Standing Committee B
Tuesday 9 June 1998
(Morning)
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
10.30 am
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Extended sentences for sex and violent offenders
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move amendment No. 450, in page 63, line 4, leave out
`Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995'
and insert `1995 Act'.
This drafting amendment will improve the wording of the clause. The relevant Act is defined elsewhere in the Bill as the 1995 Act, so the more detailed description is redundant.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest): I beg to move amendment No. 298, in page 63, leave out lines 7 to 12 and insert
`a violent offence, the court may, if it (a) intends to pass a determinate sentence of four years or more; and'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 229, in page 63, line 18, at end insert
`(1A) Where a person is convicted on indictment of a sexual offence and the court proposes to pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment the court shall pass an extended sentence on the offender unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstance which would justify not extending the period (if any) for which the offender would, apart from this section, be subject to a licence.'.
Mrs. Laing: The Minister said that Government amendment No. 450 was designed to make the clause clearer. These amendments have the same aim. Like many Opposition amendments, they are designed not to change the Bill's effects but to improve it and to make it clearer.
The amendments have the same aim as the Bill except in one respect. They would give the courts further discretion in dealing with sexual offenders and the power to take into consideration the exceptional circumstances that might arise when someone is convicted of a sexual offence.
The Bill treats violent offences and sexual offences in exactly the same way. Amendment No. 299 would give the courts more discretion, because we recognise that sexual offences are committed in a wide range of circumstances and for a wide range of reasons. Mere punishment is not always necessary. Sometimes remedial action should be taken to protect the community and the person accused of the crime. That person may need remedial help rather than mere punishment.
Amendment No. 299 would give the courts greater discretion and it would allow them to consider exceptional circumstances. At present, the Bill does not do that.I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine): Extended sentences, especially for sex offenders, will play a crucial part in reassuring the community. It is to be hoped that such sentences will also help the offenders. It is clear that society is still taking time to come to terms with certain crimes, especially sex offences against children, and needs to find an understanding of how to deal with them.
There are regimes, such as that in Peterhead prison, based on Canadian models, which seem to have some beneficial effects. Given some of the recent crimes that have taken place in the north-east, people would be reassured to know that there was some way of breaking the cycle of offending. In some cases in my constituency, it has been shown that if that cycle cannot be broken, the offending becomes worse at the next offence. I await the Minister's comments about whether the amendments would achieve the goal of breaking that cycle of reoffending.
Mr. McLeish: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) suggested that these are technical, drafting amendments. Despite her valiant effort, I think that they are more than that. However, I accept that we are discussing difficult and sensitive areas of criminal justice. It is a tough matter.
There are problems with violence and sex offending in society. However, the amendments would require the courts to impose an extended sentence on all sex offenders on whom a sentence of imprisonment was to be imposed, unless there were exceptional reasons not to do so. In the case of violent offenders, the courts would retain discretion about whether to impose an extended sentence.
The Government intend that extended sentences should be imposed only when it is considered that the period for which the offender would otherwise be subject to a licence would not be adequate to protect the pubic from serious harm from the offender. The existing law provides for automatic post-release supervision for all those sentenced to four years or more. In some cases, that might be all that is needed. Courts should not be required to impose an extended sentence when they have no reason to do so. If there is no indication when convicting a person for a sexual offence that there is any need for the period of supervision to be longer than normal, the court would have no justification for imposing an extended sentence.
In relation to violent offences, we are considering four-year sentences, plus supervision for up to five years. However, in relation to sex offenders, the sentence could be of any length with an extension of up to 10 years.
I accept the point made by the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) about sex offenders, that during both the period of imprisonment and the period of supervision there should be a requirement for the provision of treatment and rehabilitation. In that area of criminal justice, there has not been a good success story. However, the scheme at Peterhead is valuable and imaginative and I hope that that work will soon be extended to other Scottish prisons.
The Government have achieved the right balance on extended sentences and I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.
Mrs. Laing: After listening carefully to the Minister's remarks, I appreciate that we all aim to achieve the same results: namely, that people who have been found guilty of a sexual or a violent offence should not merely be punished, but should also be supervised. The length of the period of supervision should be such that members of the local community feel safe and have confidence that a person who has been found guilty of a sexual offence and is likely to offend again, especially when children are concerned, should be adequately supervised.
I accept the Minister's reassurances on the matter and, given the number of Members on the Government Benches, I realise that there is little point in pressing the amendment to a vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 451, in page 63, line 19, after `sentence' insert
`is a sentence of imprisonment which'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 452, 461 and 462.
Mr. McLeish: These are truly technical and drafting amendments. They would clarify the intended effects of the clauses about extended sentences for Scotland, with particular reference to the definition of an extended sentence as a sentence of imprisonment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 452, in page 63, line 22, leave out `under' and insert `by virtue of'. [Mr. McLeish.]
Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 453, in page 63, line 30, at end insert
`( ) A court shall, before passing an extended sentence, consider a report by a relevant officer of a local authority about the offender and his circumstances and, if the court thinks it necessary, hear that officer.'
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 457.
Mr. McLeish: The amendment would bring the Scottish provisions into line with those already considered with respect to England and Wales, by requiring the court to obtain a pre-sentence report before an extended sentence could be imposed. In England and Wales the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides for that, so no express provision in the Bill is needed.
A report would clearly be necessary if an extended period of supervision were being considered, given that the court would need to reach a view about the risk posed by the offender and how long a period of additional supervision might be appropriate.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): I welcome the provision for pre-sentence reports, but what soundings has the Minister taken among the relevant offices in Scotland? Some concern is felt in England about the possibility of delays caused by pre-sentence reports, where the probation service is insufficiently resourced to produce them in time. Reassurance that the process will be a speedy one would be useful.
Mr. McLeish: I can give the necessary assurances. We want extended sentences to be based on risk assessment. That is not an exact science, but we are, like the other concerned bodies involved in criminal justice social work and the court system, aware of the importance of the issue. We are serious in our intentions. There is no point in setting up an elaborate court process without the reporting and other procedures that are necessary to it.
Intensive consultation took place in the run up to the Bill. More work will follow and I hope that by the time the Bill is implemented we shall have a better idea of the extent of the information required. Risk assessment is critical. The big problem in Scotland is public protection. Concern about sex offending is widespread. The provision is only part of a wider strategy to ensure that the public feel safe in their communities, streets and homes, and I have no doubt that we are making significant progress in England, Wales and Scotland. The reports are crucial to the relevant prisoners' well-being, and to the court system.
Amendment agreed to.
Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 296, in page 63, line 32, leave out `shall not' and insert `may.'
| 
