| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Sheerman : I am sure that it is in order. Perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would like to make a ruling.
During the months that preceded the publication of the Bill, much use was made of the term "twin tracking" to describe the Government's aims in sentencing reform. No one denies that the Government have a dual purpose in framing the legislation, but I prefer to use not that term, but the term "schizoid" to describe the conflicting aims behind the Bill.
There is a genuine desire to reduce the prison population and to introduce proposals to that end. However, there is also a dangerous mixture of punitive sentiment, dogmatic obsession and populist moralising seeping through the Bill's clauses. That heady mix threatens to undermine all the positives in the Bill. Its schizoid nature is revealed most clearly by the Home Secretary's speeches. Indeed, he appears to be unclear about the intention behind the Bill. On some occasions, he has suggested that the Bill aims to reduce the prison population, while on others--for example, at his press conference to launch the Bill--he denies that aim. He repeatedly highlights and hypes the punitive elements in a language that is liable to destroy any tentative steps towards a new sentencing climate.
Let us think about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech this afternoon. If he is serious about changing the climate of sentencing policy, it does no one any good to talk about slaps on the wrist. For an adult, a slap on the wrist can add up to 240 hours of community service. That is a strange slap on the wrist, if that is how the Home Secretary describes an existing alternative to prison. He also referred to prisoners loafing around in prison. Has he visited Armley and Brixton? Is loafing about in prison what it is all about? I cannot understand his use of that language. He obviously does not realise that it affects the climate in which we debate these serious issues. He does not understand the damage that he does to what is otherwise, sometimes, a sensible case.
There are positive aspects to the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) outlined them. I shall quickly reiterate them, because we welcome parts of the Bill. We recognise the attempt to establish a statutory framework for sentencing although, as I shall explain later, the proposals to achieve that are weak and insufficient. We especially welcome the statutory criteria contained in clause 1. Such criteria have been beneficial for the under-21s, and it is only right that they should be extended. We welcome the attempt to ensure that the less serious offenders are sentenced for the offence before the court, and not on their previous records.
We support the proposals to introduce unit fines in magistrates courts, to reduce the maximum sentences for theft and non-domestic burglary, and to ensure that 17-year-olds are treated as young persons rather than adults. We wholeheartedly endorse the clauses that implement the Pigot report to reform the law on children's evidence and to provide protection for the child victims of sexual and violent offences.
Column 220
Even some of the proposals of which we broadly approve, however, are deficient. Why are those who are committed for an indictable offence and have previously served a prison sentence unable to benefit from the criteria set out in clause 1? A parliamentary answer that I received in March revealed that, in 1988, a total of 2,752 offenders--a quarter of those found guilty of indictable offences--received non-custodial sentences. In October I attempted to discover how many of those offenders had previously served a prison sentence, but I was told that that information was not available. It is clear that many hundreds of offenders might be denied the protection of clause 1 for no good reason. If we do not receive an adequate response about that from the Minister tonight, I hope that we shall be able to discuss this matter in detail in Committee. The attempt in clause 2 to achieve sentencing for the offence and not the record is hopelessly undermined by clause 3(3). I should be happy if the Home Secretary intervened now to clear up that confusion. Although the clauses may not be exactly contradictory, they are highly confusing. No doubt that kind of drafting gobbledegook will be interpreted by the courts in different ways and that will increase the inconsistency that characterises our present sentencing system. Some courts will use the confusion to increase sentences because of an offender's record. Clause 3(3) is unnecessary and it should be dropped.Why are unit fines not to operate in Crown courts? I accept that far fewer of relevant cases will appear in such courts, but those fines should be utilised in all courts.
My major concern about the sentencing proposals is their weakness. The Bill is a lost opportunity and the Government have failed to grasp the nettle of sentencing reform at the appropriate time. They have failed to provide an acceptable mechanism to fulfil the aim of reducing the prison population. Despite the Home Secretary's comments to the contrary, that is an important aim.
We are excessively dependent on prison sentences. The United Kingdom imprisons more people in absolute terms and in proportion to its population than any other member state of the Council of Europe. The Government's White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" spelt out the limitations of prison clearly. It says that prison
"can be an expensive way of making bad people worse imprisonment provides many good opportunities to learn criminal skills from other inmates."
The Government should have the courage to propose a sentencing council, but instead they rely on hope. According to the White Paper, it is hoped that
"the Court of Appeal will give further guidance building on the legislative framework".
So we are left to rely on a system which, over the decades, has failed this country.
In our view, a sentencing council is one of the ways forward and most people in the informed professional lobby believe that that could be a good alternative to the present system. A sentencing council could be established by primary legislation, which would lay down the sentencing principles to underpin its work.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest expressed doubt about a sentencing council, but that council would provide sentencing guidelines for the range of criminal cases in any interrelated structure. It would not just undertake
Column 221
monitoring, but would lay down guidelines. That system would be a great advance on current practices whereby the Court of Appeal issues guideline judgments on a limited number of serious cases, but does not provide a coherent and linked structure of guidance. It is vital that guidelines deal with the bulk of everyday offences that come before the courts.Without a sentencing council, the Government are taking a huge gamble in the Bill. It may contain some good intentions, but there is no mechanism to deliver them. The combined probation and community service order is fraught with dangers. It is likely that that new order will be used in many cases where a simple, single probation order or a community service order would have been used. The Home Office recognises that problem. A recent Home Office costing paper contained an optimistic assumption that 50 per cent. of offenders placed on the combined order will be diverted from prison, half from community service and half from probation. Its pessimistic assumption is that the proportions will be one third, one third and one third. The memorandum to the Bill suggests that the new order might reduce the prison population by a mere 450 to 750, and there is a further problem in relation to breaches of the order. If an offender who would have received a simple probation order or community service order breaches the new order, he is liable to end up in prison more quickly, since the two sentencing options will be used up in one go. The new order, with its multiple conditions, is more likely to be breached and to be the reverse of what the Government intended will take place. In other words, more people will end up in prison faster.
Without a sentencing council, there are dangers attached to clause 2(2)(b), which deals with violent and sexual offences. I want the Home Secretary to appreciate clearly that the Labour party takes the protection of the public from sexual and violent offences very seriously indeed. The sentences passed by the courts for such offences reflect the gravity with which they are viewed.
But there is an area of concern about the clause because of the failure to define the word "serious," as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook pointed out, and there is a lack of mechanism in that matter. It is possible that some offenders who have committed a less grave offence within that category and who, in the public opinion, would not warrant a sentence above the normal range for the offence will receive a sentence usually reserved for graver crimes. The implementation of the Carlisle proposals on parole is another risky leap in the dark. When I hear the Home Secretary describe the Carlisle report as a punitive measure designed to keep people in prison longer, I feel sympathy with the authors of the report--I understand that Lord Carlisle was listening to our deliberations closely earlier in the day--because they were a group of people with reform at heart who made it clear that they did not want the prison population to rise as a result of their proposals. They must wince to hear their work being abused by the Home Secretary, for the authors of the Carlisle report intended their proposals to go hand in hand with sentencing reforms to ensure that prisoners did not spend longer in custody.
In accepting Carlisle without making effective sentencing reforms, the Government will be responsible for the prison population rising perhaps by as many as 2,000. Many of the prison reform groups are arguing that, and if I were pitching the case for the reform groups, for
Column 222
which I have a high opinion, against the sort of back-up information that the Home Secretary has been receiving of late from his Department, I would back the lobby rather than the Home Office officials.Mr. Waddington : I remember precisely what the Carlisle report said. It expected the courts to reflect in their sentences the fact that the people concerned would, as a result of the changes in the parole arrangements, be serving sentences more closely related to those passed by the courts. There is nothing in Carlisle about setting up an involved system and a sentencing council. It is a simple proposition that it expected the courts to reflect in their sentences the fact that people would serve a larger proportion of their sentences, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to read the report.
Mr. Sheerman : I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read what was said in the debate in the other place, when Lord Carlisle dealt with that point very strongly indeed. The Carlisle committee expected that its reforms would be accompanied by a change in sentencing policy, however delivered. The White Paper contains no mechanism to balance one against the other. The result is--I believe that Lord Carlisle holds this opinion--that we shall have a larger prison population as a result of our failure to act.
The Labour party believes that we should consider whether parole eligibility should remain at one third. The Home Secretary should listen, because he misunderstands our opinion on it. I am sure that he does not do so deliberately, but he distorts the Opposition's view of that important matter. The Labour party wants to consider whether eligibility should remain at one third, as it is now, until effective sentencing reforms are introduced.
