BREACH OF COMMUNITY ORDERS: WARNING AND PUNISHMENT (Hansard, 14 November 2000)

§ Mr. Boateng
I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 82.

§ Mr. Boateng
Our original enforcement proposals attracted criticism of the mandatory nature of the sentence of imprisonment for breach of an order. Our objective is not to imprison large numbers of extra offenders, but to improve compliance with community sentences and enhance their credibility. Community sentences must not be ignored or treated lightly by offenders subjected to them. All too often, I fear, however, they are, and we require a more rigorous and consistent enforcement regime. We have reflected on the representations made to ensure that clause 48 is as effective as it can be. That is the reason for the amendments, and we have revised the clause to allow more judicial discretion while retaining certainty of outcome and providing that some penalty must be imposed for every breach of a community order.
We have reached the view that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty for reasons that hon. Members who have been practitioners in our courts will know only too well. In cases such as those concerned, the fine would be at a lower tariff than the community penalty breached, which cannot be right even if set aside from issues surrounding the enforcement of fines, which cause much exasperation to all concerned, not least the courts and honest, law-abiding citizens who fulfil their obligations.
There are several consequential amendments to schedule 6, and I hope that they will find wide support on both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Hawkins
I can be very brief. I am delighted with what the Minister has said. The Government have accepted several arguments advanced in Committee by the official Opposition. I recognise the spirit in which the Minister spoke, and there is great joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth.