Custodial Sentences (Hansard, 13 January 1994)

§ 9. Mr. Clappison
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has conducted into the effectiveness of custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Howard
The research and statistics department of the Home Office regularly publishes material relevant to the consideration of the effectiveness of sentencing, including custodial sentencing.

§ Mr. Clappison
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the value of custody lies not only in giving the best possible protection to the public from serious and persistent offenders but in improving the effectiveness and credibility of non-custodial sentences by giving a sanction to the courts against those who refuse to comply with non-custodial sentences and who will not respond to them but commit further offences? Are not those who talk about whether prison works ignoring that fact and are they not inviting house burglars, car thieves and the like to cock a snook at the courts?

§ Mr. Howard
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is precisely because of the point that he has raised that the figures that we derive from our research consistently underestimate the deterrent effect of imprisonment.

§ Ms Ruddock
Does the Home Secretary know, however, of the calculation made by the head of research at the Home Office to the effect that it would require a 25 per cent. increase in the prison population to achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in crime? Surely that would cost in the region of £1 billion. Given the fact that only one in 50 crimes leads to a conviction, would it not be much better for the Government to have a comprehensive crime prevention policy, which would be not only cheaper but much more effective in reducing the rate of crime?

§ Mr. Howard
The point that the hon. Lady makes is thoroughly absurd. Of course, most offences and most offenders should not be subject to sentence of imprisonment so to compare rates of imprisonment with all offences committed, as she has done, is of no relevance to the argument. Much more relevant is the research which shows that between three and 13 offences could be prevented for each convicted domestic burglar who is imprisoned for a year rather than sentenced to community service. That is the relevant statistic—why do the Opposition run away from it?