When we debated that point after publication of the White Paper, the Home Secretary said that the Labour party proposed that violent offenders should be released after serving one third of their sentence. I can only assume that those comments were made as a result of complete ignorance of the parole system and how it works. The Home Secretary must surely be aware that those serving long sentences for violent offences are, rightly, the least successful in obtaining parole.
Statistics contained in the Carlisle report show that only 1 per cent. of those sentenced to more than five years in prison come out on parole before serving half their sentence--that is the truth of the matter. Only 13 per cent. of those serving between four and five years come out before the halfway mark. Many of them are likely to be serving sentences for non- violent offences. Violent offenders rarely come out of prison before serving half their sentence, under the arrangements we support. The Government's proposals for long-term violent offenders merely recognise the status quo. It is the short-term non-violent offenders who will be penalised.
The Bill is an enormous gamble. Its memorandum suggests that the sentencing proposals will reduce the prison population by a mere 1, 500. But the parole proposals could well increase the prison population by 2,000. The figure of 1,500 gives every impression of being pulled out of a hat. During the Conservative leadership contest this week we have heard much reference to sums and scribbles on the backs of envelopes early in the career
Column 223
of one of the contenders. The figure of 1,500 seems to have been scribbled on the back of an envelope and it cannot be justified by any serious research.I do not believe that the Home Office has any idea of the total effect of that package in the Criminal Justice Bill, which hardly inspires confidence in the proposals. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but most informed people think that the Bill's result in terms of prison population will be a total gamble. Most people argue that predicting the Bill's result is guesswork and that it could either reduce the prison population or increase it. We know for sure that no one really knows the answer. It is strange for a Government to be in that position when introducing a major Criminal Justice Bill, the intention of which was trailed as being a reduction in the prison population. They do not know whether the Bill will deliver that result.
The Government are also displaying a cavalier attitude to the probation service. No doubt the Minister of State, as he normally does, will refer to a window of opportunity for the probation service to enable it to expand its work. But quantity is not everything ; quality is so vital in the work. Sometimes, as I sit listening to the Government's opinion of the probation service it makes me think that they want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. On all the criteria, the service is pretty efficient, cost effective, saves an enormous amount of money and has a marvellous body of people working in it who deliver the goods. The Government constantly snipe at the service's morale and performance. The Government always want to change the qualities that have made the service so effective. Quantity is not everything ; quality matters, too. The Government are happy to jettison some of the best traditions of the probation service. We believe that their plans will make it harder for officers to win the trust of offenders and will undermine the service's constructive and positive work with offenders- -work which is a necessary component of community-based sanctions.
We believe strongly in the alternatives to prison, but we argue that many of the alternatives have not been tried by the judiciary or by the magistrates. We are in favour of expanding the range of options as long as they build on the central tradition of the probation service in a way that is not punitive in the sense in which the Government like to use that term.
The probation service has delivered a good service, but the Home Secretary tends not to say that in his speeches. He should give it a pat on the back, not a slap on the wrist. He should find out why the service is so successful and expand it within its traditions. The difficulty is that the Government are doing the opposite. They are abandoning the traditional spirit and principles behind probation work and replacing them with a punitive philosophy with which most probation officers will find it difficult to work. They believe that it will be much less effective than the system that has hitherto prevailed.
We very much like about 20 per cent. of the Bill and will support and improve that percentage in Committee. Fifty per cent. of it has some good sentiments and intentions, although the drafting is confused. We, as a responsible Opposition, will ensure that the Bill leaves Committee greatly improved. It is the Opposition who have policies,
Column 224
ideas and vision in this area and who can therefore improve the Bill. About 30 per cent. of the Bill is damnable-- wrong in conception and in every possible way.Let us start with one of the most objectionable parts--curfew orders and electronic tagging or monitoring. The Home Secretary talked about electronic nagging earlier in the most amusing part of his speech--I rather enjoyed that bit. We believe that electronic monitoring is a retrograde step. Measures such as these are misguided and unproductive. It pained me to hear the chairman of Crime Concern, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, speak of tagging in glowing terms. The Opposition have a high regard for Crime Concern, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has examined the American experience. Has he seen the disaster that tagging has been in the United States? Has he looked at the research? I had thought that Crime Concern used proper research and then applied it. The small experiment in electronic tagging in this country was a disaster, and longer-term experiments in the United states have also been disastrous--
Mr. Norris : Just for the record, let me say that I was expressing a personal view. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about Crime Concern, but I should be grateful if he made it clear that I am not speaking for that organisation.
