|
Mr. Heath: I shall be extremely brief, Mr. O'Brien. I am pleased for the hon. Gentleman that his new clause was within the scope of the Bill and selectable because, as he said, it gave him the opportunity to raise an issue that he and many of his colleagues have raised in the past.
The proposed new clause underlines the fact that that matter will not be decided by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which in turn confirms my strongly held view that the matter should not be decided by the Home Office. It should not be a matter for the Home Department. The fact that that Department still has significant responsibility for the way in which laws are framed, for sentencing policy and for a whole range of other judicial matters—or perhaps matters of justice—underlines the botched job that has been made of setting up the new Department. A proper department of justice would have responsibility for this area. Its Minister would be responsible for determining, with his colleagues, the way in which such matters were dealt with, and would have the opportunity to discuss with the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General how it would work in practice. That underlines the fact that we have a halfway house that is satisfactory to no one. I hope that discussions on the shape and form of the new Department will progress and that it will eventually have the appropriate range of powers in the field of justice.
Mr. Leslie: Without wanting to reopen discussions on the pros and cons of a justice department, I believe that the situation, as set out, is clear. New clause 2 gives us an opportunity to consider the matter in more detail. We all recognise the concerns that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has raised in tabling the new clause. They relate to the potentially devastating long-term effects on the victims of burglary. Burglary is a very serious offence that can have a traumatic effect on victims. As a result, section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provided for the imposition of a minimum three-year sentence of imprisonment for third-time domestic burglary. That was a welcome step. Sentencing guidelines make it clear that, as a norm, burglary is the sort of offence that would attract a custodial sentence. Burglary continues to be regarded as a very serious offence, and sentencing policy reflects that.
The new clause, however, is neither necessary nor desirable. Should the Secretary of State feel that the ability of the Attorney-General to appeal against unduly lenient sentences in burglary cases needed to be extended in relation to those grave sentences already encompassed, the power to do that, by order, already exists under section 35(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The power relates to the range of triable either way offences in relation to which unduly lenient sentences can be referred by the Attorney-General to the Court of Appeal. It would not be appropriate to make that change in primary legislation at this stage.
Moreover, appeals against sentences are more likely to take place in relation to burglaries that involve violence or other serious offences. Those burglaries are likely to be triable only on indictment and therefore can already be referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General if he considers that the sentence
Column Number: 216
is unduly lenient—for example in the case of aggravated burglary.
I can assure the Committee that, although there has already been much discussion and we have no reason to believe that the courts are imposing unduly lenient sentences for the offence as a norm, we will consider the matter further. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was trying to find out. The Home Office is exploring the matter with the Attorney-General's office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Wider considerations need to be taken into account. The Committee must recognise that if we want burglars to be sentenced appropriately in the first place, we must ensure that the courts are clear about what the Government and the country expect to see. Sentencing guidelines will assist with that. We must place our faith in those who issue sentences and the idea that they will get sentences right the first time. After all, they are the people who hear the full facts of a case and are best placed to make a judgment.
I invite the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw his new clause.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister's remarks are helpful in that he has confirmed that he and the relevant Departments will continue to reflect on the matter. It is not going to go away. I acknowledge what he said about the Government introducing mandatory minimum sentences for third-time burglars, but he is well aware that the public are concerned not just about the third-time burglar, but about the first-time burglar. Burglary is in a different category to other so-called triable either way offences. Concern is caused not just by burglaries that are associated with other violent crime, but by all burglaries. Burglary is an invasion of people's liberty. It is an exceptionally serious offence and we will continue to pursue the matter. Given that the Minister has been so helpful as to say that he will have further discussions in the light of our comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Coroner's courts
'The Lord Chancellor must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 1, prepare and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the procedures, practice and systems for the carrying on of the business of Coroner's courts and make recommendations as to the desirability of extending his general duty under section 1 to Coroner's courts.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
11 am
Mr. Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a fairly artificial construct, as I suspect Committee members will realise as soon as they read it. However, I hope that it will give the Minister the opportunity to share a little more of his thinking on coroner's courts.
