Baroness Hamwee:

Moved by Baroness Hamwee

60: Clause 14, page 29, line 23, after “requirement” insert “if enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable or”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment is intended to probe the enforceability of a public event attendance prohibition requirement.

My Lords, I too am intrigued and concerned as to how these conditions will be monitored and enforced. I did not support the amendments that are aimed at the same question in the previous group, because I do not think we should make, for instance, the licensee of a pub or the operator of a sports ground the enforcer of conditions. Many of us have been critical enough, in the area of immigration, about making landlords and so on enforcers of government legislation. But I think there is still a lot to explore in this.

I said that I assumed the answer was going to be electronic monitoring, but how is that to be done, unless we are requiring the offender to be confined to a particular place—to home, for instance? They are not as strict as that; they exclude certain events. So does somebody need to know where events—an Oasis concert, a Premier League match or a fringe theatre with a tiny capacity—are taking place? How is this actually checked? The Minister said that the probation officer will get the data from a tag. I do not know enough about how these work to know whether the probation officer can easily find out whether somebody has attended a Sheffield United match. How is that actually done in practice on a day-to-day basis? Does the probation officer have the GPS co-ordinates for everything that might be an issue? It would be helpful if we could understand more about this.

I am concerned about live facial recognition—if it is being used; I do not know whether it will be. It works on the basis of a watch list, which is created for a particular occasion but then, as I understand it, will be deleted; it is not something which would go on for several months. I had thought that live facial recognition was only for the period of surveillance. I am asking for much more briefing on this, which we would then want to be in the public domain, but we need to understand it first.

My noble friend Lord Marks will be speaking to our Amendment 106, but I cannot overemphasise the importance of this amendment, or something like it. The objective is reducing reoffending, so one must enable employment, education, rehabilitation programmes and so on. We know from the experience of other orders that, for instance, the requirement to report to a police station can be imposed with absolutely no regard to the demands on an individual, who is then forced to take a day off work. I am interested to hear how enforcement works with the support for the offender, which is implicit in the activities.

My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, in making the overarching point about necessity and proportionality, has hit on what is, to my mind, a very important point. I wish I had thought of it, but I support him in this. I beg to move Amendment 60.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 61, 66, 102 and 104, standing in my name. I find myself in the unusual position of broadly agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Amendment 60.

This is an example of what I suppose could be called legislative drag, where time has elapsed between the publication of legislation—in this case, Second Reading in the Commons was at the beginning of September—and real-life events today. I want to talk about the broader context of how these proposals and policies may have an impact, in particular on the hospitality sector.

In principle, we do not oppose the creation of new tools to protect the public or manage offenders, but their success, as other noble Lords have said, depends significantly on enforceability. Clauses 14 and 15 lack any operational detail on how the bans on pub or event attendance organisations will be implemented or enforced, making them currently unworkable in practice. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect pubs, bars, off-licences and event venues to police court-ordered bans without a clear enforcement structure. The hospitality sector is already in severe financial distress, and I will return to that shortly. If enforcement is not intended to fall on venues, the Government must explain how probation and policing will manage compliance, given existing resources and the staffing crises that we discussed on day one of Committee.

Parliament is being asked to expand suspended sentences without meaningful clarity on how offenders will be safely managed in the community. The amendments call for government transparency and practical detail before sweeping new powers are approved. These are sweeping powers, so we must answer several questions. Are they enforceable? Are they practical? Are they affordable? Are they realistic? Will they put too much resource-intensive pressure on the hospitality sector, already under huge strain to become de facto agents of the criminal justice system—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned—by policing these policies and proposals?