Thanks to the courtesy of the American Government, I spent most of September in America looking at crime, particularly inner city crime, in at least two states : Texas and New Mexico. I was struck by the effectiveness of the tagging schemes there, although I agree that their usefulness has not yet been proven in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Sheerman : The hon. Gentleman ought to put this in context. It puzzles me when people troop off to the United States to learn about its criminal justice system and its drugs and imprisonment policies. The American criminal justice system is a total disaster. More than 1 million people are in prison over there, and the number is mounting. Schemes such as electronic tagging, which are designed to keep people out of prison, have resulted in a steady increase in the prison population. We need no lessons from the United States. Its criminal justice system is a disaster. I include in that description the use of privately owned penal establishments for remand prisoners. We object strenuously to curfew orders. Negative measures of that kind are misguided and unproductive. Constructive measures are far more likely to deter offenders from committing further crimes. That view is shared by the courts. Curfew requirements for juveniles have been available to the courts since 1983. Nobody, however, imposes curfew orders. If they are hardly ever used for juveniles, why expand their use? Most magistrates do not impose curfew orders.
Electronic monitoring is a foolish gimmick, with important implications for civil liberties. The evidence from the United States is bleak, and the so- called experiment in this country was a complete fiasco. During the experiment, 50 offenders were tagged, 28 of whom breached the conditions. Faced with such a failure, any other Government would gracefully retreat.
Mr. Waddington : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Column 225
Mr. Sheerman : No, I do not intend to give way during this part of my argument.When I listen to the Home Secretary's arguments about tagging I remember that he was very much behind the short, sharp shock of 10 or 11 years ago. The Government loved it ; they were all extremely keen on it. Research similarly found that it was a failure but, unperturbed, the Government expanded the scheme. Eventually, they were forced to jettison it because, time and again, research showed that it did not work. It was a long, hard lesson for them. We believe that tagging will suffer the same fate.
The sentencing proposals for children and young persons make depressing reading. The Government's schizoid tendancy comes through clearly. They want to reduce the number of young people in custody, but their punitive instincts get in the way. Sensibly, they suggest that 17-year-olds should come within the more constructive sentencing traditions of the juvenile court, but at the same time they are prepared to tamper with the juvenile system, which is one of the few bright spots in the entire criminal justice system. Why on earth alter a system that works? Why on earth increase the maximum period of community service for 16-year-olds?
The Government make unrealistic and populist suggestions regarding parental responsibility. Of course parental responsibility is important, but can one imagine that in families where there is enormous tension and stress between child and parent and where parents have lost control of their offspring a court bind-over would be effective? It is a ludicrous suggestion. It is far more likely to exacerbate tension and lead to family breakdowns.
The courts already have considerable discretion in these cases. They can use fines and bind-overs where their use seems to be appropriate. I hope that the Minister will tell us why he takes no notice of the Magistrates Association. It does not want these powers ; it does not think that they will work. The Magistrates Association does not want the new clauses.
As for the inevitable privatisation proposals, who would have thought 10 years ago that privatisation mania would be extended to remand prisoners and prison escorts? Who would have thought that the Government would want to make money out of locking people up? The deprivation of liberty should be the unique responsibility of the state. We cannot allow the development of a powerful lobby with a vested interest in keeping the remand population high. It would be a disgrace. It is scandalous that the Government's only response to the remand crisis is to build private prisons. It is regrettable that the Government have pushed ahead with those daft ideas before receiving the full report of the Woolf inquiry. Lord Justice Woolf has made it clear that remand prisoners come within his remit. I hope that the Home Secretary will see sense and that Woolf will come through in time so that we can amend the Bill before it is too late. There are so many things missing from the Bill. Where is the commitment to end the remanding and sentencing of juveniles to prison department establishments? All we have is a clause to end custodial sentencing for 14-year-olds. That is welcome, but it affects only 200 young people.
