Skip to main content

Written question asked by Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour) on Friday, 22 October 2004, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 15 November 2004. It was answered by Paul Goggins (Labour) on Monday, 15 November 2004 on behalf of the Home Office.


Home Office

Question
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the progress of the intermittent custody pilots which have been taking place in two purpose-built prison units since January.
Answer

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the intermittent custody pilots which have been taking place in two purpose-built prison units since January. [193927] Paul Goggins: Intermittent custody (IC) originates from the Government's determination to avoid some of the negative outcomes (loss of employment, accommodation and family breakdown) which can accompany even relatively short periods of full-time custody. An IC order is imposed by a court only on the basis of a stringent risk assessment by the national probation service and only those offenders assessed as being of lower risk to the public are suitable for IC. Under the terms of the sentence, custody is served intermittently, either at weekends or on weekdays, for a number of days each week. Offenders spend non- custodial days under the supervision of the national probation service. This enables them to maintain their existing employment or caring responsibilities or to look for work. IC pilots based at Kirkham, in Lancashire, for male offenders, and at Morton Hall, in Lincolnshire, for females, have been running since 26 January 2004. Up to 22 October, a total of 120 IC orders had been imposed, 82 on male offenders and 38 on females. There are currently 39 extant custody cases, 30 at Kirkham and nine at Morton Hall. We are continuing to learn from the pilots, but the early indications are that IC is regarded as a valuable addition to the range of sentencing options, both by sentencers and offenders. This positive reaction to IC among offenders has translated into a high level of compliance, despite the onerous nature of the sentence. It is already clear that there is a significant group of offenders for whom Weekend IC is an appropriate option. However, the take-up for Weekday IC has been relatively low. The disparity between the number of Weekend and Weekday IC orders was exacerbated by the need to clarify the benefit entitlements of IC offenders. This matter has been largely resolved and we are now seeking to promote the option of Weekday IC among probation officers and sentencers. IC has been successful in enabling offenders to maintain their employment, accommodation and family ties. This has been particularly important for female offenders with caring responsibilities for dependant children. Male IC offenders have been able to retain their jobs and, in two cases, offenders operating small businesses were able to preserve the jobs of their employees. On 29 September, the Home Secretary announced his intention to expand the use of IC and we are now working on the most effective ways of achieving this.


Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
426 c1123-4W;426 c1127-8W; 193927
Session
2003-04
Subjects
Court orders Alternatives to prison Custodial treatment Pilot schemes Intermittent custody
Link
View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk