Coroners and Justice Bill

This group of amendments and, indeed, the next two groups deal with the functions of the council in relation to monitoring and making assessments of the impact of sentencing, sentencing guidelines and government policy on prison, probation and youth justice. These functions are contained in Clauses 113 to 118. The Government believe that these functions are an important development. The Gage working group identified a key role for the council in making these independent assessments to improve clarity and understanding about sentencing and to assist the Government in their planning to meet the demand for prison places, probation and youth justice services. We believe that an independent scrutiny of the impact of sentencing guidelines and of government policies and legislation is an important development in the way we deal with penal policy. It is a role designed to increase transparency around the impact of changes in criminal justice policy and legislation. On Monday when we considered whether the council needs statutory purposes, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, suggested that we might not need Clauses 113 to 115. With the greatest respect to her, we disagree. We believe that the new duties are so important that the Bill should spell out exactly what is required and avoid any confusion between the respective roles of the council, government and Parliament. Amendment 190, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, deals with the council’s duty to monitor the operation of sentencing guidelines. The amendment seeks to ensure that the monitoring duty does not entitle the council to make comments on individual sentencing decisions. I understand the intent but we do not believe that this amendment is necessary, following changes already made to Clause 114 in the other place. The provisions of Clause 114 do not refer to individual sentencing decisions. They refer to the operation of guidelines and to the frequency with which courts depart from guidelines, not to the decisions in individual cases. It is clear that the consideration of the legitimacy of a sentencing decision is for the Court of Appeal and not for the sentencing council. I have no doubt that the sentencing council, the majority of which will be made up of judicial members including members of the Court of Appeal, will have no difficulty in recognising the division of functions between monitoring the frequency of departures from guidelines and the legitimacy of that individual sentencing decision. I hope that that will reassure those who support that amendment. Our belief is that it is unnecessary. Amendment 191 was spoken to by the noble Earl and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It seeks to add to Clause 114 an additional duty on the council to monitor the operation of, and comment on, the use of out-of-court disposals, such as penalty notices for disorder and conditional cautions. I cannot accept the amendment. Let me explain why. First, Clause 114 relates to the monitoring of "sentencing" guidelines. Out-of-court disposals are by their very nature not sentencing decisions. Indeed, penalty notices involve no admission or finding of guilt and fall outside the functions conferred by this Bill on the sentencing council. That is why they are not covered by sentencing guidelines. Secondly, and with slightly more comfort to the noble Earl, I suggest that the clause is unnecessary. This is because Clause 117 already places a duty on the council to consider and report on non-sentencing factors, some of which are included in the Bill, which could have a significant effect on the resources needed to give effect to sentences imposed by the courts. Although this would be a matter for the council, I suggest that changes in the use of non-court diversions could be a factor and indeed are likely to be a factor that the council would wish to consider in its report under Clause 117. On the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, I can, I hope, please her to some extent. Without making any promises, it seems to me worth looking again at the wording she objects to in Amendment 191ZE, and the parallel wording 191ZG. Without making any promises at all, if the noble Baroness withdraws her amendments tonight, I am prepared to take them away and look at them again. It may be that we think that we have the best form of words already. However, she has persuaded me that it is worth looking at again. She has not persuaded me, alas, on Amendment 191ZF, which would convert the discretion conferred on the Justice Secretary to refer particular policies and legislation to the council into a duty to do so, so that he must refer any policy or legislation that could have a significant impact on resources. The committee will be only too aware of the volume of legislation that Parliament considers. Most legislative changes are unlikely to have a significant impact on correctional services. We have to ensure that the council is not overburdened in carrying out unnecessary assessments. The discretion of the Justice Secretary to refer some policy and legislative proposals to the council is meant to allow this new duty for the council to be as practical as possible. That is why the Justice Secretary acts as a single point of reference for the whole of the Government and why he exercises his discretion only to refer policies and legislation that is likely, from the information he has, to have an impact on prison and probation resources. Government departments will continue to make impact assessments of policies throughout the policy development process. Those assessments will inform the Justice Secretary in deciding whether a policy is likely to merit reference to the council either because it will clearly have a significant impact or where those assessments have highlighted potential difficulties in making accurate assessments of what the impact will be. I hope that it will reassure the noble Baroness if I also point out that there is nothing to stop the council reporting on policies and legislative changes under Clauses 116 and 117 when it makes assessments of the impact of sentencing and non-sentencing factors.