Where are the clauses to tackle racism in the criminal justice system? There is a hint of amnesia from the Home Secretary on that. Those are vital provisions if there is to be equality of treatment before the law. What a slap in the face--not a pat on the head--for the black community to be consulted in October and ignored in November. The
Column 226
remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the black and Asian community were disgraceful in a civilised society. It is a disgrace to suggest in the stereotyped way that he did that the black community has a tendency to criminality. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Minister will repudiate his remarks. Where are the clauses on victims' rights and crime prevention? Many of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have talked about those enormous gaps. There is nothing on crime prevention, prisoners' rights or miscarriages of justice.This is a weak and limited Bill. At its heart it lacks an effective mechanism to operationalise some of its good intentions. Its schizoid nature threatens to undermine its good parts. Sentencers are being sent a dual message. All our experience suggests that only the punitive message will prevail. That makes it a bad Bill.
9.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I woke up on the morning after my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State launched the Criminal Justice Bill two Fridays ago to look at the leader columns in the Daily Mail and The Guardian. Both the leaders in those excellent newspapers praised my right hon. and learned Friend for the excellence of his Bill. That made me think that we may have got it more or less right. We welcome the approbation that we have received from most of the penal affairs groups. They may have quarrels over particular details-- they may want sentencing councils or they may not like electronic monitoring--but they like the overall drift of the Bill. Such points were recognised by the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Ynys Mo n (Mr. Jones). I hope that we shall hear the voice of the hon. Member for Ynys Mo n in Committee.
I want to have a word with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) because he made several important points. He seems to be screwing up his notes and destroying them. They deserve to be preserved for posterity. He wants the Bill to be improved in Committee. I intend to debate the Bill with the same seriousness as we debated the Criminal Justice Act 1988. During the passage of that Act I was pleased to have the opportunity to say publicly, for example, that some of the issues in the Act found their fountainhead in ideas that had been developed by the Labour party. In 1986, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) took the first important step to ensure that victims of rape were not identified in the press, and we built on that in the 1988 Act. I hope that such an approach can mark our discussions on the parts of the Bill where there is no party political dissent. Many parts of the Bill have nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with sentencing practice, common sense and trying to ensure that offenders get their just deserts and victims are compensated. That is the way in which I hope that the Committee will approach the Bill. In 1988, our approach to the Bill did not just stop with my occasionally tossing a bouquet to the Labour party Front Bench. There was even collusion between the Opposition Front Bench and the Conservative Front Bench. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who now speaks on the environment, and I were under
Column 227
severe pressure from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) to do something about children's evidence and video-taping. A Committee knows nothing more fearsome than the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme when she is enraged and putting people under pressure. Enormous strength of character was required for the hon. Member for Dewsbury and I to resist her blandishments. That led to the Pigot report, and I hope that the encompassing of most of that report in the Bill will receive her approval. I shall return to her remarks because she made it clear that she wants us to go a little further on one or two points, which I look forward to with some trepidation.The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland rather generously mentioned one of the effects of the enactment of the Bill. On reflection, I thought that I was a little rude to him in the debate, but unlike some right hon. and hon. Members I am quite prepared to apologise and hope that he accepts it. In five, 10 or 15 years' time, the Bill may be seen as one of the benchmarks in the development of the criminal justice system. Until the 16th and 17th centuries, the purpose of prisons was not to punish but to hold people until they were produced in court. Generally, the capital sentence was passed on them or something disagreeable was done to their person. Prisons were not intended to punish, with the exception of debtors.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, we saw a great change in the system from executing or flogging people to imprisoning them. Prison has been seen as the right punishment throughout the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Everything else has been seen as an alternative to prison.
When the Bill is enacted--I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but time will tell--it will be seen as a benchmark and as a twin-track approach to crime and punishment that leads to fewer prisoners being imprisoned for longer for serious and violent crimes and people who used to be imprisoned for minor or petty crimes being punished more effectively in the community. That is the underlying principle of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield made several points. First, he spoke of the drafting of the Bill. He should beware of being rude about parliamentary draftsmen, who, particularly in this country, excel in drafting Bills. A Bill is drafted under ministerial instruction, but it is a pity if the hon. Gentleman takes incitement from the remarks of a don that he heard on the "Today" programme this morning about sloppy drafting-- a rather confused and eccentric don, and as I used to be one, I know one when I hear one. He said that the Bill was a load of codswallop because, for example, it contains no reference to mitigation. That don--I do not know his name, but if I did I would hope to forget it very quickly and would ensure that none of my children went to his college--had not got as far as clause 3, where "mitigation" is mentioned. President Routh of Magdalene college was the last of my constituents to wear a full-bottomed wig, rather like yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He told some young pupil, "Always verify your references." That comment applies to the remarks that have been made about the Bill and that have been picked up by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. If he does not verify his references, he should at least read the Bill.
