I beg to move amendment No. 539, in

clause 153 page 85, line 20, at end insert—

'(1A) The Sentencing Guidelines Council shall issue a list of Standard Band sentences for offences in particular categories requested by the Home Secretary or Lord Chief Justice. This list shall be available to the public in the Annual Report of the Council and in whatever other formats are agreed by the Council. The Standard sentence shall be applied in the context of guidelines issued by the Council and with full judicial discretion which, where exercised, shall be explained in writing.'.

The amendment relates to the specific duties and expectations that it is right to place on the sentencing council. Considering the matter from the public's perspective, clarity is helpful, wherever possible, but clarity can be present only on the basis that we know, having laid down a guideline or sentencing band, that there will be judicial discretion. In that way, the judiciary will interpret guidelines or tariffs in the light of the evidence of any particular case.

The hon. Member for North Down made a pertinent point about incorporating judicial independence and discretion in the Bill. The Minister replied fully to her remark, but why not include that in the Bill? That would assist the Minister incredibly in his dealings with the judiciary when discussing various possibilities regarding the sentencing council.

The Minister will know better than anyone the work programme that must be gathering in the minds of his officials in connection with setting up the sentencing council. All I ask is that, when the sentencing council starts its work, it should pick out some key offences that resonate with the public, whether it be burglary or other offences, so that the public understand that the sentencing council is working on their behalf in attempting to explain how sentencing works. That will be a matter for the discretion of people on the sentencing council. Explaining why certain standard tariffs or bands are applicable in certain cases will assist public understanding immensely.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar eloquently described the public's misperceptions about current sentences and how, for example, although crime has fallen, the public's perception is that it has risen. I do not want to start a debate about the police service, but the problem is partly that people do not feel reassured. If they felt reassured, they would believe that crime was falling. Equally, on sentencing, if the public understood why certain sentences were given for certain offences, they would feel more at ease and would not fall prey to some of the wilder exaggerations in the tabloid press.

Amendment No. 539 also requires the list of key offences to be made available to the public in the sentencing council's annual report, as well as in whatever other formats are agreed by the council. I was assisted by the Clerk in drafting the amendment. I know that the Minister has a small easy-to-read document produced by the Home Office, which explains how the criminal justice system works. I have used that extensively. Indeed—I must be careful

not to get into trouble with the Serjeant-at-Arms—I have sent copies to many constituents who had questions about policing and the criminal justice system. That is exactly the sort of thing that we should be doing. Over and above the things that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned, such as connections with magistrates and the good things that we will be doing on the sentencing council, we should involve people personally and directly in their criminal justice system.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will wave one of those copies at the appropriate moment, but what is done nationally could easily be done locally. For a small amount of money, many Committee members produce annual reports that they sent to all households in their constituency. To send a report about the criminal justice system to every household in my city of Nottingham would cost about £12,000—a fleabite in terms of the criminal justice budget in the area. People would have something tangible that would explain the criminal justice system and how the courts work, that would tell them how they can contact victim support, how better to contact the police, how to complain and so on. That is one way of reuniting the criminal justice system with the public.

I want to add to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion by recommending that instead of sending the report directly to the public, it should be sent to all main and local newspapers. It is the newspapers that so often misinform the public. If they published that report, it would be helpful—and it would save money.

The hon. Lady makes an intriguing suggestion. Some newspapers abuse their often exclusive access to the courts. Members of the public do not sit in the gallery in vast numbers, and newspapers can abuse the system because the public do not understand how sentencing works and people cannot dismiss their reports. However, those who know a little more about the process will understand how complicated sentencing is and how, in particular cases, a judge had to take account of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The newspapers would find it a little more difficult to get away with some of their more outlandish claims if the public were wired more effectively into the criminal justice system.

The amendment states:

''The Standard sentence shall be applied in the context of guidelines issued by the Council and with full judicial discretion''.

The framework is clear. Starting with a clear band or even a defined level for each offence, guidelines would make the system more elaborate and comprehensible to the judiciary as well as to the public. On top of that, as always, there would be full judicial discretion; judges could use their brains, judgment and experience to come up with a specific sentence for a particular offence.

That is how the process should work. The process should involve us all, including the public, and it should command widespread public support. There will be further amendments to later parts of the Bill, but I have said that when judicial discretion is used, it

should be explained in writing, not least for the victim and the offender. That would also benefit those reading sentencing records on future occasions.