The fundamental and comprehensive review of coroner's courts system and death certification was well carried out. It came up with a series of
Column Number: 217
recommendations, with which I largely agree. It was overdue; we should have looked at coroner's courts some time ago. Those who use those courts identify serious problems with the way in which they work. That is not to impugn the work of individual coroners. It is simply that the system has become a little archaic and outdated. Certainly, it has not had the investment that it needs to do its job properly. Some aspects of its procedure do not meet the requirements of modern society.
One of the firm conclusions of the review is that responsibility for the coroner's courts should be moved to what was the Lord Chancellor's Department and is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Will the Minister's Department immediately have responsibility for carrying forward the work of the consultation paper, or will that responsibility remain with the Home Office for the time being? Certainly, at some stage, the Department will be responsible for administering the coroner's courts system, together with the changes that emerge from the consultation. Part of that process is the consequences of the Bill and the unification of the court system. That was not properly considered in the review, because the Department was not then in place.
It is argued that there are clear advantages to ensuring that the coroner's court is as comprehensive as, we hope, the other courts that come under the scope of the Bill. There are clear advantages to shared facilities, premises and, to an extent, staff, although coroner's courts' work is a very different field of work. A joint administration would have certain economic and systemic advantages in ensuring a unity of approach and better communication between coroner's courts and the High Court, county courts and local courts.
All that I am asking the Minister to do is agree to consider the matter in the context of the review, although perhaps the review has not reached his desk yet. [Interruption.] He has a copy, but that does not necessarily mean that he has studied it with all the care and attention that one would expect from a Minister of the Crown. I am sure that that is on his to-do list. I am suggesting that there is at least the possibility of further unification, with benefits for all concerned. Will he please consider that? Perhaps he can give us at least some idea of whether anything is likely to emerge from the review in terms of the results of consultation and further proposals in concrete terms for dealing with the coroner's court? Any changes would be widely welcomed across the country when we have new, more effective and efficient arrangements.
Mr. Hawkins: I do not want to repeat what the hon. Gentleman has said; I agree with it. However, I wish to make one point, and I would be grateful if the Minister took account of it. He may not be aware that, for a year or so, I have been heavily involved in trying to introduce new measures against drug drivers, as opposed to drunk drivers. I was pleased that, last week, the Government accepted a group of amendments, based on the ten-minute Bill that I introduced almost a year ago, to the Railways and
Column Number: 218
Transport Safety Bill in another place, where my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith has been pursuing the matter. Late last Thursday, the Government accepted the substance of my Bill to provide fitness impairment tests at the roadside, so I did not need to move that it be read a Second time on Friday.
The second part of my original Bill sought to provide extra facilities for coroners to enable them to collect data on the number of deaths resulting from road accidents caused or contributed to by people under the influence of drugs. Having written to every coroner in the UK, I now know that they do not have the resources or the time to collect that data. The part of my Bill that the Government have not taken on board concerns the need to provide coroners with those facilities.
The Transport and Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne stated in evidence, which my researchers and I were able to obtain, that it needs the statistics, so that it can report the extent of the problem to the Government. Only coroners and police forces can provide much of that information. Police forces are not relevant to the new clause, but I simply ask the Minister whether he will, when looking at the voluminous report and when considering the matters that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised, also look into the fact that the coroners want to provide the information, but do not have the resources or time to do so. If they were able to provide the data, the Government would have a better handle on the scale of the problem, which anecdotal evidence suggests and senior police traffic officers believe is worsening.
The Government have gone half way in giving police forces the powers I want them to have to carry out roadside fitness impairment tests, but the coroners need to have the necessary facilities. I should be grateful if the Minister took that on board as part of the further and continuing review, as well the important matters raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, with which I agree.
|