The hospitality sector is struggling as never before with energy Bills, unaffordable wage increases, a fall in consumer confidence, hikes in national insurance payments, potentially half a billion pounds in holiday taxes to be imposed and a massive increase in business rates through revaluation of rateable values. Increases in rateable values will see the average pub, for instance, paying an extra £12,900 more in business rates in the next three years. Astonishingly, the figures that UKHospitality has released in the last day or so show that there will be a 76% increase for pubs and a 115% increase for hotels in business rates by 2029. The Office for National Statistics data predicts that the sector will lose 110,000 jobs by the end of this year. The Chancellor is implementing only a quarter of the reduction in business rates bills promised earlier this year, and business rates relief has been cut by this Government. We have effectively seen a stealth tax on the hospitality sector.

The regulatory changes in Clauses 14 and 15 may well spell the end of some businesses that are on the tipping point of viability. Pubs Advisory Service figures show that the number of pubs in the UK has decreased by 5% in the last three years, but the average value of the properties has gone up by 36.8% per pub. We are talking about a significant bureaucratic encumbrance for many of these businesses.

The Government and the Minister should address the big questions. Who will manage this policy? What is the structure for enforcement? Who will be responsible for compliance? Where are the transparency, accountability and, above all, the details? The Minister must address all these issues, not just hope for the best and fall back on secondary legislation.

My Lords. I shall express my scepticism about Amendments 60, 61 and 66. They seem to be, in each respect, impractical.

In Amendment 60, I find myself looking at the phrase,

“if enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable”.

That, in one sense, is perfectly sensible, but who is going to determine that? Is it going to be a justiciable issue? Is the Probation Service going to hop up and say: “I’m afraid we can’t do that”? What if the defendant says: “Oh yes, you can”? We would get ourselves into an extraordinary situation. There would be some adverse consequences too, because a judge might be ill-inclined to make such an order, which in principle is highly desirable but there is some doubt as to the possibility of it being enforced. This seems to me to be a tricky road down which to go.

In Amendment 61, I find that the supervising authority must notify all public events within a radius of 20 miles. I suppose the supervising authority for these purposes is the Probation Service, but is the Probation Service to be expected to know about all public events? If it is, it could be quite a burden on it to circulate to all public events. What if others come into play after the order is made? It seems to me, again, that this is rather an impractical suggestion.

Another rather impractical suggestion is to be seen in Amendment 66, where we find that

“the relevant supervising authority must notify all licensed drinking establishments within a radius of 20 miles”.

That implies quite a lot of knowledge on the part of the supervising authority. Perhaps it will have that knowledge, but this will be a tremendous burden on it. These amendments may well have a good purpose behind them, but one asks whether they are really deliverable. Are these the sort of things we should load on to a hard-pressed supervising authority? I think they are manifestly not.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 101A. This Bill introduces a provision to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence, without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. This amendment would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. Such oversight would guard against unintended consequences and provide due process both for victims and for offenders. It would afford victims and offenders an opportunity to make representations to an independent judicial body both before licence conditions are imposed and subsequently, should changes in circumstances arise. For example, a victim may want to live in or enter the restricted area and seek a variation to enable them to do so without fear.

A restriction zone is highly onerous, restricting almost every aspect of a person’s life, including their ability to work, receive specialised medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places a huge administrative burden on the authorities. The proposed new restriction is a significant step akin to control orders, now replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but without any requirement for judicial oversight. Those assessed as a terrorism risk currently benefit from initial oversight from the High Court to allow for an evaluative judgment as to the necessity and proportionality of such conditions and have ongoing opportunities for review.

This amendment seeks to introduce judicial review by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. Its oversight of such conditions would be an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed on offenders and provide an opportunity for victims to voice any potential impact on them before an independent body. The significant point is that there should be judicial oversight. The Parole Board, in my view, is an appropriate body as it has the expertise and capacity. The High Court would be more expensive and onerous. I appreciate that the Parole Board does not have oversight of licence conditions set for standard determinate sentence prisoners, whereas a restriction could technically be imposed on them. However, there is no reason why standard determinate sentence prisoners could not be referred to the Parole Board if they were being considered for restrictive zone conditions. My principal point is to try to ensure that there is official oversight of these onerous conditions.

