| Home Page |
Column 21
Gulf Crisis (Conscription)
3.33 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you, Mr. Speaker, had any requests from Ministers to make a statement on reports about the possibility of conscription because of the Gulf crisis? There were widespread reports in the newspapers yesterday. Have the Government made any requests along those lines?
Mr. Speaker : Over the weekend, one frequently reads speculative articles. I have not received representations from the Government on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to pursue the issue in the debates on the Adjournment motion if any fresh information becomes available.
Column 22
Orders of the Day
Criminal Justice Bill
(New Clauses relating to capital punishment)
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. Harold Walker
in the Chair. ]
New Clause 1
Punishment for murder of a police officer
A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of the murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.-- [Mr. John Greenway.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.34 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker) : With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following : New clause 2-- Terrorist Murder--
A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed as, or in pursuit of, an act of terrorism shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.
New clause 3-- Punishment for murder--
(1) Subject to the following sub-sections the penalty for murder shall be death.
(2) No person aged under 18 years shall suffer the death penalty. (3) As soon as practicable following a sentence of death, a special sitting of the Court of Appeal shall be convened to consider whether the circumstances of either
(a) the commission of the offence or
(b) the offender
whether or not such circumstances were adduced in evidence at the trial, are such as would justify the substitution of a sentence of life imprisonment in place of the sentence of death.
(4) This Act shall apply to Northern Ireland.'.
New Clause 4-- Abolition of death penalty--
(1) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1790, for the words "hanged by the neck until she or they be severely dead" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life". (2) In section 1 of the Treason Act 1814, for the words "hanged by the neck until such person be dead", there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".
(3) In section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, for the words "suffer death" there shall be substituted the words "sentenced to imprisonment for life".
New clause 5-- Death penalty for murder --
A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed by means of firearms, explosives or an offensive weapon, or for the murder of a police or prison officer, shall on conviction be sentenced to death, unless the court determines that the circumstances of the case, including any extenuating circumstances, make it more appropriate for a life sentence of imprisonment.'. New clause 6-- Punishment for murder of prison officer
A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of the murder of a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'.
New clause 7-- Punishment for other indictableoffences --
Column 23
A person aged 18 years or above who is convicted of murder committed during the preparation or commission of any other indictable offence shall on conviction be sentenced to death.'. Mr. Greenway : I should also like to voice my support for new clause 3, standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).Some have questioned why the House should debate this issue for the second time in this Parliament--[ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."]--and I understand why the question has been asked. The Committee is considering an important Criminal Justice Bill that goes to the heart of sentencing policy and contains a number of important new measures, which we are debating constructively in Committee and which are based on the well-known maxim that the punishment should fit the crime. In the eyes of many outside this House, many cases of murder these days do not attract punishment that fits the crime. The public would have found it astonishing if the House had not debated this matter as part of our detailed scrutiny of the important legislative changes that we are introducing in this Bill.
It must also be acknowledged that the sentencing of murderers and terrorists continues to demand our attention and concern. Statistics suggest that, since the House last debated this matter two and a half years ago, more than 1,500 people have been unlawfully killed in the United Kingdom--not including those who, only two years ago, were blown out of the sky over Lockerbie. I am sure that the House will want to extend its sympathy at this Christmas time to the families of the Lockerbie victims and of the victims of many other recent acts of murder. Above all, we extend our sympathy to the family of our great and dear friend Ian Gow, whose brutal murder remains very much in our minds, especially today.
As the House knows, I served for almost five years as a policeman here in central London in the 1960s. I should like to recall two incidents which, if I remember correctly, took place in 1966 while I was a uniformed constable at West End Central police station. Shortly after eight o'clock one morning, I was called to a jeweller's shop in Mayfair. Two men had lain in wait for the proprietor to arrive and open the shop. They dragged him to the basement, where they savagely beat him to death before stealing what amounted to no more than a few hundred pounds' worth of silver. His battered head and body made an appalling sight, which will live in my memory for ever. Yet his murderers could not pay the ultimate price for their premeditated savagery, because the House had abolished capital punishment less than a year before. I knew then that that was a mistake, and I have always believed so since.