I hope that the amendment will make a useful addition to the Minister's armoury. As well as judicial consent and the consent of the Executive, we need the consent of the public. Above all, that requires a degree of clarity, so that a half-way intelligent layman can comprehend the sentencing process.

The amendment, to which I did not subscribe my name, is extremely interesting. I did not sign it because I was not sure that it was going in the direction that I was seeking with the amendments that we will consider in the next group.

That does not diminish my interest in the amendment. What I found most interesting, although I do not have an answer for it, is whether it is possible to split banding from guidelines as the hon. Gentleman envisages. It is of particular interest to me because I was struck by the thought that Parliament should have a greater role in setting bands but not in setting the guidelines. I think that the hon. Gentleman understands the distinction. I came to the conclusion that it might be very difficult to make that distinction. Therefore I ceased trying and came up with the next group of amendments.

I will be particularly interested to hear the Minister's view of such a possibility. I shall enlarge on what I see as the problem, but I will be only too happy if somebody can persuade me that I have got it wrong. Banding would be a broad approach, saying that particular offences should attract a particular sentence within the maximums or minimums set by Parliament. Perhaps banding does not take into account other guideline considerations such as mitigating circumstances, the age of the offender and the number of his previous convictions. There will simply be a straightforward statement in order to set a band. Banding will become meaningless unless it is accompanied by the more detailed guidelines that set the criteria by which we either raise or diminish sentences.

I would be only too happy to be persuaded that I am wrong and that it is possible to do such splitting. It would facilitate my task in trying to get Parliament to play a role, which is the aim behind the next group of amendments. If Committee members or the Minister have a view on that, I would be only too happy to hear it.

Can the hon. Gentleman help to set the context for this part of the debate by explaining from his barristerial experience what happens now? My understanding, and I am not a practitioner in criminal law, is that judges are routinely issued with copies of ''Thomas on Sentencing'', which gives the tariff sentence for an offence, and that they take into account exacerbating or mitigating circumstances that might increase or reduce the sentence.

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the tariff is fairly meaningless unless viewed alongside the criteria that must be applied to it. It may be possible to split the two so that one sets the tariff and the other the mitigating or exacerbating circumstances.

However, there is a certain artificiality about that, and I worry that it will also send out a very mixed message. One of the Committee's concerns is to increase the transparency of the legal system in order to increase public trust in it. The public may find such splitting mysterious and difficult to understand. I may be wrong, but I found it difficult to understand how the two criteria could be distinguished.

Moreover, two bodies doing two different jobs could create a serious problem. It was suggested to me that Parliament could set the bands and leave the judges to set the guidelines. There are, however, considerable problems associated with such a suggestion. I accept that this is slightly different; it is about publicising the banding in a particular fashion separately from the guidelines. However, some of the same problems might apply.

Another difficulty would be the breadth of the bands. For example, for rape it would have to be from five years to life.

The hon. Gentleman is right. I have no difficulty in agreeing with him. It is part of what I call the potential meaninglessness of the bands on their own. Once we start trying to narrow the bands, we go into the area of guidelines. I find the distinction difficult to make. Therefore, sympathetic as I am to the aim of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North—indeed I should like to be persuaded by it for my own use—I have concluded that it cannot reasonably be done. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Again, this is an area in which the principle espoused by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North should be considered. I am less concerned about the detail because I do not expect the Minister to accept the amendment. However, I hope that he will consider the thought processes behind it. We would all agree that transparency aids comprehension and comprehension aids confidence. If we can find a way in which to let the public and those who inform them know in understandable terms the structure of both banding and guidance, that will be a good thing.

I echo the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. An individual who is not a professional in the judicial system will see each case in isolation. He will not look at the newspapers every day, study the law reports and find out what the span of sentencing is; he will look at the case that affects him or in which he is interested, or to which his attention has been drawn by a journalist, and will have a fragmented view of what the sentencing system is likely to deliver. However, if he were made aware of the entire span of considerations, the range of offences and the consequences, in sentencing terms, he would have a better understanding of where that individual case and those particular circumstances fell within the range.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North is at pains to set out the freedom of discretion that is properly available to the judiciary. We shall come back to the matter later. I was concerned at one stage when he spoke about a single tariff point rather than bands,

because that is to move away from the point. The discretion is there and it is not unreasonable that in circumstances in which a broad band is set out but a judge exercises his or her discretion to sentence outside of the band, an explanation is adduced for his or her having done so. The public have a right to expect that, and those involved in the case are entitled to know why, in those circumstances, the judge has sentenced in a way that seems to fall outside the norms that have been set by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. For all those reasons, the amendment is a useful start for a debate. It might not be perfect, but I hope that the Minister will give it appropriate consideration.