My Lords, on 20 September there were 26,647 people subject to electronic monitoring, with various types of tags and for a range of different purposes. It has been estimated that this Bill will increase the number of people being tagged by an additional 20,000. In other words, it will more or less double the number of people being tagged.

In our deliberations, we have already heard the Minister make it clear that his understanding is that the vast Majority of people who leave prison will be among those 20,000 people. Although it is true that there is guidance which says:

“Offenders released from prison will enter a period of ‘intensive supervision’ tailored to their risk and the type of crime”,

it acknowledges that probation officers will be allowed some discretion as to whether all prisoners leaving will be tagged. My real concern is that probation officers who have heard the Minister say that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged are going to end up tagging the vast majority of prisoners. That is why I have tabled Amendment 110ZA, the purpose of which is to require

“the relevant authority, when considering whether to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a relevant order, to have regard to whether the requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the order and whether the requirement is proportionate considering the individual’s circumstances”.

The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee did an investigation into tagging as it currently stands and looked ahead at what might be coming down the track. We heard a number of worrying bits of evidence. For instance, we heard about a 77 year-old woman recalled to prison simply because there was not a tag small enough to fit her. We heard from many people about the stigma attached while they are wearing a tag, even to the point that people who see the tag—which is pretty obvious in many cases—are frightened and believe they are dangerous. None of this helps them re-establish themselves in their local communities.

We also discovered a number of serious ethical issues. For instance, we found evidence that black people are almost twice as likely to be subjected to electronic monitoring as their white counterparts. Even the Home Office acknowledged this in a 2023 equality impact assessment which acknowledged that GPS tagging may disproportionately affect some nationalities. The MoJ told our committee that it, too, accepted that electronic monitoring might not be suitable for all individuals and addressed issues such as work, childcare commitments and so on.

There are also other measures that are rarely taken into account. One very good example is a prisoner I spoke to who had gone into prison because of his gambling addiction—he had stolen money and gone into prison as a result—and then on release had a curfew order. When he said he wanted to go to a meeting at Gamblers Anonymous, he was told he could not because that took place in the evening when the curfew applied. That seems fairly nonsensical to me.

We concluded as a committee that the MoJ, alongside the judiciary and the Probation Service, should conduct regular reviews to ensure electronic monitoring is being used proportionately across all groups, as well as appropriately among vulnerable groups, in which we highlighted women in particular. In tabling this amendment, I wanted to draw attention to the committee’s concern about the blanket assumption that the vast majority of prisoners would be tagged.

We think this is really important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has said. We will also hear similar arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who has an amendment on this issue in the next group. In group 7, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will raise the important issue of allowing offenders to have a say in this so that they can point out the impact that a tag of one sort or another may have on their lives—not being able to go to work, childcare issues or whatever. My noble friend on the front bench has amendments later on whether driving bans and exclusion zones could impact somebody’s ability to reduce reoffending.

This is simply an opportunity for the Minister to explain that he does not really believe that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged and that probation officers, with the expertise which he points out they have, will be able to have due discretion over whether tagging or electronic monitoring is appropriate.

My Lords, I very briefly beg the indulgence of the Committee just to respond to my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems that he wishes to will the ends but not the means as regards my Amendments 61 and 66. I am rather surprised he did not know where every pub was in his Constituency, because when I was in the other place I knew where every pub was in my constituency. That said, I say to him respectfully that it is perfectly reasonable in terms of data management to utilise the regulatory and the licensing regimes of local authorities to reach every pub and drinking establishment in a geographical area, and certainly within 20 miles. That is not something that is beyond the wit of the Probation Service to work with local authorities so to do.

Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category—that is, prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events—may generally be too wide in any case, because it is going to be very difficult to define a “public event”.

Moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability but with enforcement, spoken to in the last group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, foresaw difficulties in determining practicability, which he thought might be fatal to these conditions. I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question for the Committee in considering whether these conditions ought to be permitted is to see how far they would in practice be imposed if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability.

