My Lords, my original objection to this statutory instrument was based upon the fact that its purpose was to introduce a major difference in the use of electronic tags which affected the liberty of the subject without awaiting the results of the pilot schemes which were then being carried out in two major areas in the country. I believe in evidence-based policy and I thought that the Government took the same view.
As the Minister said a moment ago, electronic tags have been used within the criminal justice system for some 20 years since 1988, but only to monitor offenders’ compliance with a curfew. It was possible to confirm whether an individual was at a particular address at a particular time. The introduction of GPS monitoring differs considerably. The tag remotely captures and records information on an individual’s whereabouts at all times. Signals are received from satellites and are communicated via a mobile phone network to a case management system.
There was a pilot scheme in Greater Manchester, Hampshire and the West Midlands between 2004 and 2006. It was not a complete success. One of the modes of tracking was called hybrid tracking, which involved the delineation of geographic exclusion areas: if the offender moved into an exclusion area, a signal would be sent to the case management system immediately. This was the sort of tracking that is now envisaged in this statutory instrument. The conclusion of the 2006 report said:
“Although there may be a role for this form of hybrid tracking in providing an added layer of protection for victims assessed as particularly at risk, the limited use to which it was put during the pilots meant that no firm conclusion could be reached. On the other hand, if the main purpose of satellite tracking is to provide information on offenders’ whereabouts in order to challenge them about their movements and help them avoid dangerous situations, or to provide robust evidence of violations of exclusion zones, then this can be achieved through ‘passive’ tracking”—
that is to say, not this complicated system—
“and may not even require the daily flow of information from the monitoring company to offender managers that was made available in some areas during the pilots”.
That 2006 report also found that active tracking, whereby an offender’s general movements are followed in real time, could not be used because of the high level of resources which would be needed for such an operation.
Also in that report in 2006, probation officers, police officers and youth workers were generally less enthusiastic about the way that the satellite tracking equipment had worked. They were particularly worried about GPS drift—where GPS plots are, for a short period of time, wildly aberrant—and signal loss. Both created uncertainty in their minds. Had the offender tampered with the equipment, had the equipment broken down in some way, or had the signal been blocked by a tall building or some other obstruction? Their other concerns were that maps of offenders’ movements were sometimes unclear, insufficiently detailed or difficult to interpret; that battery life was limited; that ankle tags frequently needed changing; that communications between offender managers and the monitoring companies were not as good as they ought to be; and that tracking units were intrusive and infringed civil liberties. That was the position in 2006. One would have thought that the current pilot schemes should have been completed and brought before this House before introducing the system more widely.
The scheme in 2004 to 2006 was therefore not followed up in the light of the comments received. GPS tags have been used in a number of situations since, specifically for integrated offender management schemes—IOMs—but on a voluntary basis only. The case for its use is not open and shut and the expense for hybrid or active tracking where offender managers feel it necessary to carry out immediate action is considerable. One would have thought that the Government would have awaited the findings of the recent pilots before introducing as part of the criminal law of England and Wales a scheme that is similar but which differs in one very important respect: the proposal for compulsory, not voluntary, tagging on a large scale.
On Monday, the Minister helpfully provided me with an embargoed copy of the report; I am grateful to her for that and for the courteous letter
that accompanied it. I read and digested its contents. Unfortunately, because of the timing of this Motion to approve the statutory instrument, I cannot comment on its findings or conclusions. When will it be published? When could I comment on it? When the DPRRC considers the appropriate course for parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of powers granted to Ministers in a Bill and advises the House, it does so in the belief that the use of the affirmative procedure will give the House an opportunity to raise any matters of concern on the evidence. There is evidence—there is an embargoed report—yet we proceed tonight without that report having been published. It is not available to Members of this House for comment.
8.15 pm
However, I think that I am entitled to raise a number of questions without reference to the report’s contents. First, has electronic monitoring been shown to have any significant impact on the rate of reoffending? The 2004-06 study followed offenders for up to five months after the end of their tagged period. Its report stated that, during that limited period,
“26 per cent … of satellite-tracked offenders were either reconvicted for an offence committed during their period of tracking … or while unlawfully at large following their recall/revocation … or were considered by their offender managers … to have committed an offence during their period of tracking”.
The report also stated:
“If a longer period had been available, more convictions would almost certainly have been detected”.
Secondly, some people are vulnerable and lead chaotic lives. There are strict conditions attached to the use of tags: offenders have to be able to charge the tags for two hours a day in a docking device, and failure to do so is a breach that can result in punishment. Anybody who has to charge their phone every night knows that it is not always possible to make sure that you have done it. Exclusion zones and other conditions have to be agreed and communicated to the offender. Does an offender leading a chaotic life fuelled by drugs or alcohol have the capacity to understand and comply with orders of this sort?
Has a suitable design of the tags been developed? Back in 2006, there was considerable criticism of their comfort, the ease with which they could be removed and so on. Most importantly, will the resources be made available? What a familiar comment that is. The 2006 evaluation identified a mismatch between what the pilot areas sought from satellite tracking and what the monitoring companies had been resourced to provide. With such exclusion zones and conditions, there obviously has to be 24-hour monitoring of the central system alongside a field team that can be sent out to deal with any breach that occurs during that 24-hour period.
Finally, what steps are being taken to inform and advise magistrates, judges and prison staff so that they may have confidence in the system? I very much regret that the Motion has been brought forward at this time without the report being publicly available for your Lordships and everybody else to read and comment on. I beg to move.