Coroners and Justice Bill

It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, taking part in Committee. We have missed her. However, I think that we could have presumed that she would return after her Second Reading speech on this part of the Bill. She knows that she is respected around the House for her expertise in this field. Our general discussion tonight on sentencing is one that I am sure we will continue in the groups to come—which, alas, will not be debated today. I shall concentrate on the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I remember the Second Reading speeches of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who saw great prospects and hopes for the sentencing council. They were optimistic about it. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, began to be optimistic about it in his remarks a few minutes ago. However, I am afraid that I will disappoint the noble Baroness tonight in the Government’s reaction to these amendments, which create statutory purposes for the new sentencing council. These purposes include issuing guidance with particular regard to reducing reoffending, gathering information on compliance with guidelines and engaging with the public on penal issues. We understand the intent behind the amendments but doubt whether it is necessary to have statutory purposes for the council in this way and, if it is right to do that, whether these purposes are the right ones. The duties on the council are set out in Part 4, Chapter 1. If these amendments were carried, they would slightly skew those duties in a way which we do not believe is helpful. It is clear that one purpose of the council is to issue guidelines. In passing, I should say that guidelines have been in existence for quite a long time. But I am not sure that it is correct to say in the purposes of the council that it should propose guidelines having particular regard to the effectiveness of sentences in reducing reoffending. Reducing reoffending is a key part of the Government’s penal policy. No one, particularly in this Committee, would underestimate its importance. It is an important consideration when considering guidelines but it is not the only one and it will be more important in some guidelines than in others. It would be less important in guidelines dealing with very serious offences which, for public protection reasons, will require long custodial sentences. The amendment underplays the importance of the other factors to which the council must have regard that are set out in Clause 106(11)(a) to (e), to which no doubt we will come the next time we meet. Amendment 187C seeks to add to the skills of judicial members in Schedule 13, ""experience … for evaluating evidence on the effectiveness of different sentences"." Of course the judicial members of the council will be experienced sentencers; they will all be experienced in evaluating evidence of many different things. On the other hand, there will also be non-judicial members who are specialists in research and academic fields. We therefore we do not think that this addition is a necessary requirement. Amendments 188B and 188C would mean that in proposing sentencing guidelines the council must have specific regard to one factor; namely, the comparative effectiveness of the different sentencing options. The amendments give the comparative effectiveness of sentences first place in the list of relative factors which inform the work of the council in preparing guidelines. We do not think that that approach is right. The Government’s concern is that these amendments seek to give priority to one factor when there is no prioritisation of the factors in this list. Prioritising one factor would be at the cost of the other equally important factors. In some guidelines, especially for more serious offences, the consideration of the impact on public confidence may be more important than relative effectiveness.