I want to help out my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Perhaps we are reading too much into the word ''band'' in the amendment. We should consider what the Court of Appeal produces, for example, on burglary. The celebrated case is the Lord Chief Justice's Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Regina v. McInerney and Keating. It took the Sentencing Advisory Panel's views about burglary and gave a commentary on them. The panel had defined a standard burglary and added some aggravating and mitigating features—it was not complicated stuff.

That said, I would like to think that we, as parliamentarians, could draft things rather more clearly than they have been in the law reports, which are extremely complicated. I do not see why the proposed sentencing council could not do much of the work suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. It could say not only that burglary would carry a sentence of somewhere between one and 10 years, but that standard burglaries and standard burglaries with some or many aggravating features would carry particular sorts of sentence. That is what the Court of Appeal does. Could not the council do that, and could not Parliament scrutinise it, as we have discussed? That would be much better than the current proposals, which everyone seems to have misunderstood. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister seem to have completely misinterpreted what the Lord Chief Justice said. Sadly, however, I do not think that I will get my new clause 10.

This has been an interesting exchange, because we started with a plea for greater clarity for the benefit of the public but then began to do the Sentencing Guidelines Council's work for it. None the less, the discussion has been interesting, because it has teased out hon. Members' understanding of bands and how they relate to mitigating and aggravating factors.

We certainly envisage that the guidelines will set ranges of appropriate sentences and suggest starting points within each range, depending on the circumstances of the case, and that is perhaps slightly more flexible than a standard band.

The intervention of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield demonstrated the difficulty with accepting the amendment, and the precise reasons

emerged in the little debate that ensued about what it meant. It would be inadvisable, in determining the most appropriate way to bring the clarity that we all seek to the sentencing system's work and its application in practice, to fetter in statute the council's discretion as to the form in which it publishes its guidelines.

I hope, however, that I can reassure my hon. Friend by saying that we anticipate that the council will publish its guidelines in a single document that can be amended and added to as new guidelines are agreed. We envisage that that document will be readily available to the public electronically and in hard copy. The amendment therefore has a second deficiency, although, again, I recognise its spirit. It would not be sensible to tie the publication of the guidelines to the annual report, because the guidelines will be continuously available in other forms. They should not be solely confined to the annual report, which, by definition, will appear only once every 12 months.

With that reassurance, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

I think that the Minister has reassured me that we are dealing with not only a legal process but a political and public process. I tabled the amendments so that the sentencing council's work could be opened up to public understanding, which would immensely reinforce the work that is done in the courts and in the council. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I hope that he will bear our ideas in mind as his discussions on the issue progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 679, in clause 153, page 85, line 32, leave out 'as definitive guidelines'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 680, in clause 153, page 86, line 13, leave out subsection (8).

No. 681, in clause 153, page 86, line 21, leave out subsection (9).

No. 542, in clause 153, page 86, line 22, after 'appropriate', insert 'if the Lord Chief Justice so consents,'.

No. 701, in clause 153, page 86, line 22, leave out 'as definitive guidelines' and insert 'as its recommendation to Parliament.'.

No. 702, in clause 153, page 86, line 22, at end add—

'(10) The appropriate committee the House of Commons will consider any recommendations issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council and report on them if it thinks fit.'.

No. 703, in clause 153, page 86, line 22, at end add—

'(11) A copy of the guidelines shall be laid before each House of Parliament and the guidelines shall only have effect after approval by resolution of both Houses.'.

The discussion now moves on to the proposals that I and my hon. Friends came up with on

how to involve Parliament. It is a probing amendment, designed to stimulate discussion. I shall outline what is proposed.

We would alter the provisions of the clause so as to remove some of the procedure to be followed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, substituting for it—this is the nub of the matter—two key provisions, which are included in amendments Nos. 702 and 703. Instead of publishing definitive guidelines, we suggest in amendment No. 701 that the council should publish a recommendation to Parliament. Once that has happened, amendments Nos. 702 and 703, which would insert new subsections, would come into effect. The effect of the amendments would be to make sentencing guidelines a statutory instrument, which would need parliamentary approval. To make the position clear, it would not be for Parliament to formulate the guidelines, but merely to express its approval or disapproval of them.

