Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I will make one very brief point in relation to this. Of course, one has sympathy with the overall notion that it is important that the classification of offenders as low, medium or high-risk is carried out with a great degree of care. However, I would suggest that the classification reflected in the title of the new clause as proposed in the amendment,

“Low, medium and high risk offenders”,

is more likely to be accurate than the classification in proposed subsection (2) of the amendment, which deals with the classification of offences. The reason for that is found in the words of proposed subsection (2), which says that,

“the definition of a low or medium risk offender shall not include offences of a violent or sexual nature, stalking or domestic violence”.

That would mean that any ordinary common-law offence of assault, any assault occasioning actual bodily harm or any low-grade affray would take an offence out of the classification that would enable the offender to be classified as low or medium risk. These classifications need to be capable of fine-tuning and I have serious doubts whether it is appropriate for that fine-tuning to be given effect by a classification that merely considers the offences rather than the offenders.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this has been a brief debate but I fully appreciate and accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that it is an important one and I hope that I can respond constructively.

I thank my noble friend Lord Marks for his intervention. It is questionable whether the kind of fine-tuning in this area to which he referred is done at arm’s length. It is done by the professionals on the ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has referred in a number of his interventions to the Chief Inspector of Probation, Liz Calderbank, and the concerns that she has expressed. I make it clear that we have carefully considered the points she has made in response to our consultation. Our strategy document specifically sets out how we will seek to ensure that some of her concerns are met. The Secretary of State has met the chief inspector to discuss her concerns and she will continue to make an input as we develop this policy.

Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was the importance of victims. We share that concern. We are retaining the victim liaison role for all cases to which it applies. We are committed to ensuring that the reformed system is responsive to the needs of victims, and we decided it was right that the public sector should continue to exercise its experience and professionalism in conducting this role.

In discussing these areas, it is easy to exploit public emotion and concern when one refers to sex offenders, murderers or rapists. Let us be clear: every offender who poses a high risk of serious harm to the public will continue to be managed by the public sector probation service. Public sector probation professionals will decide on the allocation in each case. They will retain management of every offender who poses a high risk of serious harm to the public and every offender who falls under the multiagency public protection arrangements—or MAPPA. We will not get into second guessing the judgment of probation professionals about who poses a high risk of serious harm but we will have a very clear set of rules.

The public sector will have overall responsibility for public protection and the Ministry of Justice will ensure the effective management of risk of serious harm. We will set out clear expectations and standards in service level agreements and contracts with both the public sector probation service and market providers. Day-to-day responsibility for managing the risk of serious harm that an offender poses sits with the organisation allocated the case management according to the standards set. This will be the public sector in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of harm is assessed as medium or low.

Let me reassure noble Lords that this matter of risk has been foremost in our minds when designing the new system. Although the majority of offenders will in future be managed by contracted providers, we are clear that every offender who poses a high risk of harm to the public will continue to be managed by the public sector National Probation Service. We are also clear that it will be professionals in the National Probation Service who assess the risk posed by every offender at the outset. By the way, I take pride every time I read the words “National Probation Service”. One of the good things that will come out of these reforms is a National Probation Service with the esteem and professional recognition that it deserves.

We have already recognised that the public will want reassurance that those who have committed the most serious sexual and violent offences will be managed by the public sector probation service. That is why we have said that anyone managed under multiagency public protection arrangements will remain with the public sector, whatever their risk level. That includes offenders who have committed serious sexual or violent offences and other offenders who may cause serious harm to the public. The proposed amendment would go further, requiring all those who have been convicted of violent or sexual offences, stalking or domestic violence to be treated as high risk regardless of the length of sentence imposed. Many of those individuals will already fall to be managed by the National Probation Service under MAPPA, but we believe that a blanket approach like this goes too far and would not be effective in identifying those individuals who need the most careful management. Indeed, it would mean major changes to the way the current probation framework deals with offenders. While I am sure that is not the noble Lord’s intention, I hope it will help if I explain how risk is assessed and managed, and why this amendment would cut across professional discretion.

Assessing and managing the risk posed by offenders is a complex job involving a great deal of professional expertise. It needs to take a wide range of circumstances into account. The offence of which an offender has been convicted is only one of the relevant factors and is not always a good indicator of risk. There will be many others: age, criminal history, education, employment, substance misuse, interpersonal issues, and accommodation status, for example.

It is vital that the experienced professionals can use their expertise to make the right decisions to protect the public. I believe that it should be those practitioners, rather than Parliament, who should decide what constitutes a high risk of harm. Automatically deeming high risk an offender who has committed a particular offence could mean subjecting that individual to supervision that is significantly in excess of what is warranted. Indeed, there is a possibility that for low-risk offenders, providing overly heavy supervision and intervention might actually increase rather than decrease their risk.

It might also provide some reassurance if I set out in more detail how the process will work once the initial allocation has been made. During our consultation, we were told that splitting the management of offenders between the National Probation Service and the contracted providers would require clearly defined responsibilities and accountabilities at every level and a clearly defined process for managing rapid changes in offender risk. We agree, and we have built those into the design of the new system.

We are developing a risk management system that is both proactive and responsive to changes in risk. At the heart of our system is the recognition that at an operational level those managing an offender must have day-to-day responsibility for managing the risk of harm posed by that offender. This will be the National Probation Service in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of serious harm is assessed as medium or low. However, we also recognise that risk of serious harm can change during the course of a sentence, and we are putting a series of safeguards in place to ensure that changes in risk are picked up and appropriately acted on and that responsibilities are clear at every level.

We will pursue an approach that will build on existing good practice. We already know that good quality offender management practice supported by clear policies and close multiagency work are the necessary building blocks for effective risk management. The new National Probation Service and providers will be required to interact and work together to ensure a cohesive approach to managing risk.

