| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 13—Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Government new schedule 1—'Transfer of community orders to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Hilary Benn: The amendment, new clause and new schedule enable community orders to transfer to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions are modelled on schedule 4 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, with modifications made necessary by the changes to community sentences in England and Wales. A community order can be transferred to Scotland and Northern Ireland either at the point of sentencing or during the sentence. When considering the transfer, it must appear to the court that the requirements can be complied with in Column Number: 1185 the area where the offender proposes to go. The order must specify where in Scotland or Northern Ireland the offender will reside, and the appropriate local court, to which the sentencing or amending court will send all the relevant papers.The sentencing court will decide which order in Scotland or Northern Ireland corresponds to the community order. The offender will then serve his sentence, and be treated by the Scottish or Northern Ireland probation service equivalents, in the same way as though it had originally been made in Scotland or Northern Ireland. If it appears to a Scottish or Northern Ireland court that the offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of the order, or that the order should be revoked, with or without re-sentencing, that court may require the offender to appear before the court in England and Wales that originally sentenced him. The sentencing court can then deal with him in the way specified in schedule 7.
11.15 amMr. Grieve: On the face of it, this is a sensible amendment. The difficulty is the Committee's profound ignorance of the Scottish legal system—there may be exceptions to that, but the reality is that we do not know much about it, and even less now that it is devolved. I have one question. I assume that there is and will continue to be no difficulty in identifying a community sentence structure in Scotland that corresponds fully to that in England. I have a slight anxiety. If a different system develops, somebody may one day seek judicial review on the basis that the punishment to which he had been sentenced was being implemented differently. I do not want to be too esoteric about it, but that could become an issue—one that we need to keep in mind. However, I assume that the Minister has a dialogue with the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive. As time goes by, the trend—I remember it being described by the Scottish judiciary—has been for a coming together of the English and Scottish criminal legal systems. That process has been going on for a long period. Indeed, it was encouraged by the Government, probably for that reason. With devolution one can see separation coming about. Indeed, it has been highlighted during our debates that certain parts of the Bill are not being applied in Scotland. On the question of jury trial, Scotland did not feature. As a result, there will be profound differences in procedure north and south of the border. When it comes to sentencing and implementation, given that sentences can be served north of the border, a close degree of conformity is going to be needed if the system is to work; otherwise, I apprehend that there will come a moment when someone will say that the court gave him a sentence that is being implemented in a way that is at such variance with the way that it is being implemented south of the border, that it should not be proceeded with. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments. Column Number: 1186 Lady Hermon: I listened carefully to the Minister's introductory words. I welcome the extension of community orders to Scotland and Northern Ireland. That being the case, will the Minister explain the use of the conjunction ''or'' in amendment No. 711? It states:
Why does it not use the word ''and''? Simon Hughes: I have no objection in principle. I have regular meetings—I am about to have another—with my colleague and friend Jim Wallace, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice of the Scottish Executive. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether the extension of the provisions to Scotland has been discussed with and has the full agreement of the Scottish Executive. That is my understanding, but it is important that it is put on record. Northern Ireland is a more complex issue. Without wishing to trespass on the hon. Lady's territory, it would be helpful to know what consultation there has been about the proposal to extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. Who was asked, and who gave their assent? Thirdly, I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome said, there may be a greater leniency after transfer, as well as a greater severity, in terms of implementation of an order. The amendment relates specifically to community orders. Can the Minister tell us whether it is current policy in practice to transfer as soon as is practical somebody who is sentenced to a non-community sentence—that is, a custodial sentence—in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales to the part of the UK from which they come and to which they request to be transferred? Mr. Heath: I had a vision of people running away to Gretna Green to do their community sentences if there was indeed a difference in severity. But seriously, what are the financial provisions between the different probation services? Will there be a ''knock-knock'' basis on the assumption that the cost will be roughly equalised when there is a transfer between two jurisdictions, or will funds follow the offender in order to allow for the completion of a community order? Is a system envisaged, or is it simply assumed that the appropriate jurisdiction will make the necessary arrangements wherever that person is situated? Hilary Benn: It might be helpful to say that we have consulted. However, the provisions, with minimal modifications, replicate what already exists and which is not extensively used. Principally, what is proposed is to cover circumstances when an offender, for whatever reason, has to move from England to Wales or from England to Northern Ireland. I am advised that ''or'' is the proper word; otherwise, the suggestion would be that one could live simultaneously in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which is why the wording is as it is. The probation service, the Scottish social work departments and others work together quite closely to ensure that things can work in practice. In answer to Column Number: 1187 the question that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked, appropriate recommendations will be made to the court. The amendment provides for the ability to transfer, but that is subject to the conditions and requirements that I explained. The amendment is premised on the basis of there being an order that corresponds appropriately to the community order that the court in England placed in the first instance. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Illsley, if I talked about what might happen if the eventualities on which the hon. Gentleman speculated came to pass.Mr. Grieve: I said wrongly that I was referring to jury trial, whereas in fact I was referring to the retrial provisions not being followed for serious offences. With a single legislature no longer dealing with both areas, the gap might widen over time, in terms of sentencing structures. I think that there is therefore a danger that someone might one day say, ''What is being applied in Scotland is sufficiently dissimilar from England to make this provision difficult to implement.'' Hilary Benn: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about the possibility that someone might bring a challenge. However, the provision's purpose is in large measure to accommodate people who have to move. That raises the question of to what extent they would want to balance their wish to move with the challenge of the terms that they would have to fulfil if they moved to Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is for the court to decide whether the order can be transferred, having had regard to the nature of the provisions. Finally, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman about prison transfers. A provision is in place, but I cannot quite remember what it is, so I will let him know. Amendment agreed to. It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. Amendments made: No. 845, in
No. 967, in
Column Number: 1188 'this Part, except sections 266 and 267'.
No. 846, in
'paragraphs 3, 6 and 7 of Schedule (enabling powers:alteration of maximum penalties etc.).'.
No. 968, in
'The following provisions extend also to Scotland—'.
No. 969, in
No. 755, in
'section (Execution of process between England and Wales and Scotland).'
No. 847, in
'and paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of Schedule (enabling powers:alteration of maximum penalties etc.)'.
No. 970, in
'paragraph 2 of Schedule 16 (and section 242 so far as relating to that paragraph)'.
No. 971, in
No. 964, in
No. 972, in
No. 973, in
No. 974, in
Clause 272, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 273 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
|
| |
| Prepared 27 February 2003 | |
