By Peter Gould BBC News Online correspondent

The row began when the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, made a ruling during an appeal that appeared to change the guidelines used by judges in all the criminal courts.

He said that when sentencing a first-time burglar, who had not used violence, the "starting point" should be a community sentence rather than 18 months in prison.

It is wrongly suggested that the court is more concerned with the offenders than their victims Lord Woolf

Lord Woolf made it clear that a non-custodial sentence had to be effective, and should tackle underlying problems such as an offender's drug addiction.

He also repeated his concern about the "grossly overcrowded" prison system, and pointed to statistics that showed few offenders were deterred from crime by their first experience of being locked up.

Political row

But his comments re-opened the political debate about sentencing policy.

The criminal courts follow Lord Woolf's guidelines

Labour MP Graham Allen warned it would send out the wrong message to burglars, and the ruling also drew critical comments from the Police Federation, which represents rank and file officers.

But the crime reduction charity, Nacro, said there was an old adage that prison was an expensive way of making bad people worse.

The row then took on an added political dimension when the government's most senior law officer, Lord Irvine, told the BBC that he had "no difficulty" in agreeing with the new guidelines.

The Lord Chancellor said he thought people were sophisticated enough to understand that community sentences were more effective than prison terms in rehabilitating offenders.

He added that burglaries with "aggravating features" should still be dealt with by prison sentences.

But he was accused by the Victims of Crime Trust of being "out of touch with reality" and the coverage by some newspapers was distinctly hostile.

Soft on crime?

The Daily Mail said that if the jails were full, the answer was to build more.

It is a well-established approach to sentencing that an offender should only be sentenced to imprisonment when this is necessary, and then for no longer than necessary Lord Woolf

And the Daily Telegraph said the government was sending out a mixed message by promising tougher sentences to those caught carrying illegal weapons but promoting community penalties for burglars.

The escalating row was embarrassing for a government sensitive to any suggestion that it might be going soft on crime and punishment.

Now Lord Woolf, apparently stung by what he sees as inaccurate reporting of his ruling, has defended the new guidelines.

He says that while the starting point for offences of burglary should be a community sentence, it will not be a practical option in many cases.

He insists it is not a dramatic change in policy, rather a change of emphasis. And if violence is used or threatened, the burglar should be sent to prison.

Clarification

Lord Woolf has clearly been irritated by the suggestion that his sentencing guidelines are a "charter for burglars".

Lord Woolf is regarded as a reformer

He will be hoping his statement defuses a row that threatened to bring the judges into conflict with the politicians.

The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said today he was pleased that the Lord Chief Justice had clarified the position.

He said it was right that offenders who had committed a number of different types of crime should face custody rather than "simply being let off".

The Opposition says that parliament and not the judiciary should set the sentencing guidelines, and burglars should expect to go to jail.

This heated political debate, and Lord Woolf's response, is a clear reflection of public anxiety about this type of crime.

So there will be more than usual interest in the coming weeks about what happens when burglars now come before the courts.