I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points relating to community orders, if I can put it that way, and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is pretty easy to find out where the pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and intelligence-gathering techniques might be needed to address.

However, when I talk about justification, it is right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement. They are in part, therefore, punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, which is a far more serious punishment, and one that with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender having the opportunity to undertake any rehabilitative activity at all.

The other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring, as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer. Although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, monitoring by tagging is no different from monitoring by curfew or by a residence requirement, which we have had for a very great deal of time, but the new technology enables a more flexible and wider approach to conditions. However, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.

Amendment 106 in my name would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes, but those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restriction zone conditions.

The purpose of this amendment in each of its sub-clauses is to enable both the courts when imposing conditions and probation professionals to weigh in the balance, on the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition, against on the other the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It is a classic balancing exercise of a type that is undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity, and that is really what we are talking about here. The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of it is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So, the condition could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions, which will permit the desirable activity.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions, and of course I see that. But these conditions are not perfect, they will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. However, for the most part, in practice, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there, and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach.

Questions of affordability were raised, and of course more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions, but those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the Parole Board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I am not quite sure how that will work—it seems an onerous obligation on the Parole Board—but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones. In a general sense, that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges on how they are to be imposed, and by training of probation officers in how they are to be implemented.

On electronic monitoring, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke, if it is proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree with her points.

My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. In doing so, I am sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of the Committee about these provisions in the Bill.

It has already been made clear that we on these Benches do not in principle oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody, and we support that aim. But Clauses 14 and 15 do little more than say that courts now have these powers. The Government have provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced. A ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise and, indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence.

The Government want this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community-based orders. Yet to support them in this effort, they are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub, club, concert and public event bans, without explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan. Are we seriously proposing that every pub, bar, off-licence and concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? The result would be unacceptable. If such pub bans become unenforceable and are reduced to a tick-box exercise in sentencing documents while nothing on the ground actually changes, the sanction will become meaningless. That would not be an improvement in justice.

The burden that such a regime would place on the hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. Pubs and nightlife venues are already under severe financial and structural pressure, as we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association. As a consequence of the national insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed on these venues by the Government, some 209 pubs—an average of eight a week—have closed permanently and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, never mind unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court-imposed bans on individuals under threat of legal liability.

The Government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie on public events or drinking establishments, but, in that case, they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a Probation Service that, as everyone would accept, is already under severe strain. Simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough. We require specifics if we are to trust that the Government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community. If the Government cannot explain clearly how these bans will be notified, enforced or policed, how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these Benches must ask: on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders, if we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work and without the most basic detail on banning access to pubs or events?

The amendments offer a simple test. They would require the Government, before we hand out sweeping powers to courts, to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified: pubs, events, promoters, the police? What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishments? How will these bans be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring: the state, the Probation Service or venues? If the Government cannot provide that clarity, these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions. They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real-world effect, and that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and public safety.

The choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers; it is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community-based orders; they demand that, if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by a robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith. We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her Amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to another important question that is central to the debate on these orders. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to his Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, such as to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.

On the part of the amendment that requires an annual report on the orders’ use and effectiveness, we on these Benches support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that the provisions in the Bill are working or will work. We therefore fully support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important probing amendments.

My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will make two apologies. The first is to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham; my noble friend Lady Hamwee tells me that I referred to him twice as the “noble Viscount, Lord Hogg”. The second is to my noble friend Lord Foster, because I referred to the points that he made on electronic monitoring as having been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I apologise to them both.

I will join the trend. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for calling him “Lord Sanderson” in my enthusiasm to agree with him. Misnaming is almost as bad as misgendering, but I hope he will let me off. I was glad to take credit for the very important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about electronic tagging, because I agree with him.

