|
Column Number: 761
Standing Committee B
Tuesday 4 February 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair]
9.10 am
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Order of the Committee [17 December] be further amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out '11.25 am' and inserting '5.15 pm'.—[Hilary Benn.]
Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): I beg to move, as an amendment to that amendment, to leave out ''5.15'' and insert ''4.55''.
We may have a slight problem, in that we are likely to have votes from 5 pm onwards, and if the votes continue the Committee would have to come back at 7 pm to conclude its business. I therefore propose that we conclude at 4.55 pm.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendment, which I certainly support. However, I hope that we might take a look during the course of today at what we have to consider, including the remaining clauses that need to be completed by 4.55 pm. We are not allowing ourselves enough time to consider the forthcoming clauses, yet many of the clauses that need to be considered between Thursday and the following week may prove to be non-controversial. I wonder whether we have got the knives right, and I hope that we may be able to revisit that question at lunchtime.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): There may well be some substance in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It would be a shame if we were to curtail debate on something important in order to extend debate on clauses that may be less controversial. There may be a case for revising the programme yet again, in order to ensure that we give ourselves enough space to do what is needed.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): In my view, although clauses 204 to 264 currently have a whole week, we do not need that much time. However, today's business up to clause 203 needs considerably more time. Opposition Members would appreciate it if that could be taken into account. I note particularly that we have no difficulty with the knife on 13 February; it is just a question of the spread of business between now and then.
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): I back what my hon. Friend said. I note that we have to get through something like 70 clauses, including some new clauses that I have tabled that are close to my heart. I hope that the Government will be flexible. If we do not get through all today's business—and if we have behaved ourselves by speaking briefly and to the point, and not wasting the Committee's time—I hope that the Government will look kindly at changing the timing of the knife to allow us to discuss the Bill as we are meant to do.
Column Number: 762
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): Having heard the debate so far on the matter, I suspect that before too long there will be discussions through the usual channels to find some way of resolving the dilemma that we now face.
Mr. Heppell: I am happy to go along with the wishes of hon. Members. Through the usual channels, we shall try to work out a new programme. I am sorry to inconvenience you, Mr. Illsley, but it seems as if that would be helpful to the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order of the Committee [17 December] be further amended, in paragraph (6), by leaving out '11.25 am' and inserting '4.55 pm'.
Clause 130
Meaning of ''community sentence'' etc.
Question proposed [30 January], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Heath: Before we adjourned on Thursday, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked some interesting and pertinent questions. I want to make two brief points about the clause. The first is simply an observation. Those of us who believe that community sentencing has a valuable role to play and has clear advantages in relation to some offenders and some forms of reoffending would be better served if community sentences were more visible in the community. If we are to get public support for community sentencing, the concept must be sold much more effectively, because it is seen as a slap on the wrist that means nothing. People who are carrying out community sentences are virtually invisible to the general public. The system needs to address that problem. The more people are aware that a community sentence is a real sentence, which has a real effect on a person and is not a soft option, the more they will accept community sentences as a genuine part of the sentencing programme.
My second point touches on something else said by the hon. Member for Woking. Subsection (1)(a) includes a cross-reference to a community order as defined by clause 160. I should be interested to hear the Minister's answers on that. I may be prefacing a debate that we will have on clause 160, but it is also useful to explore the issue now. There is one risk involved in defining a single community order and a palette of restrictions that can be imposed on the court. Courts will feel increasingly constrained to pile on restriction after restriction, and multiple restrictions on offenders would have the perverse effect of making it far more likely that they would default on the sentence and, therefore, far more likely that a custodial sentence would be the result. That cannot be the intention. I wonder whether the Bill includes sufficient safeguards.
Perhaps the Minister will explain how sanction creep by the courts could be avoided. That has been identified as a potential danger by others outside the
Column Number: 763
House. The legislation must be drafted properly so that what is essentially a good part of the Bill does not end up having the perverse effect of increasing custodial sentences for relatively minor offences. We need to strike a balance.
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I thought it would be helpful to bring to the Committee's attention two parliamentary answers about community penalties given to me by the Minister on Thursday. Written answers Nos. 75 and 76 relate to the activity of prisoners and reconviction rates after different forms of sentence. I shall read the questions and answers and ask for the Minister's response. I asked
''what proportion of prisoners released in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what assessment is of reconviction rates for prisoners released in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002.''
The answer, supplied last Thursday, was:
''The two-year 'un-adjusted' reconviction rate for prisoners discharged from custody in 1997 was 58 per cent. The provisional figure for 1998 was also 58 per cent. These rates are published in 'Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2000'.
Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody in the first quarter of 1999 have also been calculated according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement . . . 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.
Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.''
The relevant reconviction rate was therefore 58 per cent. in 1997 and 1998 and 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999, which is the latest period for which we have figures.
I asked a parallel question on the same day, and I received written answer No. 76. My question was:
''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders completing community sentences in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what his assessment is of reconviction rates for offenders completing programmes in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002.''
The answer was:
''Reconviction rates for offenders commencing community penalties in the first quarter of 1997 have been calculated according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement . . . 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to commencement of the penalty and convictions for breach of the penalty where no further offence had been committed.
This gives a reconviction rate for the first quarter of 1997 of 45.7 per cent. The equivalent figure for the first quarters of 1998 and 1999 are 46.0 per cent. and 44.3 per cent. respectively.
Two-year reconviction rates are not available for offenders completing programmes in 2000, 2001 or 2002.''—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1049–1050W.]
To summarise, the relevant reconviction rate was 45.7 per cent for the first quarter of 1997, which was the first year in relation to which I asked about people who had been in custody. For subsequent first quarters, the rates were 46 and 44.3 per cent.
I have two last points, which are obvious. There is not an exact parallel between those who receive a custodial penalty and those who do not, and I am not
Column Number: 764
trying to make that case. However, Home Office statisticians and those who know a lot about these calculations take such considerations into account when making comparisons. Such comparisons are important and will become increasingly so if the present trend continues. The calculations for the most recent years for which figures are available suggest that the reconviction rate for those who went to prison was between 55 and 60 per cent. In the same period, the reconviction rate for those who did not go to prison but received a community penalty was between 40 and 50 per cent. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comments on that.
There seems to be a strong case for good community penalties and for increasing investment in them, as well as for many of the plans that the Government set out in the White Paper following the Halliday report. We should try to avoid custody wherever possible and to have good community penalties as an alternative.
| 
