I beg to move amendment No. 727, in

schedule 16, page 227, line 20, at end insert 'in custody'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 728, in

schedule 16, page 228, line 8, leave out from 'with' to 'relating' and insert 'a written report'.

No. 729, in

schedule 16, page 228, line 39, after 'offence', insert 'punishable with imprisonment'.

No. 730, in

schedule 16, page 229, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).

I shall be brief. Deferment of sentence is introduced in clause 242. On a personal note, I must tell the Minister that deferring sentence is not helpful. Most judges of any experience do not defer sentence because it is more trouble than it is worth—and here's why.

Judges normally defer sentence by saying to the defendant, ''I defer sentence for six months, and during that time you must first behave yourself and not commit any other offences; secondly, you must get a job; and, thirdly, you must make some reparation.'' The list may include other things. The odds are that the defendant will come back to court at the end of the period of deferment and be only halfway there—but not quite: he had a job but lost it; or he kept out of trouble but was given a caution. It puts the courts in a difficult position, and most experienced judges never defer sentence. However, the amendments are simple.

New section 1(6) of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, proposed in schedule 16 provides that a court that

''defers passing sentence on an offender shall not on the same occasion remand him.''

I assume that that means remanded in custody, which is the reason for amendment No. 727. I would be happy if the Minister could confirm that. New section 1A of the 2000 Act includes the phrase

''such information as the court may require''.

That envisages an oral report, but it would be tidier to use the words ''a written report'', as suggested in amendment No. 728.

Amendment No. 729 seeks to amend proposed new section 1C(1), which states:

''A court which under section 1 above has deferred passing sentence on an offender may deal with him before the end of the period of deferment if during that period he is convicted in Great Britain of any offence''.

I assume that that must mean an offence that carries a custodial sentence, although it is not stated, because otherwise it could apply to a road traffic offence, which is of no relevance to the provision.

I move on to amendment No. 730. I will not press any of my amendments, but page 229 made me think that if sentenced is passed by the Crown court it must mean that another offence had been committed. Would this provision aggravate an offence that had previously been the subject of deferred sentence by the magistrates? However, that is not a strong point. If I were asked as to my best point in the past five minutes I would be pushed to tell the Minister what it was, but I think it was the point that the offender should not be remanded for an offence carrying a custodial sentence.

I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments about deferment of sentence. Some judges seek to defer sentences and some do not. I respect enormously the hon. Gentleman's experience. As he said, sentences are deferred to enable the court to monitor the offender's compliance with community requirements. The offender will have a supervisor who will provide the court with information as to compliance. As with suspended sentences, if the offender does not comply or commits a new offence, he can be dealt with immediately.

In relation to amendment No. 727, the Bill currently states, ''remand him''. It is not necessary to add ''in custody'', because at this stage of the proceedings after conviction remand could only mean in custody. That is the confirmation that the hon. Gentleman was seeking.

Amendment No. 728 would limit the provision of information to a written report. We made provision for reports to be provided in oral form for pre-sentence reports under an earlier clause and we would like to retain that flexibility and read it through to these provisions.

Amendment No. 730 would remove the power of the magistrates court to commit an offender to the Crown court for sentence. We are dealing with a re-enactment of section 1(5)(b) of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. There is no reason why, in cases where an offender has pleaded guilty before venue, the court cannot commit the offender to sentence after a deferment as well as straight away. There is no conflict with the changes to committal for sentence in the earlier parts of the Bill. The section 3 referred to in proposed new section 1D(2)(b) is section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which the Bill amends.

In relation to amendment No. 729, proposed new section 1C(1) is a discretionary power, but it should go by the court, which can then choose to ignore a road traffic offence if necessary—to use the hon. Gentleman's example. However, we would want serious non-custodial offences to be included.

What about non-imprisonable offences?

I shall reflect on that point.

The Minister has kindly undertaken to reflect on the point; I think that he thinks that it is not a bad one. Given that he is going to come up with a serious non-imprisonable offence, I will look forward to his written response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 243 ordered to stand part of the Bill.