Standing Committee B
Tuesday 2 June 1998
(Afternoon)
[Mrs. Ray Michie in the Chair]
Clause 76
The Sentencing Advisory Panel
4.30 pm
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): I beg to move amendment No. 230, in page 61, line 21, at end insert
"(1A) The panel shall contain
(a) at least two members who have experience of working with or on behalf of the victims of crime, and
(b) at least
(i) one member who is a serving circuit or High Court Judge,
(ii) one member who is a police officer,
(iii) one member who is a magistrate, and
(iv) one member who has experience of working as a small businessman.".
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 303, in page 61, line 21, at end insert
"(1A) In exercising its functions the Sentencing Advisory Panel shall act in co-operation with the Magistrates Association.".
No. 306, in page 61, line 31, after "bodies", insert
"including victims of particular offences and those who have experience of working with or on behalf of the victims of particular offences".
Mr. Clappison: As the Committee will have gathered from our debates this morning, the sentencing advisory panel will make proposals to the Court of Appeal on sentencing guidelines. After consultation with the Secretary of State and the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor will appoint the members of the panel. Opposition Members wish to include in the Bill some provisions regarding the membership of the panel. That is no reflection on the role of the Lord Chancellor.
In the past, membership of similar bodies has sometimes been perceived by the public as comprising the great and the good. Many distinguished and eminent figures have fallen into the trap of choosing that form of membership and it has happened under Governments of all political complexions. Conservative Members do not suggest for a moment that our present Lord Chancellor would fall into such a trap.
We do not allege that the panel would exclusively comprise the great and the good. We want to ensure that some thought is given to the position of ordinary victims of crime and others who might not necessarily be included in the ranks of the great and the good.
Amendment No. 230 would give the victims of crime a voice on the sentencing advisory panel; the panel would also include a judge, a police officer, a magistrate and a small business man. We feel especially strongly that if the Government set up such bodies, they should include victims; they should have a say in these matters. The amendment explores the membership of the sentencing advisory panel and we should like to hear some encouraging words from the Minister on that subject.
Amendment No. 303 refers to the guidelines for magistrates, which have achieved greater prominence in recent years. Where do such guidelines fit into the framework of guidelines described in clauses 75 and 76? The amendment would require the sentencing advisory panel to act in co-operation with the Magistrates Association. We wish to explore those issues through the amendment.
Amendment No. 306 relates to the consultations to be carried out by the sentencing advisory panel before it fulfils its functions. Again, it is important that the panel should consult the victims of crime, and we await the Minister's comments on that matter.
Amendment No. 288 is a technical amendment.
The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have not yet reached amendment No. 288.
Mr. Clappison: I was getting ahead of myself, Mrs. Michie, as you have correctly reminded me. It was the excitement of talking about the technical nature of the amendment. I will spare the Committee a further preview of the amendment and give hon. Members something to look forward to later in the afternoon.
Mr. Michael: The amendments relate to the composition of the sentencing advisory panel and seek out the Government's intentions regarding that matter. I am happy to give the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) a positive response.
We should certainly consider the victims of crime and other people with an interest in the success of the criminal justice system. The purpose of the advisory panel is to enable the criminal justice system to become more effective in its sentencing practice.
Amendment No. 230, which would establish in statute the categories of people who could become members of the sentencing advisory panel established in clause 76, is identical to an amendment tabled in another place. It raises questions about who will be on the sentencing advisory panel and seeks to ensure that certain interest groups are represented.
We are keen to hear views about who should be on the panel and agree with some of the ideas in the amendment. However, we would resist attempts to adopt the prescriptive approach set out in the amendment. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) rightly said that appointments to the panel will be decided by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. Some discussions have taken place, but no final decision has yet been taken. We are happy to take note of views expressed in Committee.
It may be helpful if I outline the role of the panel and how it will work, as that will inform any decision on membership. The panel is intended to provide informed, well-researched and objective advice to the Court of Appeal. It must be independent, but it must be capable of reflecting the view of a wide range of interested parties and of acting as a conduit for those views to the Court of Appeal.