That ties us in with earlier discussions. First, how do we persuade the public that they have ownership of the issue and can provide input? We considered the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who said that it could be achieved by having public representatives on the Sentencing Guidelines Council. In reality, however, that body will be a committee, as it were, of the great and the good, even if the so-called members of the public appear on it. We also touched on the fact that the sentencing guidelines are, in a sense, an expert matter. Many people, who are not judges, have expertise and should be heard. Simply to ask people off the street to help who have no experience of the range of offences or of many other issues would be unreasonable and not necessarily helpful. One of the reasons for having the Sentencing Advisory Panel is to provide professional and expert input to the judiciary from other directions. However, although the panel may consult the public, it is not made up of people drawn off the street.

Can we measure public approval? The normal way to do that, short of holding a referendum, is for Parliament to pronounce on the matter. We are here in a representative capacity, albeit not delegates. People regularly lobby us, and we are capable of forming and independent judgments. The Home Affairs Committee—it would be the appropriate Committee, although we cannot specify it by name—has the ability to call evidence, to hear expert testimony and to formulate recommendations to be put before the House.

Does the hon. Gentleman not foresee problems with public confidence in sentencing, if the sentencing guidelines are to be openly criticised by Parliament immediately thereafter?

That is, without doubt, a potential challenge. However, sentencing guidelines are being criticised by the public now, long after they are formulated. Most members of the public do not know what they are, and their ability to have an input into the process, save through the tabloid press, is limited.

The question arises whether it would be a grave constitutional issue for Parliament to approve the guidelines. I do not see that happening. We already provide for statutory maximums and, in some cases, statutory minimums. I shall not quote it again, but earlier I read out a passage that reminds judges that the fact that they do not like the statutory maximums set by Parliament does not mean that they should try to get round them by imposing maximum sentences in cases that do not meet the maximum gravity.

Those statutory maximums are the result of our decisions, and some are certainly open to criticism. For instance, we have upper sentences of 14 years for theft. Some people would argue that if the theft consisted of a huge or extensive amount of property or could be said to threaten the security of state, the maximum sentence might not be sufficient. I float the idea that we can already be criticised for our statutory maximums. It happens with burglary, as well, in particularly grave cases. Yet although we have decided upon such sentences, it is rare in my experience for the maximum ever to be imposed.

Parliament has provided for a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment for causing death by dangerous driving, and a judge recently sentenced a person to nine and a half years for that offence, which illustrates that he considered the circumstances to be exceptionally grave. Correspondence landed on my desk last week from concerned people who said that the nature of that person's offence was such that a life sentence would not have been considered inappropriate. However, Parliament took the deliberate decision that 10 years was the proper maximum. It is wrong to say that we are out of the process; we are absolutely in it.

I do not see there being a constitutional problem. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said to me privately, and I concur, that one issue is whether it will be Parliament decides or the Executive. That is always a problem when giving power to Parliament, but I have a reasonable degree of confidence because we would not be dealing with state or policy matters such as the economy or health. I have heard more independent views expressed in the House on issues relating to sentencing than on any other issue. As Parliament's decision on sentencing is likely to be based on a Select Committee report, it is highly likely that Members would feel free to express robust views. We could do some good, but it is not without difficulty.

Time is short. I put the idea before the Committee for its consideration, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister's views on the proposal.

Before I prove that I have gone completely native on the judiciary with amendment No. 542, I should pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I know where he is coming from; I appreciate his sentiment on the matter, and it is in line with that of other Committee members.

We need to involve Parliament in the process. The question is how to do it. It should be a rational process, not one based on reflex. That is what makes it rather difficult. I would have no problem in handing

over my sovereignty as a Member to any other Member in the Room to defend and express views about Parliament, particularly in relation to sentencing. I know that, as individual Members, everyone would behave quite acceptably. The problem comes when we change hats and become members or supporters of the Government, or members or supporters of the alternative Government. That is often the point at which we leave our integrity and our brains behind.

My worry is that in trying to reassure the judiciary that it has to be a three-way process between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature, handing power to the Floor of the House would in effect disqualify parliamentarians from making their voice heard. It would give the Home Secretary two votes to one against the Lord Chief Justice. If I may speak for the latter, that would not be a good bargain, and he would be right to stand up for what he has now. That would make negotiations between him and Ministers extremely difficult.

