---

Mr. Michael: We have probed the issue and demonstrated that the Government went too low and that some people would have had shorter sentences. As a result of the amendments made in Committee to try to put that right, some people will now have longer sentences.

In view of the Home Secretary's intervention on Monday, I have to say that Home Office Ministers appear to be quite cavalier about their calculation of the exact

15 Jan 1997 : Column 411

impact of variations on Government finances. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in our aim, which was to highlight the problem. We recognise that it is difficult to be precise about the impact of the introduction of these measures or absolutely certain that the same sentence will be the practical outcome in the future as it was in the past--a point that we made at the beginning of the series of debates on this issue. Having achieved our aim, I do not think that we need to take up any more time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.15 pm

Clause 27

Duration and conditions of licences

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 19, line 24, at end insert--
'(6) In relation to a life prisoner who is liable to removal from the United Kingdom (within the meaning given by section 20(2) above), subsection (2) above shall have effect as if the words in parentheses were omitted.'--[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 2

Repatriation of prisoners to the British Islands

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 49, line 6, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
No. 22, in page 49, line 10, leave out '(ii)'.--[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 58, line 26, after 'summarily)' insert '(a)'.
No. 24, in page 58, line 27, at end insert 'and
(b) for the words "and section 62(6) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words ", section 14(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (committal for breach of conditions of release supervision order),".'.
No. 25, in page 61, line 12, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
No. 26, in page 61, line 13, after 'if' insert--
'(a) any hospital direction under section 45A above were a transfer direction under section 47 above; and
(b)'.
No. 27, in page 61, line 15, at end insert--
'(5) Sections 80(5), 81(6) and 85(4) above shall have effect as if any reference to a transfer direction given while a patient was serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court included a reference to a hospital direction given by a court after imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a patient.".'.--[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 5

Transitional provisions and savings

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'made' and insert 'having effect'.
No. 41, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'court' to end of line 11 and insert
'less any period by which the sentence falls to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 412

(9) In sub-paragraph (8) above "the appropriate proportion" means one-half in the case of a term of less than four years and two thirds in the case of a term of four years or more.'
No. 28, in page 65, line 26, after 'if' insert
'--
(a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
"(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and
(b)''.' --[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 6

Repeals

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert--
'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert--

'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.

--[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 31

Fine defaulters: general

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 25, leave out from 'things;' to end of line 26.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, in page 23, line 7, leave out from 'things;' to end of line 8.

Mr. Straw: This a short point and we would be grateful for a response from the Minister. It relates to welcome arrangements being made in the Bill to provide for community service or curfew orders imposed for fine default. Our question is about how the courts should deal with those matters when there is a breach of the order for community service or curfew.

My understanding is that, in other respects, where an offender breaches his community service order the court is able to take into account whether the offender has completed none of the original order or has completed all but a few hours in deciding what penalty to impose for the breach. The Bill as it stands takes an all-or-nothing approach, whereby an offender who does not complete his community service order or obey his curfew order has--quite rightly--to go back to court to be dealt with for that breach. It is not apparent on the face of the Bill whether the court will be able to take account how much community service has been undertaken by the offender when determining what further penalty should be imposed.

This matter was raised in Committee, but we think that Ministers should give it further consideration.

Mr. Sackville: The purpose of all matters of fine enforcement is to make the offender pay the fine.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 413

Under our proposals, a person who is given a community sentence can reduce the term of that order by paying off the fine, just as at present fine defaulters can reduce the period of imprisonment imposed on them by paying off the fine. However, we do not think that offenders should be able to elect to work off part of their fine through partial compliance with a community service or curfew order, which would be the practical effect of the amendment.

Offenders who are fined must pay the fine or face the consequences. If an offender fails to comply with a community penalty that is imposed as a punishment for failing to pay a fine imposed by the court, the fine remains outstanding in full. Under the provisions of the Bill, the court has the power to revoke the community penalty imposed for the original fine default and re-sentence in respect of that default.

The House will understand that serving the community penalty in full will discharge the financial penalty in full, but short of total compliance with the community penalty we do not believe that offenders should have the freedom to take their pick between community service and outstanding financial penalties. It is therefore not our intention that the offender can select a package from among a range of available penalties. Hence I would not recommend accepting the amendment.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35

Offenders

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 26, line 13, at end insert--

'(2A) Where a court orders a person to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence under this section, the degree of punishment inflicted by the order, or by the combination of the order and any other order or orders made in respect of the offence, shall be such as in the opinion of the court are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.'.

The Bill contains the novel principle that someone can be disqualified from driving for an offence that had nothing to do with motor cars. There are, to be sure, related principles in, for instance, the salmon legislation. A person's car can be confiscated if he drives a car to carry out a salmon poaching offence, but in this case a person might travel to an offence on a bus and yet be disqualified from driving his motor car.

I do not oppose the idea in principle but I wish to raise a concern expressed by the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society about proportionality in relation to the use of driving disqualification as a penalty for offences unconnected with the motor car.

Driving disqualification has a completely different effect on different people. For someone who hardly uses the car it may be of almost no consequence; for someone whose livelihood depends on it, it could mean a difference of thousands of pounds.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 414

Many pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Justice Act 1991, set criteria requiring a sentence to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Minister has no difficulty with the principle at stake; indeed his view in Committee was that an amendment was unnecessary because the courts have a general duty to take account of the seriousness of the offence when passing sentence. Obviously the Minister does not have much confidence in the courts' ability to carry out such duties; otherwise he would not have introduced the legislation compelling courts to pass mandatory sentences.

It seems odd that, with this novel penalty, the Minister should have departed from the widespread practice of imposing a statutory requirement for proportionality. The amendment seeks to import precisely that proportionality.

---