[Mr. Michael]
The panel must not be seen to be dominated by any particular sectional interests. It has been set up to promote consistency in sentencing by providing the Court of Appeal with additional tools which will assist in the framing or revision of guidelines. That information and advice will not change the Court of Appeal's responsibility for the guidelines.
The panel must have the right mix of coal-face experience and broad-based knowledge of the criminal justice system. It should not be too big and unwieldy, so we do not want to identify interest groups that must serve on it by law. We will look for up to a dozen people with an appropriate range of experience and who are able to make a positive contribution to the advisory process. Clearly, that limits the range of people and groups that may be represented on the panel itself. However, the panel will consult those whose interests are not directly represented to ensure that they have every opportunity to feed in their views.
The hon. Gentleman will accept that victims' interests are represented by a wide variety of organisations. Some of those organisations represent victims with specific experiences of crime, and they can contribute expertise in certain areas of crime, even though they do not have knowledge of the entire range. Members of the panel do not have to be representatives or delegates of a particular interest group, but will contribute by drawing on their own experience by acting as a team in assisting the Court of Appeal.
The panel may wish to commission research when the question of making a new guideline is raised by the Court of Appeal, the Home Secretary or by the panel itself. The panel must then consider the views of other people or bodies, as determined by the Lord Chancellor and other bodies that are deemed appropriate by the panel. When those views are obtained and the research is complete, the panel will digest all the information and formulate its own advice which will then be passed to the Court of Appeal.
Appointments to the panel will not be made until the Bill is enacted. I assure the Committee that they will be open and fair. Our ideas on the composition of the panel are already taking shape. Our view is that contributors should include sentencers a judge and a magistrate sentence providers such as people with experience of the Prison Service and probation service, people who are wholly independent of the criminal justice system, and those with academic or research experience.
The Government have already demonstrated their sensitivity to victims of crime and we will seek to reflect that dimension in the composition of the panel. However, it would be unfortunate if we were too prescriptive about membership and were prevented from appointing suitable candidates simply because they did not fit some pre-determined category.
Amendment No. 306 would require the sentencing advisory panel to obtain and consider the views of victims of particular offences. It is unnecessary because the essence of our approach is that the views and experience of victims will be taken into consideration by the panel. I hope that that offers the specific reassurance that the hon. Member for Hertsmere requested.
The panel will consult a wide range of bodies and people. For example, the police are not specifically mentioned, but the panel will need to consult police representatives. If one group is singled out in the legislation, that might cast doubt on the position of others. As I have already said, victims' views are important and I can assure the Committee that their voice will be heard by the panel, but that does not need to be spelt out in the Bill.
The panel will not necessarily speak to the particular victim of a particular offence some victims would not want to do that, and we would not want them to be forced to do so, by putting a requirement on the statute book. Victims' views will be represented and there is no reason why individual victims should not write directly to the panel.
Amendment No. 303 would require the sentencing advisory panel to act in co-operation with the Magistrates Association. It is again unnecessary for the provision to be built into the Bill. As a former member of the Magistrates Association, I should like to make it clear that I fully support the principle behind the amendment. The association already plays an important role by providing sentencing guidelines for its members. The hon. Member for Hertsmere mentioned the relationship between those guidelines and the advice given by the panel. Once the sentencing advisory panel is established, there will be co-operation between the two bodies: that is essential.
Apart from the fact that the Magistrates Association is a non-statutory body, the amendment itself is vague. What exactly does it mean when it refers to acting in co-operation with the Magistrates Association? Does it mean that the panel must agree its advice with the Magistrates Association or is it that it must consult the Magistrates Association?
It is clear what co-operation means an exchange of views and the development of a good relationship. We can all agree that that should happen, but it is less easy to put it in legal terms and embody it in the Bill. The amendment does not have the clarity necessary for such a provision to be put in the Bill.
| 