Column 228
Mr. Sheerman : My comments had nothing to do with The Guardian article but were based on what we all knew--that the Government set impossible demands for the parliamentary draftsmen. We know that they sent the Bill back and said, "This is awful and cannot be put into any framework that we know of." We know about the to-ing and fro-ing of the Bill. It is the Government's fault, not that of the parliamentary draftsmen.
Mr. Patten : I am afraid that the Labour party seems prone to making allegations without any foundation. The hon. Gentleman said something that is not a fact and made a grievous mistake. He clearly does not understand the way in which such a Bill should be drafted. He asked why the Bill did not contain any mention of "seriousness". No Bill, with all the schedules in the world, and no sentencing council, with all the wisdom in the world, could lay down for each conceivable crime every point that would have to be taken into account in judging seriousness.
The courts have been judging seriousness for years. In a domestic burglary case, a judge will consider the amount of property stolen, the fear felt by the occupier, the breach of trust involved and the element of premeditation. In each of those ways the courts are used to applying the principle of seriousness. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is asking for the impossible if he thinks that there is any possibility in any statute or on any sentencing council of completely defining seriousness.
I regretted a bit what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about the probation service. He suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I did not value it and that the probation service did not look forward with interest to the challenges that the Bill and future reorganisations of the service might bring. That is not right. Do not just watch our lips ; watch the cheque books. Look at the line in the public expenditure White Paper, which shows that, over the next three years, there will be a 27 per cent. real increase in spending on the probation service. Look at the extra 800 or 900 probation officers who will be employed. Look at articles in the past week or so by the chairman of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. Of course, he does not like this or that part of the Bill, but the Bill presents an enormous opportunity for the probation service. I am convinced that the professionalism of the service, with its exercise of caring authority, will make some parts of the Bill work in a way that the hon. Member for Huddersfield thinks is impossible.
It was entirely characteristic of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that at no stage did he mention victims. He mentioned offenders and raised several questions, led by one about delays in remand. By spring next year, the 112-day limit on remands will be in place in London and in the eight other counties in the south-east where it is not in place now. Implementation has taken a long time because of differences in court practice.
Several questions about standards in private remand centres were raised. I understand why the House wants to ensure that prisoners on remand are kept in good conditions. The contracts will be kept open. There will be open competitive tendering. The prison service will be able to enter the bidding for private remand centres. A Home Office civil servant, probably prison officer grade, will be
Column 229
appointed as the controller in the different remand centres to ensure that standards are met. All the functions are set out clearly in clauses 66 and 68.The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked why we were introducing minimum standards for remand centres but were not introducing minimum standards for prisons. We are concentrating on doing something about the prison estate, which, over the generations before 1979, fell into a shameful condition. There will be a record number of prisons. The new sanitation services being put in place will ensure that, by 1994, 75 per cent. of prisoners will have access to night sanitation. We are not talking about it ; we are actually doing it. We shall provide straightforward--and certainly not soft-- conditions. We are also waiting for the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will wait for the recommendations of the Woolf committee to see whether there are any recommendations about the introduction of minimum standards. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also raised an important point about the punishments available for white-collar criminals, which was a point that interested him. A cocktail of punishments is available for white-collar criminals outside prison. We are, of course, talking about minor criminals because major City fraudsters who breach a trust seriously and who are found guilty will probably be given a long prison sentence, as hon. Members of all parties would agree was right.
