Question proposed [30 January], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Before we adjourned on Thursday, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked some interesting and pertinent questions. I want to make two brief points about the clause. The first is simply an observation. Those of us who believe that community sentencing has a valuable role to play and has clear advantages in relation to some offenders and some forms of reoffending would be better served if community sentences were more visible in the community. If we are to get public support for community sentencing, the concept must be sold much more effectively, because it is seen as a slap on the wrist that means nothing. People who are carrying out community sentences are virtually invisible to the general public. The system needs to address that problem. The more people are aware that a community sentence is a real sentence, which has a real effect on a person and is not a soft option, the more they will accept community sentences as a genuine part of the sentencing programme.

My second point touches on something else said by the hon. Member for Woking. Subsection (1)(a) includes a cross-reference to a community order as defined by clause 160. I should be interested to hear the Minister's answers on that. I may be prefacing a debate that we will have on clause 160, but it is also useful to explore the issue now. There is one risk involved in defining a single community order and a palette of restrictions that can be imposed on the court. Courts will feel increasingly constrained to pile on restriction after restriction, and multiple restrictions on offenders would have the perverse effect of making it far more likely that they would default on the sentence and, therefore, far more likely that a custodial sentence would be the result. That cannot be the intention. I wonder whether the Bill includes sufficient safeguards.

Perhaps the Minister will explain how sanction creep by the courts could be avoided. That has been identified as a potential danger by others outside the

House. The legislation must be drafted properly so that what is essentially a good part of the Bill does not end up having the perverse effect of increasing custodial sentences for relatively minor offences. We need to strike a balance.

I thought it would be helpful to bring to the Committee's attention two parliamentary answers about community penalties given to me by the Minister on Thursday. Written answers Nos. 75 and 76 relate to the activity of prisoners and reconviction rates after different forms of sentence. I shall read the questions and answers and ask for the Minister's response. I asked

''what proportion of prisoners released in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what assessment is of reconviction rates for prisoners released in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002.''

The answer, supplied last Thursday, was:

''The two-year 'un-adjusted' reconviction rate for prisoners discharged from custody in 1997 was 58 per cent. The provisional figure for 1998 was also 58 per cent. These rates are published in 'Prison Statistics—England and Wales 2000'.

Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from custody in the first quarter of 1999 have also been calculated according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement . . . 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to discharge, giving a reconviction rate of 55.3 per cent. The equivalent figures for the first quarter of 1997 and 1998 are 56.8 per cent. and 55.7 per cent. respectively.

Reconviction rates for more recent periods are not yet available.''

The relevant reconviction rate was therefore 58 per cent. in 1997 and 1998 and 55.3 per cent. for the first quarter of 1999, which is the latest period for which we have figures.

I asked a parallel question on the same day, and I received written answer No. 76. My question was:

''To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of offenders completing community sentences in (a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 were reconvicted within two years; and what his assessment is of reconviction rates for offenders completing programmes in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002.''

The answer was:

''Reconviction rates for offenders commencing community penalties in the first quarter of 1997 have been calculated according to the requirements of the Government's Public Service Agreement . . . 10 target. These are adjusted to take out convictions for offences committed prior to commencement of the penalty and convictions for breach of the penalty where no further offence had been committed.

This gives a reconviction rate for the first quarter of 1997 of 45.7 per cent. The equivalent figure for the first quarters of 1998 and 1999 are 46.0 per cent. and 44.3 per cent. respectively.

Two-year reconviction rates are not available for offenders completing programmes in 2000, 2001 or 2002.''—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1049–1050W.]

To summarise, the relevant reconviction rate was 45.7 per cent for the first quarter of 1997, which was the first year in relation to which I asked about people who had been in custody. For subsequent first quarters, the rates were 46 and 44.3 per cent.

I have two last points, which are obvious. There is not an exact parallel between those who receive a custodial penalty and those who do not, and I am not

trying to make that case. However, Home Office statisticians and those who know a lot about these calculations take such considerations into account when making comparisons. Such comparisons are important and will become increasingly so if the present trend continues. The calculations for the most recent years for which figures are available suggest that the reconviction rate for those who went to prison was between 55 and 60 per cent. In the same period, the reconviction rate for those who did not go to prison but received a community penalty was between 40 and 50 per cent. It would be helpful to have the Minister's comments on that.

There seems to be a strong case for good community penalties and for increasing investment in them, as well as for many of the plans that the Government set out in the White Paper following the Halliday report. We should try to avoid custody wherever possible and to have good community penalties as an alternative.

Let me take the opportunity, prompted by our discussion on the programme amendment, to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for the skilful way in which he has assisted the Committee in conducting its business and for his constant willingness to listen to fair points about the programme motion. That is appreciated by hon. Members from all parties.

When we finished on Thursday, the hon. Member for Woking asked me a list of questions. He kindly prefaced them by saying that he would be happy for me to respond at a later date. I shall be delighted to do so in writing.

I concur completely with the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the way in which community sentences are perceived. That is best summed up by the phrase ''got off with probation''. How often has one heard that phrase fall from people's lips? If one talks to some of the people who are experiencing rigorous community penalties, they will not argue that they have ''got off with'' anything. It is extremely important—not least for the success of many of the Bill's community penalty provisions—that we get away from community penalties being an alternative to the default setting, which is custody. We must lay down clearly, as the Bill does in its principles, where custody is appropriate and where community penalties are appropriate. We must use community penalties effectively.

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about condition creep. Clause 160(6) requires the court, where two or more of those many requirements under subsection (1) are imposed, to consider the compatibility of the two. The other way that it will need to be dealt with is through training. The aim is to enable the courts to flexibly design a sentence that meets the offender's needs. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would not be sensible if there was to be the condition creep that he describes. That is something of which we shall need to be conscious.

The Minister is responding positively to my point. I am grateful to him for that. He is right that training will play a role. Can he assure the Committee that appropriate guidance will be given on how to apply the palette of requirements in clause 160(1)? That is crucial to the entire operation.

I gladly give that assurance, not least because the Sentencing Guidelines Council, in offering advice on the operation of sentences, will be required to do that.

I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that the figures that he reported to the Committee are interesting. He partly answered his question when he acknowledged that there is not an exact parallel because different offenders are being dealt with by the different disposals. A true comparison could be made only if one took a group of offenders who had committed offences of the same seriousness and who had the same background. Custodial sentences could be imposed on one lot and community sentences on the other. We would have a proper control that would enable us to assess the different effect of the different sentences. However, we must continue to answer questions such as those posed by the hon. Gentleman if we are to better understand the impact that different sentences have on different offenders.

I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I had intended to speak to the clause. However, I shall not do so, as we need to move on quickly. There is a severe credibility problem in the community about the perception of community sentences. I know that the Minister wishes to deal with that.

I have a specific point to make, not least as we approach clause 160, which specifies some of the community sentences. I do not wish to do away with health and safety legislation, but several people have told me that it often inhibits the type of sentence that people wish to impose on an offender because there are onerous health and safety obligations. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that point in writing.

I will gladly do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.