The
Chairman: We come now to amendment
244.
Mr.
Garnier: I will not move amendment 244, but at the
appropriate time I will seek to move amendment 257
formally. Clause
102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
103 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
104Allocation
guidelines
Mr.
Garnier: I beg to move amendment 245, in
clause 104, page 63, line 12, leave
out paragraph
(b).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 246, in
clause 104, page 63, line 13, leave
out paragraph
(c).
Mr.
Garnier: The amendments would delete subsection
(4)(b) and (c). I simply want to know whom the Government intend the
sentencing council should consult as directed by the Lord Chancellor
or “as
the Council considers
appropriate.” The
provision is vague, and we need a bit more information about who should
be
consulted.
Maria
Eagle: The effect of the amendments on allocation
guidelines would be that the sentencing council would be obliged under
the clause to consult only the Lord Chancellor. The Bill, like the
provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, requires the sentencing
council to
consult “the
Lord Chancellor...such persons as the Lord Chancellor may
direct...such persons as the Council considers
appropriate.”
The sentencing council
may choose to consult any other persons on the draft allocation
guidelines. The answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s
question is that anyone who might have an interest in what the
guidelines say about where cases should be allocated in the court could
be consulted. It will be for the sentencing council and/or the Lord
Chancellor to come up with a list. There is no intention, as far as I
am aware, to depart from existing practice, which is to consult
magistrates’ clerks, and those who have a view about and
expertise in the allocation of cases. That is our intention, but under
the amendment only the Lord Chancellor would be
consulted.
Mr.
Garnier: Clearly, that was not my intention; this is a
probing amendment. It is just that the clause is so vague and unclear.
I appreciate what the Minister has said and that the provision does not
include Uncle Tom Cobleigh. Nevertheless, I think that the Government
need to provide a bit more detail on occasions. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: 294, in
clause 104, page 63, line 12, at
end insert— ‘(ba) the
Justice Select Committee of the House of Commons (or, if there ceases
to be a committee of that name, such committee of the House of
Commons as the Lord Chancellor directs);’.—(Maria
Eagle.)
Clause
104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
105Preparation
or revision of guidelines in urgent
cases Amendments
made: 295, in clause 105, page 63, line 38, leave out
‘or’ and insert
‘to’. Amendment
296, in
clause 105, page 63, line 41, leave
out ‘or’ and insert ‘to’.—(Maria
Eagle.) Clause
105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
106Proposals
by Lord Chancellor or Court of
Appeal Amendment
made: 297, in clause 106, page 64, line 24, leave out
from ‘so’ to end of line 25.—(Maria
Eagle.) Clause
106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
107Sentencing
guidelines: duty of
court Amendment
proposed: 248, in clause 107, page 64, line 42, leave
out ‘follow’ and insert ‘have regard
to’.—(Mr.
Garnier.) Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
12.
Division
No.
8] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 107
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 108
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
109Resource
implications of
guidelines Amendment
proposed: 257, in clause 109, page 67, line 15, at end
add— ‘(6) Whilst the courts
may have regard to the availability of correctional resources, for the
avoidance of doubt the courts must not pass a sentence that is wholly
determined by resource assessments which are expressly intended for the
guidance of the Secretary of State in planning for and providing such
custodial or community sentences as he advises Parliament, and it
considers, necessary in the light of such
assessments.’.—(Mr.
Garnier.) Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
10.
Division
No.
9] Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 109
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
110Monitoring
Maria
Eagle: I beg to move amendment 298, in
clause 110, page 67, leave out line 23 and
insert— ‘(a) the frequency
with which, and extent to which, courts depart from sentencing
guidelines;’. The
amendment changes the wording of the clause to clarify the duties of
the sentencing council and the Lord Chancellor. The amendment relates
to the council’s duty to monitor the operation and the effect of
sentencing guidelines. As currently drafted, the clause refers to
monitoring
“the level of
compliance with the
guidelines”. On
reflection, the Government realise that the phrase “compliance
with the guidelines” could be misconstrued to mean whether a
sentencer has, in a legal sense, complied with the guidelines. That
legal consideration is a function of the Court of Appeal and not the
council. That is not the intended meaning of this provision, which is
meant to allow the council to record statistics on when and to what
extent sentencers followed or departed from guidelines, not to monitor
whether those decisions were legally correct. Government
amendment 298 puts that beyond
doubt. Amendment
298 agreed
to. Clause
110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 111
to 114 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
115Assistance
by the Lord
Chancellor
Maria
Eagle: I beg to move amendment 299, in
clause 115, page 69, line 38, leave
out from ‘may’ to end of line 39 and insert
‘provide the Council with such
assistance as it requests in connection with the performance of its
functions.’. This
amendment clarifies the power of the Lord Chancellor to assist the
council. The power is designed to allow the Lord Chancellor to provide
assistance to the council if required, but, in doing so, we would not
wish to use words that might suggest that the Lord Chancellor has a
power to interfere in the running of the council. To put this matter
beyond doubt, Government amendment 299 makes it clear that the Lord
Chancellor can assist the council, when it requests his assistance to
meet its statutory
functions. Amendment
299 agreed
to. Clause
115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
116 to 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
14Extension
of disqualification for
driving
Mr.
Garnier: I beg to move amendment 455, in
schedule 14, page 151, line 36, at
end insert— ‘(4A) But the
court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate otherwise,
sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period unless it
has considered the effect that any such disqualification will, or is
likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on that
person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the
sentence.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to
discuss the following: amendment 456, in
schedule 14, page 153, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(4A) But the
court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate otherwise,
sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period unless it
has considered the effect that any such disqualification will, or is
likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on that
person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the
sentence.’. Amendment
457, in
schedule 14, page 154, line 16, at
end insert— ‘(4A) But the
court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate otherwise,
sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period unless it
has considered the effect that any such disqualification will, or is
likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on that
person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the sentence.’.
Amendment 458,
in
schedule 14, page 156, line 3, at
end insert— ‘(4A) But the
court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate otherwise,
sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period unless it
has considered the effect that any such disqualification will, or is
likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on that
person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the
sentence.’. Amendment
459, in
schedule 14, page 157, line 44, at
end insert— ‘(4A) But the
court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate otherwise,
sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period unless it
has considered the effect that any such disqualification will, or is
likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on that
person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the
sentence.’.
Amendment
460, in
schedule 14, page 159, line 36, at
end
insert— ‘(4A)
But the court must not, save where the interests of justice indicate
otherwise, sentence a person to be disqualified for an extension period
unless it has considered the effect that any such disqualification
will, or is likely to, have in all the circumstances of the case on
that person’s prospects of rehabilitation, employment, finding
accommodation and not re-offending after the completion of the
custodial part of the
sentence.’. 6
pm
|
