HL Deb 18 July 1989 vol 510 cc689-91

2.42 p.m.

Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:

What consideration they are giving to the possibility of reparation and restitution by convicted persons, both to society in general and to the victims of crime, as an alternative to custodial sentence; and when they expect to reach conclusions.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, reparation and restitution are already possible. When an offender has been convicted of an imprisonable offence, the courts may order him to perform community service, which is one form of reparation to society. Courts can also order an offender to pay financial compensation to his victim.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. What guidance has been given to the courts to encourage them to make the greatest possible use of the existing provisions for reparation and restitution, especially when dealing with non-violent offenders? Will Her Majesty's Government provide the necessary resources for the probation service and others who enforce those sentences?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, no circular has been sent out by the Home Office, but Part of the Green Paper was targeted at 17 to 20 year-olds. That was followed by an action plan which went to the probation service urging it, among other things, to talk to the courts as part of a wider strategy for reducing the use of custody for young adults.

Lord Hutchinson of Lullington

My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what has happened to the imaginative and important pilot schemes based on the mediation/reparation idea and initiated by his department in four cities in the north of England? These were set up, as he will remember, in 1985. Will he tell the House whether the results have been assessed and if not why not? Does he agree that this mediation could make a tremendous contribution to the treatment and the way that offenders are dealt with in the community rather than in custody?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, it is part of the Government's philosophy to try to give sentences outside custody as opposed to custody where possible. The Home Office funded four experimental reparation schemes between 1985 and 1987 enabling the victim and the offender to meet on an entirely voluntary basis to discuss offences and if possible to arrange reparation. Those schemes were in Cumbria, Coventry, Leeds and Wolverhampton. The Green Paper Punishment: Custody in the Community sought views on the role of reparation and mediation in the criminal justice system. We hope to publish a report on our experimental schemes in the next few months. We shall consider future plans in the light of responses to that report.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, can the noble Earl give an indication of the extent to which the courts are using the powers they now have to order restitution or community service instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment? Are these well established powers in fact being used by the courts?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, they are being used fairly effectively. Indeed, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 the courts are required to give reasons if they do not make an order for compensation where that is necessary. Community service orders are carried out and an offender aged 16 or over who is convicted of an offence for which an adult could be sent to prison can have one of these orders placed upon him. The order is for a minimum of 40 hours work and a maximum of 240. About 35,000 offenders each year receive community service orders.

Lord Carr of Hadley

My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether there is any sign of much regional variation in the way in which these non-custodial powers are being used?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I do not have any figures to show variance within the regions. I have no doubt that they will not follow an exactly similar pattern.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, does the Minister agree that compensation and a non-custodial sentence do not necessarily, nor should they, run together? A person who has committed an offence should pay compensation as well as serve a sentence.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I tried to the follow the noble Baroness but I got left behind. Would she mind repeating her question?

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I am sorry if the Minister did not follow me. The Question seems to suggest that reparation and restitution are alternatives to conviction and custodial sentences. Surely, compensation, which subsequent questions seem to have brought in, is not an alternative. Compensation should be arranged even if the individual has to go to prison.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, of course, that varies. The courts can make compensation orders and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires them to give reasons if they do not do so in suitable cases. Over 100,000 are made each year, and in 1987 they totalled £19 million. So they are alternatives.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, are the courts careful to ensure that there should be no illusion that a criminal can buy his way out of crime? Will they examine these cases with great care?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it would be quite wrong if a criminal felt that he could buy his way out of punishment. The whole purpose of the provision is to encourage those who have committed criminal acts to repay the victims for some of the distress which they have caused. In some cases they cannot give back to the victim so they must give back to society.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, does the noble Earl accept the fact that non-custodial sentences are more likely to make the offender face up to his crime and his personal problems whereas prison may degrade him and drag him deeper into crime?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that largely depends upon the crime and the criminal. There are some cases where, without question, a custodial sentence is required. There are other occasions when the community and the criminal can best be served by a sentence being carried out outside prison.