I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of his statement. Much of what he said is welcome and constructive. However, it is the first duty of the Government to protect the public, and clearly they and their actions have not protected the public on too many occasions in recent times. Failure of Government policy has been a contributing factor in the tragic deaths of Marian Bates, John Monckton, Robert Symons and Mary-Ann Leneghan, among others—all murdered by criminals on early release, parole or probation.
It is no surprise that the Government are announcing the order this week, just before the killers of Mary-Ann Leneghan are sentenced and a report on the murder of Naomi Bryant, which is expected to be extremely damning, is published. This is the latest in a series of tough-sounding measures that the Home Secretary has announced this week, which are designed to catch the headlines and pre-empt the reports of the Government’s failure.
The problem that the Home Secretary’s new order seeks to address is largely of the Government’s own making. It has been the Government’s policy to release dangerous offenders into the community on early release. The Daily Mail reports the chief inspector of probation as saying that there are 15,000 offenders on probation who are assessed as representing a high or a very high risk of causing harm to others.
It was the Government who cut the Parole Board’s budget for face-to-face interviews by 90 per cent. two years ago. Yusuf Bouhaddaou, who murdered Robert Symons just five weeks after being released from prison, was released with no face-to-face interview. Instead, he had just a 25-minute telephone conversation with the probation service.
It was the Government who introduced OASYS, the offender assessment system that the National Association of Probation Officers has described as ““poorly designed””, with its prime purpose being to"““produce data for the Home Office, rather than analysing the behaviour of offenders””."
If we look at each of the appalling murders committed by offenders on probation, early release and parole—Mary-Ann Leneghan, John Monckton, Marian Bates, Robert Symons and others—one point is clear: if the offenders had been in prison, those crimes would not have been committed.
So what are the Government proposing to address their own failures? Although, astonishingly, the Home Secretary did not mention it in his statement, pre-briefing by the Home Office stated that they would increase the number of face-to-face interviews prior to release to 30 per cent. Is that true? Even if it is, an astonishing 70 per cent. of prisoners will still not have a face-to-face interview before release. What extra resources is the Home Secretary providing to the probation service, which we are told is already overstretched? Will he increase the interview budget, which was cut by 90 per cent. two years ago?
The Home Secretary says he wants to impose restrictions on violent offenders and, presumably, ban them from approaching certain people or places, but prisoners released under the home detention curfew scheme have committed over 7,000 further offences already. In 2004–05 alone, 224 offenders on probation were convicted of further serious offences, including 26 murders—I repeat, 26 murders. A criminal who is willing to murder or to commit armed robbery or burglary will not be put off by some sort of super-ASBO. If 42 per cent. of antisocial behaviour orders are ignored by young tearaways, how effective will the so-called super-ASBOs be against psychopathic hardened criminals? If the Government cannot make the sex offenders register work properly, how safe should the public feel after this latest headline-grabbing initiative?
The Government’s proposals fail to address the real problems in the probation service, which is in desperate need of effective leadership and management from the Government. What does the Home Secretary have to say to Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers, who says that the probation service is already poorly resourced and massively overstretched? [Interruption.] The Home Secretary laughs. Damien Hanson, who murdered John Monckton, was assessed as being 91 per cent. likely to re-offend, yet he was released halfway through a 12-year sentence for attempted murder. The Home Secretary’s proposal fails to address the underlying problems in the probation service that allowed that to happen. Is he proposing any further legislation with respect to the National Offender Management Service, which remains only half-reformed?
The Government have failed to address the problem of prison overcrowding, which means that prisoners are not getting the rehabilitation that they require. How do the Government intend to solve that problem? Let us be clear. The latest spate of murders is just the latest symptom of a major failure in the criminal justice system—a failure by the Government of policy, strategy, leadership and management. The measures smack of a policy designed primarily to relieve the pressure on overcrowded prisons, rather than protecting the public. With 15,000 dangerous offenders back on our streets, let us hope it does not result in yet more victims of crime and yet more families devastated by murder.
Public Protection
Proceeding contribution from
David Davis
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 20 April 2006.
It occurred during Ministerial statement on Public Protection.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
445 c246-7 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:06:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_315703
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_315703
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_315703