| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Hilary Benn: A research study on the first 16 months of the curfew scheme commissioned by the Home Office was published in June 2001. It showed that home detention curfew assists prisoners in their transition back into the community. The home detention curfew scheme came into operation in January 1999; since then, more than 64,000 offenders have participated in the scheme. There are about 3,000 prisoners on curfew at any one time. About 90 per cent. of prisoners complete home detention Column Number: 961 curfew successfully, and less than 3 per cent. are reported to reoffend. The remaining recalls are due either to breaches of the curfew conditions or to an inability to monitor electronically—for example, if accommodation is lost—because in order to work the system needs suitable accommodation, with a telephone to which the monitoring device can be attached.In practice, the curfew period usually lasts from 7 pm to 7 am, and the offender is electronically monitored by means of a tagging device linked to the telephone. I think that I am right in saying that the tagging device sends out a signal, and if that signal is not received by the monitoring device because the person has gone away from the home—in other words, the person has not complied with the curfew conditions—that is identified by the monitoring company. Inquiries will clearly be made as to the reason. It might be a legitimate reason—for instance, someone has suddenly been taken ill and had to go to hospital—but the person may have decided not to comply with the curfew conditions, in which case the HDC will be brought to an end.
3.45 pmAs I have said, there are clear trigger points at which the contractors are required to send breach reports to the Prison Service. All breach reports are considered and, when appropriate, acted on within 24 hours. We carefully monitor the contractors to ensure that they are issuing breach reports at the appropriate time. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey raised a broader issue about prison places. I acknowledge that he and all hon. Members will be aware of the problem, particularly given the current population pressures on the Prison Service, and the difficulties that inherently result from trying to keep prisoners close to their families—something that the Prison Service works hard to achieve. When taking decisions about the provision of additional prison capacity, the Prison Service pays close regard to the point that he raised. For example there are two new prisons: one at Peterborough and one at Ashford—that is not Ashford in Kent, but the Ashford to the west of London. Simon Hughes: Middlesex. Hilary Benn: Yes. It is intended in part to meet the particular concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am aware also of the concerns that he raised about Wales. We are aware of the difficulties. The Prison Service does its best, but it has to juggle a number of considerations. The first is the desire for prisoners to be close to their homes. The second is whether the prison is appropriate to the prisoner's category. The third is whether, within that category of prison, there is space to undertake courses that are a necessary part of their rehabilitation. At all times, those three factors are being juggled by the Prison Service as it tries to accommodate its strongest objective, which is to ensure that people can be close to home whenever possible. Column Number: 962 Mr. Heath: Are presumptions made in favour of home detention curfew releases? It struck me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was speaking, that one deficiency is the lack of mother and baby units in secure detention—and those that we have are effectively in the wrong place to provide a service for large swathes of the country. An offending mother with a baby is a good example of a class of offender who could, as a priority, properly be released under the scheme instead of being sent to mother and baby units a long way from their other children and the rest of the family. Hilary Benn: All those who are eligible for HDC will be considered. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the exclusions, but someone who fits the circumstances that he described who is eligible for HDC would clearly be considered, subject to meeting the requirements of the scheme—for instance, that there is accommodation to which they can be released. One of the reasons why people who would otherwise be eligible for getting HDC are not released is that they have nowhere to go where the monitoring device can be attached. Otherwise, subject to satisfactory accommodation being available and to meeting the other requirements of the scheme, there is no reason why people should not be able to participate in it. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 710, in
'(a) release on licence under this section a fixed term prisoner aged 18 or over, other than a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody, at any time during the period of 90 days ending with the day on which the prisoner will have served the requisite custodial period, and (b) release on licence under this section a prisoner serving a sentence of intermittent custody when 90 or less of the required custodial days remain to be served.'
No. 556, in
No. 557, in
'(2A) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply in relation to a prisoner unless— (a) the number of required custodial days is at least 56, and (b) the prisoner has served— (i) at least 42 of those days, and (ii) at least three-quarters of the total number of those days.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Hilary Benn: I beg to move amendment No. 558, in
Subsection (3) lists those offenders not eligible for home detention curfew. Subsection (3)(h) relates to the prisoner's return to prison at any time under section 116 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which provides that if an offender who has been released from prison commits another imprisonable offence before his sentence has expired, the court may order his return to prison to serve a period of imprisonment not exceeding the length of the period between the date of the new offence and the expiry date of the sentence. Section 116 applies to all Column Number: 963 sentenced prisoners from the date of their release to the expiry date of the sentence, whether they are released on licence or not. The Bill repeals section 116, as offenders will remain on licence until the end point of their sentence: that is, there is no unexpired part of the sentence beyond the licence period. Clauses 232 and 233 provide for the recall of prisoners while on licence.The amendment removes that category of prisoner from the list of exclusions for home detention curfew. Statutorily excluding from home detention curfew prisoners who have previously breached conditions while on licence unnecessarily limits the discretion of governors when considering such prisoners for release on HDC in future sentences. However, governors will, of course, continue to take such breaches into account when assessing whether an offender is suitable for release on HDC in future. Amendment agreed to. Amendments made: No. 559, in
'or, where the sentence is one of intermittent custody, the number of the required custodial days remaining to be served is less than 14'.
No. 560, in
'(1)(a) or (b), (2A) or (3)(i)'.
No. 561, in
No. 562, in
No. 563, in
'(5) In this section— ''the required custodial days'', in relation to a person serving a sentence of intermittent custody, means— (a) the number of custodial days specified under section 165, or (b) in the case of two or more sentences of intermittent custody, the aggregate of the numbers so specified; ''the requisite custodial period'', in relation to a person serving any sentence other than a sentence of intermittent custody, has the meaning given by paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of section 224(3); ''sentence of intermittent custody'' means a sentence to which an intermittent custody order relates.'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Question put and agreed to. Clause 225, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 February 2003 |