I want to query the Minister now, rather than interrupting him later, about this group. There is something I do not understand. The group is focused largely on enforceability, yet in the previous group, the Minister claimed that these kinds of prohibitions were part of the punishment. He is right to suggest that these are punishments for those people—they are not in prison, but they are still being punished. But I do not find it easy to understand how these orders punish the individuals. Are they related to the crimes they committed? The example that the Minister gave earlier was that, as part of the punishment, someone will be prevented from going to a particular football match. I understand that, if someone supports Liverpool, it might be a punishment to watch them at the moment, never mind anything else.

How do the punishments get decided? There was the example that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave of the potential downside of saying that we will have a curfew and someone cannot attend their Gamblers Anonymous meeting. Also, if we are going to say that, as part of the punishment, someone cannot go to public gatherings, who decides which public gatherings are included? Some public gatherings are obviously morally good for people. Do we not want them to go to a political public gathering?

Can the Minister just clarify how it is decided which person in the community gets one of these orders and who makes a decision about who should be banned from a pub, football match, public gathering, political gathering or what have you?

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Prashar, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, for tabling these amendments.

Amendments 60, 61 and 66 refer to the enforcement of the new community requirements. I hope that the noble Baroness and noble Lord will be satisfied with a summary of the answer I gave in the previous group: responsibility for enforcement sits with the Probation Service, which has a range of options available to respond to non-compliance. This includes returning the offender to court, where they may face further penalties. This can include being sent to custody.

The noble Baroness asked how this works in practice, and I hope I can assist. Where electronic monitoring is imposed, the electronic monitoring service provider will receive an automatic breach notification if the offender breaches a licence condition predetermined by a court or probation officer. They will then provide information on the breach to the individual’s probation officer by 10 o’clock the following morning, for them then to take the appropriate action. If the noble Baroness would like further clarification and to speak to the experts whom I work alongside, I would be very happy to arrange that.

Amendments 102 and 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, concern the enforcement of new licence conditions. As with the new community order requirements, the enforcement of licence conditions will mirror current practice. Where it is supervising offenders, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach of licence conditions. It will have available to it a suite of options to respond to the breaches, including issuing a warning and increasing supervision; where needed, it also includes recall to custody.

Again, I hope that an example will assist your Lordships. Lucy has recently been released from prison after serving a custodial sentence after seriously assaulting someone in a pub. Her licence condition includes a ban on entering any drinking establishment. After several weeks, Lucy admits to her probation officer that she has frequently been going to pubs and clubs. Even though she has not been arrested, her probation officer decides that more intensive supervision is needed to manage her risk, and puts this in place.

As with community orders, where an offender is on licence, there is no expectation for businesses or venues to manage these conditions. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly pointed out, imagine a probation officer, already under pressure, having to notify every pub, bar and venue within 20 miles that certain offenders cannot go there. Imagine businesses having to store securely, monitor and update this information and, by implication, having to be responsible for enforcing these conditions. This is not for venues or people in the community to manage, and it will not help offenders integrate back into their communities. The Probation Service will continue its management and supervision of these offenders; it is best placed to respond to any breaches, including recalling offenders to prison if necessary.

However, we must be clear: we cannot monitor every offender in every moment of every day, and nor should we. Complying with licence conditions is an important way in which offenders can show a reduction in their risk as they reintegrate into their communities. It is how they can rebuild the trust they have lost by committing crimes. The punishment correlates to offending behaviour and the decision of the sentencer who takes into account the nature of the offence.

I hope that this reassures noble Lords and noble Baronesses that these measures will provide our Probation Service with a full suite of options to support it in managing offenders in the community—a task it is best equipped to do. Of course, we are also supporting the Probation Service with more funding, more recruitment and better tools to help it do what it does best: keeping the public safe. We therefore believe that these amendments are unnecessary, and I urge noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.

With all due respect to the Minister, that is not a great example, because the example he gives is that Lucy has volunteered the information that she is in breach of her licence conditions. Given that the licence conditions are a de facto replacement for potential custodial centres, had she not told the probation officer, she would still have been in breach of the licence conditions as she was still going to the pub. I do not really think that that is a great example, with all due respect to the Minister.

