HC Deb 03 November 1988 vol 139 cc1170-2
6. Mr. Nicholas Bennett

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the last year in the average sentence for robbery; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten)

The average sentence imposed on men over 21, on conviction of robbery, has increased by 9 per cent. in the last year and by 22 per cent. since 1984.

Mr. Bennett

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome news. I welcome the decision of the inquest jury in the recent case in which two armed robbers were shot dead by the police after being warned to surrender their weapons. Does he agree that those who go armed for robbery must be aware of the consequences of their actions and should desist from such actions?

Mr. Patten

Anyone who goes out armed for robbery faces, on conviction, the risk of life imprisonment. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 strengthens that by making life imprisonment the punishment for anyone who carries a firearm in the conduct of crime.

Mr. Grocott

Will the Minister confirm that most thefts, apart from those that feature in sensational headlines, involve sums of less than £100? Will he confirm also that the cost of imprisonment is at least £250 a week? Would it not make more sense to concentrate on compensating the victims of crime and on non-custodial sentences, which are much less expensive and often much more effective in preventing the recurrence of offences?

Mr. Patten

The hon. Gentleman is right. The cost of keeping someone in prison is about £240 a week. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the recently introduced new provisions for compensation in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and in a recent circular issued by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the possibility of punishment within the community for less serious, non-violent offenders is probably a much better deal for the community. Our proposals are contained in my right hon. Friend's recently published Green Paper.

Mr. Hind

Given the increased level of offences of robbery, does my hon. Friend not feel that it is time that we took a close look at the remand centres that have been built in the United States in inner cities and close to the courts? That reduces the cost of transportation from prisons to the courts and frees the places that we have in our prison system for those who have been convicted and require long sentences of imprisonment. We need new designs and new thinking.

Mr. Patten

We are already producing new designs and new thinking is taking place. That thinking is encompassed in my right hon. Friend's Green Paper, which was published in July. Passages in that document ask a series of questions about the possibility of introducing private management and private construction into the building of remand centres.

Mr. Skinner

What sort of sentences should apply to City financiers who are intent on robbery, who arm themselves with bogus portfolios and kid on thousands of old-age pensioners? They are supported by Department of Trade and Industry Ministers, which means that they can continue their bogus business and rob people. Should not the Government round up and concentrate on these people?

Mr. Patten

The hon. Gentleman's attack on my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Department of Trade and Industry Ministers is perfectly monstrous and totally without foundation. It is—[Interruption.] I believe that loutish behaviour is unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but we are seeing it on the Opposition Benches. It is for the courts to decide what sentences to impose for City fraud. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 we increased the penalty for insider trading from two years' imprisonment to seven years.