|
Column Number: 687
Standing Committee B
Thursday 30 January 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. James Cran in the Chair]
Clause 126
Purposes of sentencing
9.10 am
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): I beg to move amendment No. 516, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 531, in
No. 640, in
No. 600, in
clause 126, page 73, line 15, after 'must', insert 'in particular'.
No. 63, in
No. 641, in
clause 126, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'(1A) Any court or youth offender panel dealing with a child who is aged under 18 at the time of conviction in respect of an offence must, in addition to having regard to section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, have regard to the welfare of the child as a primary consideration.'.
No. 492, in
clause 126, page 73, line 24, leave out subsection (a).
Mr. Allen: We are now coming to some extremely important and, I hope, consensual matters.
One aspect of the criminal justice system that needs a great deal of work is sentencing. The view that sentencing is ripe for change is probably common ground not only among members of the Committee but among parliamentarians as a whole, the judiciary and the Executive. I hope that some of the changes proposed will command widespread support—that is, not merely cross-party support in the Committee, but from the Minister. I do not intend to make the issue partisan or to divide the Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will go along with that approach. Equally, I hope that the Minister will be able to take away some of the suggestions on which there is consensus in the Committee and have a serious look at them.
Column Number: 688
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): Will my hon. Friend accept congratulations from the whole Committee on his Back Bencher of the year award?
Mr. Allen: It is very kind of my hon. Friend to embarrass me this early. If you will turn a blind eye, Mr. Cran, perhaps instead of the very nice Hildon water that we have been drinking, a little later we shall have something else to celebrate that achievement.
There is, I hope, a broad-based view that change is necessary, although the Committee should not attempt to tie the Minister's or the judiciary's hands by being too specific. I hope that the process will be one of negotiation. We all accept that sentencing as a concept has recently come into some disrepute. That has not been by malice, but the comments of the Lord Chief Justice and the Home Secretary have added to the need for reform. Before Christmas, the Lord Chief Justice issued guidance on the back of an Appeal Court decision that, if read carefully, as I have done, can barely be argued with. However, the fact that it was not grounded in some common sense or was perhaps not presented with political acumen—why should the Lord Chief Justice possess that skill in addition to his many other skills?—led to sentencing coming into some disrepute from that quarter. That was perhaps totally unjustified, but that was how the matter was portrayed in the media.
In addition, the awful events in Birmingham, with the death of two young women in a shooting incident, led the Home Secretary to react as we all probably would have done in his position, and call for a mandatory five-year sentence for the possession of guns. I believe that we should all try to remove such reactions from the sentencing process and sentencing decisions. The amendments on the agenda today, which colleagues from all parts of the Committee have supported, attempt to set down a careful, protracted and considered, tested and well grounded basis on which to issue both sentences and sentencing guidelines. I hope that the legislature, the judiciary and the Executive can all agree on that concept.
The amendments enjoy the support of members of all parties in the Committee. I think that there is also some sympathy from the Government on this. I feel that what we need to do in this Committee—if I may be so bold—is to do our little bit to try to restore confidence in the criminal justice system, and specifically in the sentencing system. We all have our anecdotes; as constituency Members of Parliament, we have all heard people tell us, ''They are out of touch. Sentencing does not mean what it says. They just get a rap across the knuckles. They are let out after half their sentence.'' We are familiar with all the old stereotypes and prejudices that all our constituents regale us with. We have today, and possibly on the next day that the Committee sits, a chance to put that situation right, and it is incumbent on all of us—Government, legislature and judiciary—to seize that chance and get that right.
What we are looking at in this clause is a prelude to some of the later structural and organisational changes that are required in sentencing. In particular, amendment No. 516, which leads the group, is about judicial discretion. It may seem odd to start on that
Column Number: 689
aspect, but that was the order in which the amendments had to be placed within the group, so I shall deal with that first.
Whatever we wish to do to broaden and strengthen a sentencing council and deepen the roots of sentencing in the community, we must above all ensure that judicial independence in this country is not only maintained but strengthened. The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe that we have had a clear statement of judicial independence in law in the way that is proposed in amendment No. 516, which states clearly, for the first time ever:
''Judges shall have discretion in the determination of all sentences.''
That is how it is now, and that is how it should be, and it is right, before we talk about reform, that we reassure the judiciary that that is clear and is on the face of the Bill; if they are content with that, they may feel less worried about some of the changes that are proposed later in the Bill.
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for enabling the Committee to proceed in this way. Rather than being formulaic and ritualistic in this Committee, the Home Secretary made it very clear on the Floor of the House that he was
''very happy for Opposition Members in Committee''—
presumably he means those in opposition to the view, as it then was, of the Executive, in which I would include myself and many of my colleagues on the Labour Benches, who are attempting to be constructive on this clause—
''to table amendments to strengthen the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council vis-à-vis Parliament. Let us debate it''.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on that. He also said:
''I am very sympathetic to the idea of the Select Committee taking a powerful role in this area, and I think that we are moving towards a consensus.''—[Official Report, 13 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 425, 427.]
I very much agree.
If I may speak out of school, Mr. Cran, you and I had a private conservation before the Committee began about how constructive and positive our proceedings have been. I have experience as a Government Whip, and as a Back Bencher before that, and this has been one of the most positive Committees on which I have ever sat. The level of expertise shown by all parties, the commitment of the Front-Bench spokesmen from the Opposition parties to make constructive and positive proposals, and the Minister's openness in his responses are something that I have never experienced to this extent in 16 years in the House. We should take the chance to be constructive that that happy coincidence of factors gives us.
For the first time ever, it will be extremely useful to include in the Bill a specific statement that the judiciary should have discretion in final sentencing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) looks puzzled, so I shall try to explain one point before he intervenes. That discretion should
Column Number: 690
always be within publicly understood guidelines and the statutory framework set by the House. At present, those guidelines rest exclusively—and sometimes controversially—with the Lord Chief Justice. This initial reassurance attempts to pave the way for a broader consensus, which later amendments cover.
Mr. Marsha Singh (Bradford, West): I am puzzled. Does not the amendment preclude any mandatory sentencing at all? That is how it appears to me. If judges are to have the final discretion in any sentencing, that will exclude mandatory sentencing. That is not right. Parliament has a right to respond to public disquiet about sentencing for rape or other offences by setting mandatory sentences for those convicted. I think that the amendment would preclude that.
Mr. Allen: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend raised that extremely serious point, with which I agree. Like him, I am not a lawyer, so it is important to be clear about who does what if we are to create a wholly new, clear definition for the public and ourselves. I am not inhibiting Parliament's ability to pass statute law. What I am saying is that we shall all be much stronger if sentencing guidelines, or those specific sentences for specific offences, have gone through an extensive consultation period involving the judiciary, Ministers and ourselves. We do not want to end up in a bidding war over whether, for example, a burglar should get a one or two-year mandatory sentence. We do not wish to hear, ''I bid three,'' and ''Do I hear five over there?'' People go into reactive mode, which will create bad law and bad sentencing.
If my hon. Friend allows me—
|