In order to ensure that parliamentarians and the judiciary were content about Parliament's role, we would need to be extremely careful not to be perceived as having made the problem worse rather than better. The Minister suggested earlier that the Select Committee might be the best route to achieve that, although there are other routes. I fully understand where the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is coming from on this matter. He wants what I want, which is parliamentary involvement, but we have to devise a subtle and sophisticated mechanism so that it is our views that are heard rather than the views of the Government or alternative Government. Those views must also carry credence with the judiciary.

Would my hon. Friend expect, in any event and as a matter of course, the Home Affairs Committee to invite the Sentencing Guidelines Council to give evidence and report upon that evidence?

That would be an imaginative thing to do. It could be a two-way process if the Home Affairs Committee could be involved in the consultation, even as far back as the Sentencing Advisory Panel. Indeed, one of my amendments proposed that the Committee could initiate a review by the Sentencing Advisory Panel even before the matter gets to the sentencing council. Under another amendment, the Chairman of the Select Committee would be a deputy chairman and a member of the panel, so there would be access and two-way traffic. It would make sense for that discussion to take place openly.

I would be content with Members on both sides of that Committee, of which my hon. Friend was a distinguished member, representing Parliament. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested that the Home Affairs Committee report could be debated on the Floor of the House, but we have seen what can happen when Select Committee reports that are not approved of by the Executive are debated there. Rubbishing takes place, and the spin machine goes

into overdrive against particular recommendations or even against individuals. At all costs, we must avoid that because it would make the situation worse.

I agree about that, but that is one of my anxieties about having an ordinary reporting system to the Select Committee. If the Committee produces a report saying that it does not like a proposal, that is exactly what will happen. If Parliament has to vote anyway, it is less likely that the Government would be in a position to carry out that sort of exercise—because such a report cannot just be lost in the undergrowth. On the Floor of the House, it would be a high-profile issue when it came to the crunch.

It would be only marginally better than the worst-case option, which is to put it baldly to the House. If it was easy, I am sure that the Minister would have dealt with it and that we would have a properly drafted clause to consider. However, it is open so that we can make a contribution, and we are grateful for that.

We have some extremely difficult things to think through. One of the most difficult, if not the most difficult, is how Members of Parliament can be genuinely represented in a rational and open process. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman and I—and all the Committee members to whom I have spoken—adhere to the principle and sentiment of his proposal. However, we cannot conjure up a consensus on how to go forward, except to say that it is an extremely difficult and sensitive matter, and that we may need a more subtle and sophisticated—and possibly more imaginative—solution.

I shall now speak to amendment No. 542, just to prove how native I have gone with the judiciary. The judiciary will need to be won over to this new and radical way of proposing and implementing sentencing. The amendment provides that after that protracted process—after 18 months of negotiation, during which time people will have been so nice to one another; after a referral to the Sentencing Advisory Panel, and after the panel has spent nine months or a year doing its job thoroughly, taking evidence, bringing in experts, conjuring up a report; after the Sentencing Guidelines Council has considered that report, and once Parliament and the Executive have become involved, all sitting around the same table, talking, networking, and with the Lord Chief Justice being present if he wishes—if the Lord Chief Justice, on behalf of the judiciary, feels that what has emerged from that long and careful process is not acceptable, he can say no.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

I have finished my remarks.

The point at which the Select Committee or the House has an opportunity to contribute to the process is important. That is why I am a little concerned about the amendment. It brings Parliament in too late and it allows the Executive to have the final say, if only by default: if it was taken on

the Floor of the House, there would undoubtedly be a whipped vote. I do not believe that the House would be given a free vote on sentencing guidelines. As we know, even with a free vote, Whips are occasionally tempted at least to influence the outcome.

It is slightly naive to suppose that it is possible to have an independent view at that stage, and I believe that the Executive should not have the last say on the matter. That is one reason why I am concerned about subsection (8). It seems inappropriate, having gone through those conciliatory and consensual arrangements, to pass it to the Secretary of State, only for him to say no. If anyone is to have the final right of veto, it should be the Lord Chief Justice.

A number of hon. Members have suggested that if a Select Committee were to be involved it should be the Home Affairs Committee. I would rather leave that option open, because one could argue that it should be the Select Committee for the Lord Chancellor's Department. I do not say that because my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will be Chairman, but because that newly formed Committee will have a clear role in examining what that Department does—and sentencing clearly falls within that remit. I am not entirely sure that the Home Affairs Committee, which has an enormous Department to shadow and a great number of responsibilities, is necessarily the right vehicle. I do not wish to be prescriptive, but we should at least keep the option in mind that at least two Committees could have a proper role to play.

