---

Offender Management Bill

My hon. and learned Friend is correct: the complexities behind the different penalties are enormous, as can be seen in the training given to us in our judicial capacity. Welcome though one or two of the new penalties are, they all require, first, to be introduced—I am really looking forward to learning how many of the eight have been introduced—and, secondly, a lot of input from the probation service, as does the provision in section 181 of the 2003 Act. The Minister will be very familiar indeed with that new sentencing provision of custody plus whereby a sentence can be passed by the magistrates court that, in future, has to be expressed in weeks—it must be at least 28 weeks and cannot be more than 51 weeks. What is interesting is that part of that sentence of up to 51 weeks will be custodial and part will be served on licence subject to supervision by the probation service. The maximum period of custody is 13 weeks, which is an interesting reflection of the overcrowding in our prisons. The judge will say, ““Stand up, Minister””—well, he would not say that. He will say, ““Stand up, Mr. Smith,””—Mr. Smith is the defendant. The judge will tell Mr. Smith, ““You are sentenced to custody plus, which will involve 13 weeks’ custody and a minimum of””—this is the key point—““26 weeks of supervision under licence.”” That is something new. Remember that the provision was introduced in the 2003 Act, which, unless I am mistaken, is three years ago, but has custody plus been implemented? Answer: no. Why has it not been implemented? At the time, it was lauded as a terrific new sentence for the courts. Ministers told us, ““Custody plus is just the job. We shall give offenders a harsh regime for 13 weeks and supervise them for 28 weeks. My goodness, we’ll get this introduced quickly.”” But three years later, nothing has happened. A few weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question asking what had happened to custody plus. I received an answer that had been beautifully crafted by the civil servants, the gist of which was, ““We can’t afford to introduce it.”” That is terrific—there is no money to introduce a flagship measure from three years ago. No wonder the probation service and everyone in the judiciary and the courts are scratching their heads in disbelief.