Amendments made: No. 863, in

schedule 19, page 241, leave out lines 18 to 27 and insert—

'Railway Regulation Act 1840

In section 16 of the Railway Regulation Act 1840 (c.97) (obstructing officers or trespassing upon railway), for ''one month'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 864, in

schedule 19, page 241, leave out from beginning of line 28 to end of line 7 on page 242.

No. 865, in

schedule 19, page 242, line 10, at end insert—

'Regulation of Railways Act 1889

In section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (c.57) (avoiding payment of fares, etc.),in subsection (3), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.

Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892

In section 2 of the Witnesses (Public Inquiries) Protection Act 1892 (c.64) (persons obstructing or intimidating witnesses), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 866, in

schedule 19, page 242, line 14, at end insert—

'Emergency Powers Act 1920

In section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920 (c.55) (emergency regulations), in subsection (3), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 867, in

schedule 19, page 242, line 26, at end insert—

'House to House Collections Act 1939

In section 8 of the House to House Collections Act 1939 (c.44), in subsection (2), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 868, in

schedule 19, page 246, line 10, leave out from beginning to '(investigation' and insert—

'(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c.16) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 44 (offences relating to the power to obtain rights over land), in subsection (10), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.

(3) In section 75'.

No. 869, in

schedule 19, page 246, line 12, at end insert—

'Anatomy Act 1984

In section 11 of the Anatomy Act 1984 (c.14) (offences), in subsection (6), for ''3 months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 870, in

schedule 19, page 248, line 16, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—

'In section 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5) (false representations for obtaining benefit etc.),in subsection (2), for ''3 months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 871, in

schedule 19, page 248, line 34, at end insert—

'London Local Authorities Act 1995

In section 24 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 (c.x) (enforcement), in subsection (1), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 872, in

schedule 19, page 249, line 10, at end insert—

'Government of Wales Act 1998

In section 75 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c.38) (witnesses and documents: supplementary), in subsection (3)(b), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 873, in

schedule 19, page 249, line 13, at end insert—

'Greater London Authority Act 1999{**qc**}

In section 64 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c.29) (failure to attend proceedings etc), in subsection (2)(b), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'.

No. 874, in

schedule 19, page 250, line 13, at end insert—

'Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002

In section 137 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c.41) (offences relating to the disclosure of information), in subsection (2)(a), for ''three months'' there is substituted ''51 weeks''.'—[Hilary Benn.]

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I think that we are still on schedule 18, unless you rule otherwise.

The Committee just agreed to schedule 18. We are on schedule 19.

In that case, I want to make a contribution on schedule 19.

The schedule follows on from clause 244, which in principle is fine. It extends the term of imprisonment for all offences detailed in schedule 19 to 51 weeks to fit in with the new arrangements for custody plus. I appreciate that they become maximum sentences, but I do not know whether Committee members have picked up that we are now about to agree to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for certain offences significantly. Some increases appear to take the maximum term to a very high level.

I will give the Committee a few examples. Offences under section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 currently carry a maximum term of imprisonment of one month, but the proposal is to increase the term effectively to one year. Section 4 offences carry a maximum penalty of three months, which is again increased to almost

one year. The current penalty for being found drunk under the Licensing Act 1872 is a maximum prison sentence of a month, but the Bill proposes to increase that to 51 weeks, which is just under one year. Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, the penalty for indecent exposure gets the same increase.

Paragraph 5 covers the offence of being drunk in charge of a child, which is arguably more serious, and it could be seen as more logical for the penalty to be increased to one year's imprisonment. One final example is in paragraph 38. We have debated football hooliganism legislation several times in recent years. The current punishment for unauthorised attendance at football matches is a maximum of a month in jail. The Bill will mean that if someone now attends a match after they have been banned, they will risk going to prison for a year.

At a stroke, we will end up with considerably increased prison sentences. That is logical in that it fits in with the Government's plans, but the changes would be better dealt with by other means. I have a question and proposition for the Minister. My question is whether it is possible to keep the maximum prison sentences at lower levels, such as one month, without breaking the spirit or intention of the custody plus and custody minus arrangements. If so, can we reconsider whether some of the offences would be better governed by those arrangements if we kept to the lower maximum prison sentences? My proposition is that, however we proceed today, we should return to the question. No widespread consideration has been given to the fact that the schedule will mean that a raft of offences—it refers to 51 different Acts, some of which list more than one offence—will carry the possibility of much higher terms of imprisonment.

I appreciate that the maximum sentence will not always be imposed and that there will not inevitably be an increase, but we should reflect on the point made by the hon. Member for Woking. The danger is that if there is a higher maximum term, the courts will either impose it or move towards it. Although the last schedule followed reasonable arguments for reducing the number of punishments that include a prison option, with one or two exceptions that the hon. Gentleman noted, there is not the same argument for increasing at a stroke the punishments for 50-odd offences so that they all potentially get a year's imprisonment.

Is the theory behind the schedule that every offence on the statute book that carries a maximum period of imprisonment of less than 51 weeks will be upped to 51 weeks? Is it an across-the-board proposal, and if so, is it not illogical to say that a maximum period of imprisonment cannot be by law less than 51 weeks? That strikes me as a strange threshold. I may be wrong, and many remaining offences may have a maximum term of imprisonment of nine, six or three months or a week. It would be helpful to know how the law will stand if we agree to the schedule. The changes are significant.

Will the Minister say whether the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which is created by another part of the Bill, will run any future changes similar to the massive changes in schedules 18 to 20?

Will the council have any influence in such important areas?

Dealing with the last question first, sentences are laid down in statute, and it is for Parliament to determine sentences and the appropriate maximum penalties. It is then for the courts to interpret statute and apply appropriate penalties. The Sentencing Guidelines Council's work will be to assist the courts in doing that.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey will know that, because of the introduction of custody plus, there will be no such thing as a maximum sentence of one month's custody. The custodial period under custody plus is a minimum of two weeks' custody and a maximum of three months. He said that the schedule will result in potential periods of custody of up to 51 weeks, but that is not what custody plus provides for, as he knows full well. I accept that the schedule is a clear consequence of custody plus. All offences must fit in that framework, and we have made a judgment in putting offences on either side by downgrading some and increasing others.

Summary offences that currently carry a penalty of six months will increase to a term of 51 weeks. Of those currently carrying a penalty of less than six months, some will increase to 51 weeks, which is done in schedule 19, and others will be downgraded to non-custodial penalties, which is done in schedule 18. None will be left as they are, and we intend to cover everything. If we have missed anything, an order-making power exists to try to deal with that, which answers the hon. Gentleman's other point. I do not believe for a second, because I have great confidence in the common sense of the courts, that the consequence of making the changes is that suddenly, the day after the Bill comes into effect and the schedule starts to operate, the sentences that are handed down will be any different from those that are given now. That will not change, but the framework within which the offences sit is being changed to take account of the existence of custody plus. It is no more and no less than that.

I understand the Minister's argument. However, he is creating a strange anomaly in that there will not be anything for which the maximum period of imprisonment is less than 51 weeks. The gradated differences that have existed will disappear. I appreciate that custody plus means that the sentence is divided between inside and outside. It has the advantage of simplicity, in that there are lots of non-imprisonable offences, some imprisonable ones for which the maximum is 51 weeks, and then the more serious ones, but it takes away the gradations of severity, so we lose the signals as to degrees of seriousness. That could be a disadvantage.

Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 245 and 246 ordered to stand part of the Bill.