UK Parliament / Open data

Coroners and Justice Bill

I particularly comment—to a large degree, favourably—on the amendments in the group proposed by the Liberal Democrat Members. It seems to me that while making particular points relating to their amendment, both are very keen on the notion that there should be a combination of judicial and non-judicial members with various kinds of experience on the Sentencing Council. The range of experience on the Sentencing Council is of great importance in adding value to the experience of the trial judge whose final responsibility is to pronounce sentence—subject, that is, to appeal. Like the Liberal Democrat Members, I very strongly agree with the broad thrust of the Government’s proposals that the council should be composed of a mix of judicial and non-judicial members. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, particularly wanted to add somebody with experience in the rehabilitation of offenders to the range of non-judicial members required in paragraph (4) of Schedule 4. Many years ago I was a member of the Parole Board for England and Wales. I remember distinctly one group of people who were always represented and of great value. They came from the Probation Service. They are specifically the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, will have in mind as being particularly experienced with the rehabilitation of offenders. I would welcome that. I am not quite so sure about the other amendment, and I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, recognised that the media may cause difficulties. My main point in relation to youth offending and the media—which the noble Baroness emphasised—is that there are only to be six non-judicial members; the amendments do not seek to change that. Seven different levels of experience are already specifically mentioned in the schedule and we might have eight, nine or 10. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that because the choices can be made from among those. However, if I were to give a preference of adding or not adding, I would add, for the reasons I have mentioned, the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but leave aside those recommended by the noble Baroness.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c1189 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top