I turn to the detail of the process we envisage. The National Probation Service will conduct an assessment at the outset, which will determine who manages each offender. It will be the National Probation Service in the case of those who pose a high risk of serious harm, and contracted providers in the case of those whose risk of serious harm is assessed as medium or low.

During the course of the sentence, providers will be required to risk-manage the offender within their case load We will place contractual obligations on providers to ensure that they have appropriately trained staff and organisational policies for the management of risk of serious harm. Where there is a significant change in circumstances that indicates an increase in the risk of serious harm, the contracted provider will be required contractually to refer the case to the National Probation Service. It will be for the National Probation Service to confirm whether the risk of serious harm is high.

If a decision is reached that the risk of serious harm has escalated to high, the responsibility for the management of the case will transfer to the National Probation Service. Where case transfer happens, this will be achieved in such a way that it does not destabilise the offender. Involvement with the provider could continue, while the case responsibility will be with the National Probation Service.

I am confident that the measures that I have outlined will provide a robust system. I understand that noble Lords share that desire to ensure that the new system builds and improves on the good practices that now exist. However, I come back to the point that it is the skilled and experienced practitioners in the public sector National Probation Service who are best placed to make the risk decisions.

As I said at the beginning, I welcome this intervention, particularly with the noble Lord’s assurance that he does not intend to divide on this amendment. I make no apologies for going into detail in my reply, which I hope will be of assistance to him and to the House in seeing how we are developing this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

9: Clause 3, page 3, line 42, after “scale,” insert—
“( ) recommend to the Secretary of State that the notice given to the offender under section 256AA be varied in one or more ways which the court may specify,”

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, this is an amendment that I moved with my noble friends in Committee, and I do not propose to repeat extensively the arguments that I put then. They are in essence that the present options for sanctions under new Section 256AC that are available to a court upon breach of supervision requirements are in essence punitive and involve a short term of imprisonment, a fine, an unpaid work requirement or a curfew. We stress that the court may well find it necessary and more appropriate on investigation of a breach of supervision requirements to have regard to the rehabilitation of the offender so as to make desirable changes to those supervision requirements. The court having investigated the breach will be in the strongest possible position to make such a recommendation. I have in mind in particular the power of the Secretary of State to make requirements to participate in particular activities in accordance with instructions given by the supervisor: drug-testing requirements, drug appointment requirements and so forth.

When we proposed the corresponding amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister was kind enough to say that we had made a sensible and practical suggestion. He promised to examine the technicalities of the process and to return to the matter at a later stage. Therefore, I now look forward to hearing from him the results of that examination. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, my noble friend has accurately reported my remarks in Committee, which did not, he will have noted, commit me to bringing forward a government amendment; I have taken legal advice on that. However, I am grateful to him for the characteristically clear and reasoned way in which he has made the case for Amendment 9.

I said in Committee that my noble friend’s amendment seemed a practical suggestion and I undertook to take it away and examine the technicalities of the process. I am happy to say that on the issue of principle that the amendment raises, the Government are persuaded by my noble friend’s arguments.

There might well be circumstances in which a court dealing with breach concludes that the rehabilitation of the offender would be better addressed by a variation of the Secretary of State’s supervision conditions. The Government agree that it should be possible for courts to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State and that there should be a process for acting on that recommendation. This should apply whether or not a court decides to impose a sanction for breach. In other words, a court could impose a sanction and recommend that future supervision conditions be changed, or impose no sanction but make a recommendation.

That brings me to the question of how we best achieve this. I have sought advice on the legal position. There is nothing in law that would stop a court making a recommendation of this sort. A magistrate or district judge could do this simply by stating their opinion about the requirements that the offender is subject to when summing up.

An explicit provision for this in the Bill would therefore be unnecessary. It could be seen as restricting the discretion of the court to make recommendations in other areas where no specific power exists. It could also mean putting in place a new specific court process for making the recommendation, rather than the relatively informal process that would occur now.

To my mind, the more important question is how we put in place a process within prison and probation services for ensuring that a court’s recommendation is acted upon by those setting supervision conditions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. There is a precedent for this. Probation and prison instructions already set out a process for cases where courts make recommendations about future licence conditions at the point of sentence. This involves probation staff present at court recording the recommendation and passing it to prison governors.

There is a presumption that governors should implement the court’s recommendation, except in cases where the offender’s circumstances have changed between sentence and release. I am happy to make a commitment that we will put in place a similar process for breach of supervision, with a similar presumption that those setting conditions should act on the court’s recommendation unless there are exceptional circumstances. To make sure that courts are aware of their ability to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Government will also discuss with the Sentencing Council whether it could include this in future guidance on dealing with breach of supervision.

In summary, I reassure my noble friend that he has made a persuasive case. I know he believes that it is better to get the processes right and get these things done properly at the sharp end rather than simply write things into the Bill. What I, as a layman, initially took to be a very good idea has been confirmed as such by the professional and legal advice that I have been given. I am not sure whether a Pepper v Hart judgment could be applied to what I have just said, but it is a very clear indication that we want to put the noble Lord’s very good suggestions into practical effect. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord in that respect.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am not sure whether this is a case of Pepper v Hart, because I do not think that there is an ambiguity to resolve. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that very full answer. I accept, of course, that there is nothing in law to prevent a court making a recommendation of the kind that he indicated. I am also very grateful to him for the care he has taken to ensure that the Government can give a commitment both as to the court making recommendations on a breach hearing and to ensuring that such recommendations are given effect. Both halves of that equation seem equally important. I of course accept the Government’s commitments on these points and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.