The second incident occurred in the early hours of a Sunday morning. A call came that there was a man brandishing a gun in Berwick street in Soho. I ran to the scene, and seeing a crowd on the street corner, I continued to approach them ; but shortly before I reached them, a gun was fired. I then heard the sound of a gun being thrown on the pavement, and a man ran off. As one says when giving evidence in the police force, I gave chase and apprehended him. The man's fingerprints were found on the gun recovered from the scene, and forensic experts later removed a bullet from the frame of the door that I had run past. The man
Column 24
pleaded guilty to the illegal possession of a firearm, but was acquitted of all other charges. I did not see him point the gun at me or anyone else. I could not swear on oath what I had not seen --tempting though that might have been to some officers. Other witnesses, consisting of the usual assortment of deadbeats and riff-raff who frequent Soho in the middle of the night, were, as one might expect, unreliable.These two experiences point up what I believe to be the five crucial questions that the House must answer when considering the restoration of the death penalty. First, in abolishing the death sentence for all and any murder, have we given the armed criminal too great an advantage over the innocent victim? I think that we have, and that that is the view of the great majority of the British people.
Secondly, is society today more violent than it was in the past as a consequence, if only in part, of the abolition of the death penalty? That is also the perceived view, and later I shall suggest why I agree with that view. Thirdly, are we placing too great a burden on our police, either by asking them to face the intolerable pressures of a split-second decision when facing armed criminals or in seeking to secure the conviction of those whom they know or believe have committed serious crimes such as murder or acts of terrorism? Fourthly, has Parliament done enough to check or reduce violence by way of the sentencing powers that it has given the courts? The Bill recognises that it has not.
Finally, what more must we do or can we do to prevent miscarriages of justice which, understandably, are cited as the fundamental reason against the restoration of the death sentence? I dare say that that argument will be advanced in the debate. The new clause tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) seeks to address that point by referring all convicted murderers to the Court of Appeal. If my hon. and learned Friend speaks in the debate, I am sure that he will wish to address that issue.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Although the hon. Gentleman has rightly anticipated the point and despite the other new clauses, may I ask him whether he thinks that there is something illogical in trying to bring back the death penalty, bearing in mind the fact that the Guildford Four were released after many years in prison? One almost certainly expects the Birmingham Six also to be released. In the face of those cases and in view of all the other arguments that will be deployed in the debate, how can we possibly think of bringing back capital punishment?
Mr. Greenway : I am sure that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman will be the crux of the debate. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is in two parts. First, are we saying that the sentencing policy for offenders must be determined by whether we believe that the verdicts of juries are reliable? That is a serious matter, which must be considered.
Secondly, throughout the last eleven and a half years, the Government have repeatedly brought to Parliament measures which seek to make our criminal justice system better. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, when we last discussed this matter, are both in force. If I remember correctly, those
Column 25
measures were opposed by the Opposition. We must ensure through the criminal justice system that miscarriages of justice do not take place.Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence is that 49 people who had committed murder did so a second time, and that if those people had been executed they would not have been able to commit murder again?
Mr. Greenway : That valid point is often made, and if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Walker, he may wish to elaborate on it.
Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : Does my hon. Friend agree that, if capital punishment were available to the courts, it would be far less likely that bombs such as the one at Guildford, whoever planted it, would be planted in the first place? Does he futher agree that policemen would be far less likely to perjure themselves in court if they knew that the result could be a life wrongly taken by the state?
Mr. Greenway : Much as I should like to agree with my hon. Friend, I am not sure that he is correct. I hope that the Committee will agree that my experience, which I have described to the Committee, shows that there are pressures on our police force. One cannot ever forgive or sanction officers who perjure themselves, in whatever circumstances. However, as I have said, we must ensure that our criminal justice system does not allow the opportunity for that, particularly when the evidence is in the form of confessions, which are now recorded by tape or video. There are provisions on that already in the Bill, which shows that we can improve our criminal justice system, and that we are right to do so.
