Clause 1
Offender Management Bill
9:15 am
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Harborough, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 1, page 2, line 25, at end add—
‘(6) This section applies to—
(a) the functions of the Secretary of State; and
(b) the functions of providers of probation services and their officers so far as they are exercised for the purposes set out in this section.
(7) In exercising those functions the person concerned must have regard to—
(a) the protection of the public;
(b) the reduction of reoffending;
(c) the proper punishment of offenders;
(d) ensuring offenders’ awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public;
(e) the rehabilitation of offenders.’.
The amendment would insert two further subsections into the clause, which is essentially about the ambit of probation and its purposes. To place the amendment in context, probation purposes are defined, at least in part, by clause 1 as drafted. Subsection (1) sets out what might be expected from a provider of probation services. Much of what is described in subsection (1) happens already, first, as a matter of good practice, and, secondly, because that is what the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 requires of the probation service.
The third reorganisation of the probation service since the Government came to office in 1997 was effected by the 2000 Act, which set up the national probation service and the national probation directorate.
I declared an interest on Second Reading that as a Crown Court recorder—a part-time judge in the Crown Court trying criminal cases with juries—I receive pre-sentence reports in the event of a defendant being found guilty in order to assist me in the disposal of the case.
Clause 1(1)(a) states that “probation purposes” means, among other things providing for
“courts to be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass, and making other decisions, in respect of persons charged with or convicted of offences”.
That is what the probation service now does. I have been in receipt of such advice and assistance in writing and orally.
Paragraph (b) provides for
“authorised persons to be given assistance in determining whether conditional cautions should be given and which conditions to attach to conditional cautions.”
That is also something that the probation service does already. Its clients, as they are called, are interviewed, and the service works out the best way to deal with the defendant in respect of the facts of the case, bearing in mind the consequences for the victim of the offence, before the criminal justice system. The probation service then reaches a decision that the court may, or may not, accept.
Paragraph (c) deals with
“the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences”.
That area of the probation service’s work has perhaps caused the most controversy recently, because of those defendants who are given community punishment rather than a custodial sentence and placed under the supervision of a probation officer. They are at large, depending on the terms of the sentence and the requirements attached to it under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Such offenders are supervised by a probation officer, who must not only literally supervise them—that is, keep an eye on them and ensure that they do what is required—but ensure, through meetings, conversations, discussions and an understanding of the offenders’ problems or difficulties, that they are rehabilitated and reformed and that they comply with various conditions that the court has set for them.
Paragraph (d) deals with
“the giving of assistance to persons remanded on bail”.
Bail hostels are hugely controversial. A “Panorama” programme just before Christmas dealt with a bail hostel or hostels in the Bristol area, where a number of people on bail—clearly not for offences so serious that they should have been in custody, but for offences none the less—were able to misbehave while on bail. There is a difficulty in supervising people in bail hostels. A bail hostel is not a prison. On the other hand, it is not run by the police; it is nominally managed and run by the probation service.