We are continuing a conversation that we started on the previous clause. We have a further opportunity to discuss the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny and the operation of the council in creating the guidelines, courtesy this time of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.

Sentencing guidelines are a relatively new concept. Practice in the Crown courts has been shaped over many years by judgments and precedents; it is now done through guideline judgments, having regard to the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which itself is only three and a bit years old. The magistrates courts are covered by the Magistrates Association guidelines, which have been going only for about three years. We are dealing with relatively new ways of working.

I shall describe the procedure that will apply if the provisions are agreed, because it will help us understand the place that the different parties will have in the process. The council will decide what guidelines it wishes to consider either of its own motion or following a request from the Home Secretary. The council will then commission the Sentencing Advisory Panel to give advice. The panel will be obliged to consult widely, although there is provision to exempt it from having to do so in urgent cases—for example, if new legislation is being quickly brought into force, or a concern arises requiring new or amended guidelines. The panel then tenders its advice to the council, and the council forms a preliminary view and issues draft guidelines to the Home Secretary. Whatever arrangement is established

by Parliament—that is what we have been debating; subject to what I said in response to the earlier debate, the current expectation is that it will be the Home Affairs Committee—the council would then allow up to two months for responses, and would then finalise and issue a definitive guideline.

That two-stage provision is designed to make the most effective use of parliamentary time. It would be for the Committee to decide how to conduct its affairs, but I concur with those hon. Members who said that if it were to undertake that function, the Home Affairs Committee would wish to invite witnesses, including from the Sentencing Guidelines Council, and the Home Secretary. It would produce observations to be sent to the Sentencing Guidelines Council, or it would produce a report to Parliament on the proposals themselves, which may be debated. When the guidelines have been published, the Committee may wish to meet with or without witnesses and produce a report to Parliament. That would be a flexible system.

The Sentencing Advisory Panel plays an important role. Hon. Members are probably aware that it is a Home Office-sponsored non-departmental public body. Members are currently appointed by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice, after open advertisement and competition. The current membership includes people with direct judicial experience at Crown courts and magistrates courts, academics, a serving chief probation officer, a former deputy chief constable and others from education, health and other backgrounds. Until recently, a former director general of the Prison Service was a member. Agreement has been reached to extend the membership to include an individual with current or recent experience as a prosecutor.

The panel is obliged by statute to consult a range of organisations prescribed by the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice, including Victim Support and organisations representing police officers and prison staff. In fact, it consults more widely; and when appropriate, as we heard earlier from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar, it commissions public surveys.

I recognise the probing nature of many of the amendments that suggest the removal of certain subsections. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North spoke on several occasions of the Lord Chief Justice's chairing the Sentencing Guidelines Council. Strong support has been expressed for his role, not least because the council is continuing the role currently undertaken by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, of which the Lord Chief Justice is head. In those circumstances, I see no benefit in providing him with a casting vote, which would be the effect of one amendment. Leaving the final decision to a single member of the judiciary, however eminent, would be less satisfactory than at present. The guidelines are currently delivered by courts, or through the efforts of a group working on the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines; they will be delivered in future under the arrangements that the Sentencing Guidelines Council itself is to establish.

Preserving proper judicial independence is therefore extremely important.

I repeat with great brevity what I said on earlier amendments. When it comes to the precise nature of Parliament's role, hon. Members have offered various solutions to achieve the necessary subtlety and sophistication. I recognise that we are all reflecting on it as we speak—the Government, the Opposition and those who subscribed their names to amendments—and that we will return to it on Report. I hope that this afternoon's conversation will continue, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is genuinely interested in the range of ideas on how it can be achieved. To the extent that it might be possible to achieve a consensus, it would clearly be beneficial if we could do it by the time that we reach Report.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. In a moment, I shall ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment. I am mindful of the criticisms that have been made of the proposal; it was not perfect, and I realise that it had inherent problems. However, it is too easy for such a parliamentary dimension to be watered down and sidelined. I fear that it will be diminished if it is left to the mechanism of a Select Committee; history shows all too clearly how easily that can happen. I have served on other Select Committees and seen how easy it is to shunt a subject into the long grass. If we want Parliament to do something, Parliament must play an affirmative role in the process.

I realise that that is difficult, but I hope that the Minister will consider that aspect and that we can reconsider the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.