as well as the deterrent effect. Reconviction rates, for example, are lower for those who serve longer terms of imprisonment than those who serve shorter terms, but this reflects a number of factors and the contribution of deterrence cannot be readily isolated.

In 1999, the Home Office's Research, Development and Statistics Directorate commissioned the University of Cambridge to review all the recent research looking at the impact of sentence severity on deterrence. That study ¹ concluded that the limited available evidence in this area suggests that generally the connection between variations in sentence severity and deterrent effect is not direct or strong. Nevertheless the availability (and

14 Oct 2003 : Column 44W

severity) of punishment does appear to have a general deterrent effect for some classes of potential offenders, whose choice of whether to offend is influenced by their perception of the risks of being apprehended and punished. This suggests that known penal threats can have a deterrent effect.

¹ Von Hirsch, A. Bottoms, A. Burney, E. and Wikstrom, P-O. (1999) Criminal deterrence and sentence severity; an analysis of recent research. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. Hart Publishing, Oxford.

Custody Plus Scheme

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed increase in magistrates' sentencing powers will be implemented before the Custody plus scheme is rolled out. [128618]

Paul Goggins: Final decisions on the timing of the reforms in the Criminal Justice Bill have not yet been made. It is likely that we will introduce elements of the sentencing reforms in phases, to ensure that they are introduced without too much disruption, and to enable the Prison Service and the National Probation Service to reach the capacity necessary to implement them successfully.

Custody plus in particular will create an additional caseload for the probation service, which will need to be well planned for.

Our decision on timing will also take into account the potential benefits of linking the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers with the new arrangements for allocation and transfer of cases between magistrates and the Crown court, in Part 6 of the Bill, which we may wish to implement in advance of custody plus.

Gangs

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures have been taken since 1997 to address problems arising from gang culture; and what proposals he has to combat gang violence. [128095]

Paul Goggins: We are taking action to deal with gang-related offending where this is a problem. Initiatives such as the Manchester Multi-Agency Gang Strategy and similar community-based programmes in other areas use a multi-agency approach to deliver interventions targeted at gangs, gang culture and associated offending, while police operations, such as Operation Trident in London, are tackling the association between gang culture and gun crime.

We are also working to prevent young people's problematic involvement in gangs in the first place, in areas where this is an issue. For example, the Youth Inclusion Programme and Safer Schools Partnerships target those young people most at risk of offending to help them avoid problematic behaviours, including gang membership. And the new Positive Activities for Young People programme provides constructive diversionary activities during the school holidays for targeted at risk young people.

14 Oct 2003 : Column 45W

Jury Intimidation

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of jury intimidation in the United Kingdom. [128681]

Paul Goggins: The Crown Prosecution Service and Court Service do not maintain records of the numbers of cases in which jury interference occurs. However, each year there are instances of actual or feared jury interference which necessitate both a range of jury protection measures and the termination of trials before the jury has been able to reach a verdict. In a small number of cases which present a very serious risk of intimidation, the court will order 24-hour police protection for the jury. In 2000, the cost to the Metropolitan Police of such protection was £4.3 million; in 2001, £5.1 million.

The Government have included proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament for a trial on indictment in the Crown Court to be conducted without a jury where there is a danger of jury tampering, or continued without a jury where the jury has been discharged because of jury tampering. The Government believe that these measures will provide a strong and effective disincentive to jury tampering.

Police Custody

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in (1) what circumstances it will be necessary to impose conditions before charge to ensure that a person accused of a crime (a) surrenders to custody, (b) does not commit an offence while on bail and (c) does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to himself or herself or another person; [127674]

(2) what guidance he intends to issue on the situations in which it is necessary to impose conditions before charge to secure that a person accused of a crime (a) surrenders to custody, (b) does not commit an offence while on bail and (c) does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or another person, under the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill. [128630]

Paul Goggins: When a custody officer releases a suspect under the new section 37(7)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the purpose of enabling the Crown Prosecution Service to make a decision as to charge, it will be for to him or her to determine in the usual way whether to impose bail conditions in accordance with section 3 of the Bail Act 1976. No special guidance will be required as to the circumstances in which conditions would be appropriate.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long a suspect can be detained before charge for (a) non-serious arrestable offences and (b) serious arrestable offences. [128651]

Paul Goggins: Section 41 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that an arrested person shall not be kept in detention for more than 24 hours before charge. Section 42 provides that if the person is under arrest for a serious arrestable offence, he may be detained up to a maximum of 36 hours on the

14 Oct 2003 : Column 46W

authorisation of a superintendent or above. Section 43 provides that further detention up to a maximum period of 96 hours must be authorised on application to a magistrate.

Probation Service

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the pay negotiations for the National Probation Service were not concluded by 1 April; when the negotiations will begin; whether a similar timetable will be adopted in 2004; and if he will make a statement. [128346]

Paul Goggins: The pay negotiations for the National Probation Service (NPS) were not concluded by 1 April 2003 because of the need to obtain agreement to the pay remit by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Paul Boateng). The remit was not agreed until 17 July. A pay offer was then made to the Trade Unions on 22 July and this is now subject to an acceptance ballot of Trade Union members. Union leaders have recommended the offer to their members.

It is not intended that a similar timetable will be adopted for 2004. This is because the National Probation Directorate, in conjunction with the Probation Boards' Association (the employers' organisation), is currently negotiating with the Trade Unions a new pay and grading system for the National Probation Service. If agreement can be reached, it is planned that there will be a two-year pay settlement covering the years 2004–05 and 2005–06.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the National Probation Service required a pay remit before their pay negotiations could begin this year; when the remit will be completed; why it could not be completed in time for the pay negotiations to be completed by 1 April; whether a pay remit will be an annual requirement; and if he will make a statement. [128347]

Paul Goggins: When the National Probation Service (NPS) was established in April 2001 the Probation Service moved from being part funded by the local authorities and the Home Office to being solely funded by the Home Office. This change in funding made it appropriate, as with other public services, that the NPS was required to submit its pay remit for approval by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. This arrangement became fully operative for the first time for the 2003–04 pay settlement. Treasury rules require that employers cannot begin pay negotiations with the Trade Unions until the Treasury has approved the remit.

The Chief Secretary agreed the NPS remit on 17 July and a pay offer was made to the Trade Unions on 22 July.

The reason why the negotiations on the NPS pay settlement did not begin until July relates to the extended timetable for clearance of remits through Ministers and the Treasury. Coupled with this is a complex process of ensuring that the proposed settlement is affordable by the NPS and conforms to public sector pay policy. These factors meant that it was not possible for the NPS to meet the 1 April settlement date. It should be borne in mind that a settlement, once agreed, is backdated to the relevant settlement date.

14 Oct 2003 : Column 47W

It is not intended that a similar timetable will be adopted for 2004–05. This is because a new pay and grading system is currently planned for the NPS and a two-year remit will be sought well in advance from the Treasury to cover the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. There should therefore be no repetition of this year's delay.

---