I am happy to provide further examples if that would be helpful but it may be that the tag, if Lucy had had one on, would have been used by the monitoring team to identify where she had or had not been.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions. I am proud to be a Minister in the Government who introduced this measure. These zones will pin certain offenders down to a specific geographical area to ensure that victims can move freely everywhere else. I must pay tribute to those who campaigned tirelessly for this crucial change, including Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton.

I hope that it will help your Lordships if I explain in a little more detail how the process of drawing a restriction zone will work. Where a restriction zone is deemed necessary and proportionate to manage risk, probation officers will conduct a detailed risk assessment. They will work closely with victim liaison officers, to ensure that victims have been given the chance to make representations where appropriate, but they must also ensure that offenders can access all necessary services, including employment, with consideration of public protection and risk. They must not be a barrier to employment or prevent rehabilitation; as someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, noble Lords will know that this is the last thing I would want to happen.

On a recent visit to the Serco office in Warrington, I saw at first hand how exclusion zones are designed. I saw the detailed consideration and care that is given when developing them; I will ensure that the same level of attention is given to restriction zones when those are being drawn, with due consideration given to the needs of both the victim and the offender. Let us be clear: these considerations are inextricably linked. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycling of reoffending are vital parts of ensuring that restriction zones protect victims. Restriction zones, like all restrictive measures, must accommodate rehabilitative aims, such as employment; that way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims.

Amendment 101A from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would give the Parole Board oversight of restriction zones. Although I thank the noble Baroness for raising this matter, my firm view is that, as I have set out throughout this speech, the Probation Service is best placed to monitor and request licence conditions; and that the judiciary is best placed to hand out orders.

The Parole Board is best placed to develop risk management plans on release for indeterminate sentence offenders and more serious determinate sentence offenders whose release it directs. It is not for it to do so in cases where offenders are subject to automatic release. If an offender is released automatically without any involvement of the Parole Board, it would be inappropriate for the board then to be asked to approve a restriction zone for an offender whose release it did not direct; it would have no knowledge of the individual and their case. As with current provisions, it is right that the Probation Service will manage the licence for these cases. It is the one who know the offender and the risk they pose best.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 110ZA. I agree that it is important to ensure that electronic monitoring is imposed where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. When an electronic monitoring condition is being considered following an individual’s release from custody, the Probation Service will carry out an extensive assessment of that individual’s circumstances to ensure that electronic monitoring is used appropriately as part of its wider supervision. Conducting these assessments via the professional judgment of our Probation Service remains a core principle to ensuring that electronic monitoring is used only where it is proportionate and necessary. I have full confidence in the checks and decisions taken by the Probation Service, and I have confidence in the technology that is used to enforce any electronic monitoring requirement. I can assure the noble Lord that the electronic monitoring suitability checks currently in place and carried out by the Probation Service are robust; they ensure that the imposition of electronic monitoring will not result in harm to victims or perpetrators.

We are confident that probation officers will continue to impose electronic monitoring where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, this is one of those occasions when scrutiny is important to both the proponents and opponents of a proposition. Some of us want to make sure that it works; others want to show that it will not. I hope that the Minister will understand that, certainly from these Benches, we are seeking not to oppose what he is planning but to understand how it will work. To me, identifying where there is a breach is the big question mark. I enthusiastically accept his suggestion that we can have further briefings; although I never like doing things in private, those are a necessary step.

The noble Viscount criticised my drafting rather than the substance—at least, I hope that was the case. I know of the case of the lady whose wrists were too slim to take a tag. It was worse than that. She kept being told that she was in breach because it was understood that she was refusing to wear a tag, whereas she could not. There are a lot of situations that one cannot quite imagine until one discovers that they have actually happened.

I am sure that we will come back to this subject of enforcement. Having had a look at the relevant Clause just now, I am relieved that these are not among the provisions that will commence immediately on the passing of the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendments 61 to 64 not moved.

Clause 14 agreed.