3.45 pm
Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : My hon. Friend has accepted that it is impossible to be certain that police officers will never perjure themselves. Does he extend that argument to saying that it will always be possible that an innocent person may be convicted and hanged? Do not the two arguments come to the same logical conclusion--that we should not reintroduce capital punishment?
Mr. Greenway : I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Parliament, the House of Commons and society have to strike a balance in protecting innocent lives. Since we last debated this matter, over 1,500 people have been unlawfully killed, even though our society is less violent than those of other countries, even within the European Community. Society is more violent than it was 25 years ago.
Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : That is not true.
Mr. Greenway : It is true. In particular, the use of firearms in crime has risen sharply--more sharply than crime generally. A recent incident provides a clear focus of what is at stake. Police officers and armed criminals exchanged fire only two weeks ago in a peaceful Surrey village. One of the gang was left dead and another seriously wounded, but it could so easily have been the other way round, with either policemen or members of the public being killed.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Does my hon. Friend accept that, when capital punishment existed,
Column 26
experienced criminals invariably frisked their younger colleagues to make certain that they were not going armed? Now, arms are a tool of the trade.Mr. Greenway : My hon. Friend has touched on a point that I shall make in a moment.
In the incident that I mentioned, those policemen in Surrey had a split second to decide how they should react so as to protect the public and their colleagues. I pay tribute to their bravery, but we in the House of Commons, with all the time at our disposal, seem not to have the nerve to do what might have prevented those officers from being confronted as they were, and sadly so often are.
The facts speak for themselves. In the 25 years preceding the abolition of capital punishment in 1965, 22 policemen were killed in the execution of their duties. In the 25 years since abolition, 53 police officers have been killed in such circumstances. How many more would have been killed but for the skill of doctors and surgeons or the presence of mind of police marksmen?
One accepts that crime in general has increased and at a faster rate than that for murder of policemen. However, it is deeply disturbing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said, that the nature of crime in Britain has changed. The use of firearms was noticeably absent from the culture of crime in the 1950s and early 1960s. Now, the use of firearms is commonplace. "Criminal Statistics"--this is the only other statistic to which I shall draw the attention of the Committee--shows that whereas in 1972, 539 crimes of robbery involved the use of firearms, in 1989 that had risen to 3,390--an increase of more than six times--and that they accounted for much more of the crime in Britain than they had before.
My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Waddington said at the Conservative party conference in Bournemouth in October that, in his view, the death sentence would deter some--not necessarily all--murderers. I agree with that, but I believe it to be especially true of the murderers of police officers. Parliament has provided the courts with stiffer powers of sentencing for violent criminals. There are specific measures for that purpose in the Bill. There is little appreciable difference, however, if there is any, between sentences for murder, attempted murder, firing a weapon or merely brandishing one in pursuit of a crime.
What is more, the inexorable rise in the commission of crimes by armed criminals shows that it is not unreasonable to conclude that current sentencing does not deter. We are left with a choice of concluding that there is no deterrent or accepting the inevitable argument that Parliament was wrong to abolish capital punishment altogether, and that only the death sentence can provide the deterrent which society is demanding to reverse the tide of violence of recent years.
I shall refer to a passage that appears in the report of the Royal Commission on capital punishment of 1949-53 that is often ignored by those who are in favour of abolition. In considering whether capital punishment had failed as a deterrent, the report states : "We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No one can ever know how many people have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged."
There is so much more that I could say on this issue. I shall not add greatly to my remarks, because I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall try to set an example by being as brief as possible. As I have already said, my hon.
Column 27
and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a view to explaining the thinking that lies behind new clause 3, which establishes the principle which we ought properly to adopt to avoid miscarriages of justice. The new clause goes beyond what has already been achieved. I have referred already to the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.I commend new clause 1. It seeks to provide our policemen with the protection that they deserve. If the House rejects the clause, it will bring us nearer to the day when all our policemen may need to be armed.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : My hon. Friend is advancing a most interesting argument. Before he goes into the details of individual new clauses, will he give us his views on whether capital punishment and its reintroduction or otherwise should be decided by the nation by means of a referendum, as many of us think it might be?
