Coroners and Justice Bill

I thank the Minister for his reply which fills me with great disappointment. I feel that he has not understood and appreciated what I have been trying to suggest, and he has quite significantly misunderstood the complications about compromising council members. I gave two illustrations of members of the judiciary and the magistracy engaging with the public and explaining their work. That was highly successful and completely non-political as the people concerned simply analysed their jobs. It was a quite different process from what the Minister imagines. I hope that he will read what I have said and follow up the evidence. We have lots of evidence with which to illustrate our case. There is no question of members of the council claiming that one sentence is preferable over another. Their role is educational, not political. It is entirely inadequate and inappropriate to construct or perceive it as anything other than that. I understand the objections to the amendments concerning custodial and non-custodial sentences. The Government may have a point there. However, I definitely wish to consider the matter further because in the light of the experience of the past seven years I feel very strongly that what I am suggesting represents a real opportunity if it is looked at dispassionately. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 191ZA withdrawn. Amendments 191ZB to 191ZD not moved. Clause 115 agreed. Clause 116 : Resources: effect of sentencing practice Amendment 191ZE not moved. Clause 116 agreed. Clause 117 agreed. Clause 118 : Duty to assess impact of policy and legislative proposals Amendments 191ZF to 191ZK not moved. Clause 118 agreed. Clauses 119 to 121 agreed.