| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Hilary Benn: I cannot add much to what I have already told the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey about the phasing in of the implementation. The Government continue to reflect on the best and quickest way of doing that. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the major determining factor in the introduction of custody plus, a measure on which everyone is very keen, is increasing the capacity of the probation service. More money is being invested in the service and more staff are being recruited to it. The sooner those staff are in place, the quicker the measures can be effected. It might help if I say that revised costs and savings, which was the central thrust of the questions, will be provided in the explanatory notes when the Bill goes to the other place. I can give the hon. Gentleman some information about the cost of non-custodial sentences. For example, the cost of a community rehabilitation order is £2,030; including an accredited programme to it would add a further £350. A community punishment order costs £1,780; enhanced community punishment is slightly more costly at £1,895. A drug testing and treatment order costs £6,000, and a curfew order costs £1,600. The intensive control and change programme, which is in effect the equivalent of the intensive supervision and surveillance programme—ISSP—and which the probation service plans to pilot for 18 to 20-year-olds, costs about £6,000. I will reflect on the point that the hon. Gentleman made about further specific costing, where that is possible, in the explanatory notes. As I say, revised figures will be provided in further copies of the notes. In relation to magistrates' sentencing powers and the courts' interpretation and use of the Bill's provisions, the Government have already said that they believe that the impact on the prison population will, when all the provisions have worked their way Column Number: 1182 through, be slightly below 1,000. I say that with the proviso that ultimately it will depend on courts' decisions on individual defendants. We must wait to see the sum total of all those decisions. We have tried to set out in the legislation the significant changes to the sentencing arrangements, particularly the new generic community sentences. They will provide greater flexibility, which, as everybody recognises, the system lacks at present. As effective community sentences are shown to reduce reoffending, the confidence of the courts and of the community in them will increase. We hope that that will be reflected in the position of the courts.Mr. Grieve: I understand the Minister's reasoning. Indeed, it can be seen from the list that some of the biggest costs are those of the probation service for community sentences. I fully appreciate that there will be savings if community sentences are used rather than custodial sentences. The Halliday report has suggested that the prison population will rise as a result of this legislation. The Minister has not yet been able to deal with that issue. He should perhaps write to the Committee on the matter. I am interested to know the Government's estimate of the cost implications. Hilary Benn: I was in the process of making a point about the net impact of all that. We can see what is currently happening to the prison population and we understand what has happened to it over the last decade or so. As we have previously discussed, what has happened has been the product of less use of fines and greater use of community penalties. There has also been greater use of custody, with sentences increasing in length. That is the explanation for the situation, at a time when the total number of people coming before the courts has remained largely the same and when crime has fallen. It will be the interrelationship between those factors that will determine the outcome. As we have discussed, and as all members of the Committee will agree, more successful collection of fines is a fundamental precondition to building greater confidence in fines and therefore encouraging the courts to make greater use of them. Simon Hughes: The Minister is being straightforward, but I want to push him one step further. First, does his projection, when everything is worked through to the increase of 1,000 in the prison population, take into account both the increase in average sentence that he referred to and the figure that my hon. Friend quoted? Figures for the last available year published yesterday show an increase by five months to two years and two months. Secondly, does it take into account the prospective change for the magistrates courts' sentencing powers from six months to 12 months? I want to be clear that the expectation includes that, because the likelihood is that that will increase sentences passed by the magistrates court. Hilary Benn: The assessment that the Government have made of just under 1,000 is based on the Bill's provisions, for obvious reasons. Separately from that, a process regarding custody length has been taking place. That is outwith the particular assessment in relation to the Bill but it has clearly informed the Column Number: 1183 projections that were published recently suggesting what may happen to the prison population in future.In relation to magistrates' sentencing powers, I repeat the point that magistrates dealing with cases will have greater sentencing power. The current alternative would be for the case to be dealt with by the Crown court. There is no clear evidence that magistrates are likely to sentence more people to longer periods of custody than the Crown court would do under current arrangements. It will remain to be seen how the interrelationship of all the changes contained in the Bill and the extent to which the courts make use of them will work. That will determine the answer to the question that the two hon. Gentlemen have quite rightly raised about the overall impact of those changes, especially on the prison population and, therefore, on the cost. Question put and agreed to. Clause 270 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 27 February 2003 |
