|
Mr. Heath: I did not intend to speak on the shrievalty, although I could do so at great length. If there were an opportunity to discuss the future of that particular self-appointed oligarchy, a number of hon. Members could make worthwhile contributions.
I simply want to discuss the register of judgments and orders, which I thought that we were addressing. Will the register automatically be available to credit checking agencies, which is a point that has been raised before in several other contexts? The register includes county court judgments, and it would be to everybody's advantage if defaults from courts showed up in credit reference agency checks. That would be a further way to pressurise those who default on their obligations to lower courts, and I hope that it will become normal practice.
Mr. Leslie: We are discussing clause 96 and the register of judgments and orders. In respect of the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the provision of a single piece of legislation on the registration and judgment fines will make a positive difference. He asked whether the register will be automatically available to credit checking agencies. I can assure him that it will be, so there will be greater unity among registers.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, I am sorry that we did not have the opportunity to discuss high sheriffs and under-
Column Number: 212
sheriffs in greater detail. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described them as a ''self-appointed oligarchy'', but that is not fair.
Mr. Hawkins: I want to place on the record that I do not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. In Surrey, we have benefited enormously from some of the recent high sheriffs, who include the well-known actress Penelope Keith, who is a wonderfully popular charity fund-raiser in Surrey, and in the past we have also had Mr. Richard Stilgoe. If the hon. Gentleman had my experience of working with the high sheriffs in Surrey, he would not take such a pejorative view.
Mr. Leslie: Richard Stilgoe and Penelope Keith are names that I fondly recall from my childhood watching the BBC.
Ms Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East): Not very long ago then?
Mr. Leslie: No, not very long ago.
I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that insurance arrangements should be implemented to cover high sheriffs against claims relating to High Court enforcement being made against them after their year in office. We have already taken steps to ensure that such insurance is in place. The Bill has no effect on appointments made under the Sheriffs Act 1887, but instead creates a new regime of authorisation for High Court enforcement. The office of sheriff has existed since the middle ages and the Bill does not affect it—perhaps to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
I will examine the specific issue in more detail and will consider any representations for meetings and so forth. Should I want to elaborate on the matter in correspondence with the Committee, I will do so in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Interpretation
Amendment made: No. 156, in
clause 105, page 57, leave out lines 19 and 20.—[Mr. Leslie.]
Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Rules, regulations and orders
Amendments made: No. 152, in
clause 106, page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 153, in
Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 213
New clause 3
Recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support: failure to provide information
'(1) Amend section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53) (power to make regulations about recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support) as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (a) insert—
''(aa) provision that the court may require the offender to provide prescribed information in connection with an application;''.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
''(2A) An offender who fails to provide information required by the court by virtue of subsection (2)(aa) commits an offence.
(2B) An offender commits an offence if, in providing information required by the court by virtue of that subsection, he—
(a) makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,
(b) recklessly provides a statement which is false in a material particular, or
(c) knowingly fails to disclose any material fact.
(2C) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) or (2B) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'''.—[Mr. Leslie.]
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 4
Collection of fines and discharge of fines
by unpaid work
'(1) Schedule (Collection of fines) contains provisions about the collection of fines.
(2) Schedule (Discharge of fines by unpaid work) contains provisions about the discharge of fines by means of unpaid work.
(3) Subsections (4) to (9) apply in relation to each of those Schedules.
(4) The Schedule is to have effect only in accordance with—
(a) subsections (5) and (6) (pilot schemes), or
(b) subsections (7) to (9) (power to make pilot schemes, or modified versions of pilot schemes, permanent after completion of pilots).
(5) The Lord Chancellor may by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect in relation to a local justice area, or particular local justice areas, for the period specified in the order.
(6) An order under subsection (5) may make provision modifying the Schedule, or any enactment in connection with the operation of the Schedule, in relation to the specified local justice area or areas and the specified period.
(7) The Lord Chancellor may, at the end of the relevant period, by order provide that the Schedule is to have effect—
(a) in all local justice areas, and
(b) indefinitely.
(8) ''The relevant period'' means—
(a) if one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period specified in the order;
(b) if more than one order has been made under subsection (5) in relation to the Schedule, the period which, out of the periods so specified, ends at the latest date.
(9) An order under subsection (7) may make such amendments of—
(a) the Schedule, and
(b) any other enactments,
as appear to the Lord Chancellor appropriate in the light of the operation of the Schedule in accordance with the order made under subsection (5) (pilot schemes).'.—[Mr. Leslie.]
Column Number: 214
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Court of Appeal: Attorney General's power to refer unduly lenient sentences
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When I tabled new clause 2, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and which I was pleased to find came within the scope of the Bill and was therefore selectable and selected, it struck me that the Bill provided an opportunity to put on the record an issue about which the Opposition feel strongly. As the Committee will know, the power for the courts to consider unduly lenient sentences on the Attorney-General's reference was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. The power has proved popular. Members of the public are always concerned if there is publicity about a court passing a sentence that seems very lenient. The power is not used often, but Ministers will probably confirm that it has been used appropriately, and the Government have confirmed on many occasions over the past six years that they regard it as useful. It is not one of the things for which the current Government criticise the previous Government. The Government have said on several occasions that they have found it useful, and will consider extending it.
I believe that I am right in saying that I have had responses from Ministers of other Departments at the Dispatch Box in the Chamber, to the effect that they were prepared to consider the extension of the power to the offence of burglary. They did not make a commitment to extend it, but to consider doing so. I do not expect the Minister to agree to the new clause, but I ask him to state that, as a new Minister, he will also consider the extension of that power in discussion with the new Lord Chancellor and with Ministers in the Home Office and other appropriate Departments.
It seems to me that the offence of burglary is one that is entirely appropriate for Attorney-General's references for unduly lenient sentences. We know that burglary is one of the most prevalent crimes, and if people who have committed burglaries are given lenient sentences, the public will quite rightly be concerned. I was disappointed that burglary was not included when the original power was created. My party was in Government at the time, but felt that we needed to restrict the power to see how it would work. I am therefore not asking for a massive change in Government policy, but am glad that I have had the opportunity to put the strong views of the Opposition on the matter. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will accept that the Government should consider the matter.
Column Number: 215
|