There are several ingredients for minor white-collar criminals, including compensation for the victim. When the courts decide to punish someone outside prison, they should put even the fine second to compensation for the victim. That is a cultural change in sentencing, which all of us want to see. The ingredients include, as I said, compensation plus--and I emphasise the word "plus"--a fine, plus community service for up to 100 hours, plus a curfew, plus attendance at the probation centre--the old attendance centre--plus a probation sentence as a sentence of the court. If all those ingredients were applied, some minor white-collar criminals might see that as a lot tougher than spending three or four months in gaol. I hope that it would be a lot tougher, and that it would lead to the rehabilitation of some of those people and, most importantly, to repayment for the victim. I am sometimes angry when minor criminals go to gaol because they are prevented from repaying victims. If the courts use compensation orders more, there will be far more satisfaction for victims.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about our attitude to parental responsibility, and the argument on that swung backwards and forwards during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) feels strongly that much of the recent increase in crime is connected to the breakdown of parental responsibility. Opposition Members whose views I respect, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), said that it would be difficult to use the criminal justice system alone to make parents responsible. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary recognises that and he said earlier that he did not expect the criminal justice system to cure all the problems of children offending.
The provisions about parental responsibility are just one limb of the Government's programme. We have introduced provisions in the Children Act 1989 on welfare to help children in trouble and to set up children's centres.
Column 230
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science are also actively discussing whether we can do far more about truancy to ensure not that we punish children, but that we get them to school. A cocktail of provisions is coming from the Government, which together represent a far more integrated approach to dealing with children offending and with parental responsibility. The criminal justice measures are just one part of that mixture. I now refer with considerable pleasure to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for BuxtonMr. Patten : I beg my hon. and learned Friend's pardon. He made an important point about the need--
Mr. Lawrence : Will my right hon. Friend kindly remember for future speeches that Burton is the brewing centre of the United Kingdom? He should never forget that.
Mr. Patten : I look forward to discussing the issues later in the XXXX bar.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton asked whether there would be sufficient resources for probation reports. Over the next three years, we shall put 54 per cent. more in cash terms and 27 per cent. more in real terms into the probation service, which should lead to between 800 and 1,000 more probation officers. There will also be national standards for the writing of probation reports. My hon. and learned Friend was also interested to know whether sentencing could take records and the evil disposition of a repeat offender into account. If my hon. and learned Friend, with his characteristic care, reads clause 3(3), he will find that those matters can be taken into account in sentencing by having regard to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton was the first of several of my hon. Friends to raise the issue of capital punishment. It was taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton, for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), who made such an interesting speech. Thank heaven that my hon. Friend puts the R into robust in what he says. I think that my hon. and learned Friend and my three hon. Friends wish to see the return of capital punishment and all wish to debate the matter-- [Interruption.] Order! Bolsover--sit down!
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister is seeking to do your job. I know that there is disarray within the Government, but the right hon. Gentleman has no business talking like that.
Mr. Patten : That is right--I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is sitting down like a good boy. Opposition Members need the smack of firm discipline, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton, for Thanet, North and for Hayes and Harlington all wish there to be a debate on capital punishment at an early date. I know that junior Ministers cannot stray into the area of business management, which is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall,
Column 231
of course, convey the views of my hon. and learned Friend and of my hon. Friends to my right hon. Friend as soon as possible. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West described himself as an old lag of the Criminal Justice Bill world. He raised some important issues, which I know he will reintroduce in Committee. I thought that it was a bit ripe when he said that we were not putting enough resources into the prison officers' establishment. As I recall the figures, there was one prison officer for every six prisoners in 1918. There was one officer for every three prisoners in 1979, and one for every two in 1990. It is a bit much to suggest that we are not staffing our prisons properly.Many important matters were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I share his concern about attacks on the police and I shall consider carefully what he said about that and his other arguments.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has had enough plaudits from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber during the evening. He does an invaluable job as chairman of Crime Concern. If I may say so, with his record on civil liberties he was able to demolish the facetious and fallacious arguments that were used to suggest that electronic monitoring somehow trammels people's civil liberties. He did so in a manner that was masterly and brilliant.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has considerable experience as a justice of the peace and in working with young people. I listened with great care to what he had to say. I hope that he accepts that the figures that I gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton show that the probation service will receive a considerable injection of money and of additional men and women, even if he thinks that the figures are not high enough. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was generous about some parts of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North drew a clear distinction between violent offenders who perhaps should receive maximum sentences and more effective community punishments. The entire House listened with care to what he had to say.
