HL Deb 19 November 2003 vol 654 cc2005-7

138 Page 89, line 3, at end insert—

(8) This section shall not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under Sections 174 and 175.

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—

138A Because it may be desirable to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates' courts before the provisions about sentences of less than 12 months can be brought into force

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 138A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139, 167, 173 and 235. Those provisions deal with the sentencing issue.

As originally drafted, the Bill did not impose any restrictions on the timing of the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers. This allowed for a flexible approach to implementation. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would take away that flexibility by preventing the increase of magistrates' sentencing powers from coming into effect in advance of the custody plus provisions. The effect of that would be that the anticipated benefits of the increased magistrates' sentencing powers in terms of enabling them to retain more cases, thus saving time and money as well as benefiting victims and witnesses, could not be realised prior to the implementation of custody plus which we are aiming for as soon as possible.

Turning to Lords Amendment No. 167, as originally drafted the Bill provided for the indeterminate sentence of public protection to be passed if the offender was convicted of a trigger offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years or more and the court was of the opinion that there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences.

As we have stated in both Houses, the purpose of the test is to establish whether an offender is dangerous and in making this judgment the court must focus primarily upon the degree of the risk of harm that any future offending may pose. We do not think that the alternative test proposed by your Lordships diverts the attention of the court away from the central consideration—the harm that the offender may pose to the public. Both tests of course require a risk of reoffending to be present, but we think that the original test incorporates it in a way that better meets the interests of public safety.

On Amendment No. 173, as originally drafted the Bill provided for the automatic release of non-dangerous offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more at the half-way point of their sentence. However, your Lordships decided that where this sentence was of four years or more, automatic release could not occur before the offender had served two-thirds of their sentence in prison. Following the introduction of the new sentences for dangerous offenders, there is no longer any public protection justification for retaining the differential release provisions that currently exist for custodial sentences of over and under four years. Amendment No. 173 would also undermine all the benefits that would accrue from the new simplified structure of custodial sentence of 12 months or more for non-dangerous offenders, such as making the sentencing framework more transparent, increasing public confidence, assisting post-release planning and providing longer supervision periods to reduce re-offending.

Finally, Amendment No. 235 places a duty upon chief officers of each probation area to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities. We believe that that simply is not necessary. Although the Government agree with the sentiment of this amendment and acknowledge the importance of encouraging joint working, they do not believe that such a statutory duty is necessary in the light of arrangements that are already in place and those that are planned.

The National Probation Directorate has recently agreed with the Magistrates' Association to establish a new national consultative group which will help to give magistrates and other sentencers a clear and strong voice in the development of policy and practice. Discussions are currently taking place with the Magistrates' Association and others about the details, including the terms of reference and wider membership of the group. These are expected to be resolved by the end of the year.

Among the first issues to be addressed when the new group meets will be how these national arrangements might be reflected at a more local level and the continuing development of local and locally agreed communication strategies to complement those at a national level. For these reasons, I beg to move that the House do not insist on the amendment.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment Nos. 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 138 A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.