The hon. Member for Ynys Mo n reflected the importance of drawing a clear division between violent and non-violent crime. This reforming and radical Bill of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gives clear signposts and makes it clear how that division should be arrived at.
I cannot refer now to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington because he is no longer here, so I shall move on, lastly, to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). I apologise that I was not in the Chamber to hear all his speech. The hon. Gentleman referred to Germany, and I have visited that country. I have spoken to the judiciary in Germany about the ways in which changes have been brought about there and have been told that they have been made largely by talk or discussion and not by additional resources. That is what I was told during my recent visit when I talked to those concerned about changes in sentencing practice. The word "sentencing" brings me back to the theme that has run throughout our debate--the need for a sentencing council. That need has been pressed on us by
Column 232
right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. At the end of a long process that begins with a crime that may or may not be seen or reported, recorded or prosecuted, there may be a prosecution, which may or may not be successful, and a judge or a recorder such as the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West will have to take one of those awesome, difficult and lonely decisions about what sentence or bail to give.I remember a speech made by the Lord Chief Justice in the other place a few years ago in which he referred to the loneliness of the judge. Experts around the Chamber such as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook want to make judges, recorders, deputy recorders and magistrates a lot less lonely by giving them the advice of a sentencing council. If a sentencing council is to be only advisory, what happens to it if the judiciary does not like what it says? In that case, we might turn to Parliament and say that it should have more statutory force. Suppose a sentencing council says, "We would like you, as a Government, to suggest that there should be changes of this sort, that sort or some other sort in sentencing practice." As the sovereign body, the House might decide that it does not like the guidance of the sentencing council. Would such a sentencing council, which I am sure would have the great and the good on it, be worth the deliberations that have been expended on it?
We could look at the alphabet of legal experts and start at A with my noble Friend Lord Alexander in another place, who is the president of Justice. He might believe that a sentencing council would be good. Professor Ashworth has written two books on sentencing councils, which offer another scheme. However, if we want a sentencing council, we are drawn in the world of sentencing down the following route : if an advisory sentencing council does not work, it must be mandatory. [Hon. Members :-- "Boring."] Some Opposition Members should have been in the Chamber earlier when sentencing councils were referred to in all the speeches.
If we are drawn down the route of an advisory sentencing council, it will never be effective. It must have a statutory basis. If we have a statutory sentencing council, it will end up like the experience in the United States. Besides having a ration in Minnesota of prison places during any one year, the judges in that state are presented with a sentencing grid. They have 43 offences on one side and six criminal histories on the other. A computer virtually works out the sentence given to the court. All that makes me suspect that there is a hidden agenda in the Labour party in the suggestion of a sentencing council. We know the Opposition's hidden agendas in respect of other aspects of the criminal justice system. Back in October, we saw the hon. Member for Huddersfield having his wrists slapped by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook for having raised the veil on the Labour party's plans to put the police under local authority control. We know that that will be in the next Labour manifesto.
Equally, on parole, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, having given a public greeting to the proposals, said that, after all, he wanted his party to move towards a one third reduction in the length of time that people spent in prison. Again we can see what the right hon. Gentleman really wants to do--to reduce the number of people in our prisons not because they should not be there but because he simply wishes to see fewer people in prison. Executive release is clearly what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wants. Labour wants also to tie
Column 233
judges' hands. I tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that the threats to the independence of the criminal justice system and the police are formidable.The Bill marks a watershed in the future of the criminal justice system by this radical and reforming Government of the past 11 years and it will see us into the 1990s and the next century.
Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 350.
Division No. 7] [10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Bell, Stuart
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Bidwell, Sydney
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Buckley, George J.
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Coleman, Donald
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Eadie, Alexander
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Fatchett, Derek
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Haynes, Frank
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Illsley, Eric
Ingram, Adam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Lambie, David
Lamond, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Lewis, Terry
Litherland, Robert
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Loyden, Eddie
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
McCartney, Ian
Macdonald, Calum A.
McKelvey, William
McLeish, Henry
McNamara, Kevin
McWilliam, John
Madden, Max
Mahon, Mrs Alice
Marek, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Martlew, Eric
Maxton, John
Meacher, Michael
Michael, Alun
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Moonie, Dr Lewis
Morgan, Rhodri
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mowlam, Marjorie
| Next Section
| Home Page |