Mr. Greenway : I understand the arguments that are advanced in favour of a referendum. I take the view that a referendum would tell the House only what it knows already. The results of a survey were published in the Daily Star. With no disrespect to that newspaper, it is one that would not normally be quoted in the House of Commons, but it is the views of 6,200 readers of the Daily Star who took the trouble to telephone the newspaper to tell it of their views, not the views of the newspaper, that I draw to the attention of the House. Of the 6,200, only 200 were against the death sentence. Obviously, the other 6,000 were in favour of it. If that does not tell us what a referendum would tell us, I do not know what would.
Many of us have taken part in phone-in programmes on television. I have done so on two occasions. The public telephone to give their views, and overwhelmingly they have been in favour--
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) rose--
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen) rose--
Mr. Greenway : I have given way several times already, and I should like to bring my remarks to a conclusion. As I have said, I want others to have a chance to contribute to the debate.
Unless we accept and implement new clause 1, all our policemen may inevitably have to be armed. That is something which younger police officers feel, with reluctance, to be inevitable.
I loathe and detest all violence. It saddens me greatly that there is now so much violence in our society, whether in the real world or on our television or cinema screens. I believe instinctively, however, that sometimes the only way to defeat violence is through the use of violence. All killing is evil, but do we not on occasions have to resort to evil to defeat evil? If not, why have we sent thousands of our soldiers to the Gulf? The public believe instinctively that the availability of capital punishment must be an essential element of the fight against premeditated violent crime. Can this House for ever remain out of step with that view? By voting for new clause 1 tonight, the House would restore to the police a protection that it should never have removed.
Column 28
Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : This is the 19th occasion since 1955 that the House has debated this topic. We debated it fully two years ago. We can all bring to the House recollections of what we have detected outside it. I believe that I have detected a feeling both in the House and in the country that our nation has some very real problems which should be dealt with in the House, but for which no time can be found, and the House might have been better occupied in debating them.
Of course I respect the right of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to his opinion, and I do not for a moment question his sincerity. But I hope that he will forgive me if I say that none of his arguments burst upon us for the first time, and I do not believe that I can adduce any new arguments. We have both been around the course many times before.
I wish mainly to speak to new clause 4, and I shall leave it to other right hon. and hon. Members to deploy arguments on the general question. I say only that two arguments are uppermost in my mind. The first is the reflection to which the hon. Member for Ryedale adverted, but which he dismissed rather lightly--that is, that if capital punishment had been retained for the offence of murder, the guilt or innocence of the Birmingham Six would now be academic because we would have hanged them 13 years ago. We would also have hanged the Guildford Four for an offence for which we are now agreed the conviction cannot safely be allowed to stand. The hon. Gentleman replied to that with the optimistic view that perhaps our legal system would never perpetrate another mistake ; that perhaps we had achieved perfection. I wish that I could believe it, but I am bound to say that I do not share his optimism.
New clause 3 makes another attempt to deal with that issue. I find it logically perplexing, because it proposes that, if the Court of Appeal finds that there is a doubt about the validity of the conviction, that would be a reason for sentencing people to life imprisonment. No doubt, when the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) speaks to his new clause, he will try to elucidate that. I am still persuaded by the argument that the legal system may perpetrate mistakes and that we would all bitterly regret it if we reinstated capital punishment. Secondly, I do not believe that it enhances respect for human life solemnly to break the neck of a human being on behalf of the state.
Turning to new clause 4, my hon. Friends and I simply want to say that, as the House is called on again to decide the question of principle--whether we think it right to regress to capital punishment--that principle should be applied consistently. I am not clear why the matter was not dealt with on earlier occasions. I do not believe that Parliament ever decided, on the merits, to retain capital punishment for treason and piracy. They are anomalies which were overlooked in earlier debates because, understandably, the House was concentrating on the offence of murder.
I am grateful to Amnesty International for reminding me that those inconsistencies remain. That has added to the debt which we all owe that organisation. I am somewhat prejudiced, because I was a founder member of Amnesty International, and for some time I was chairman of the British section. I have never invested time to better purpose. The case for new clause 4 is simple. The question of principle, which the House will be deciding once again,
Column 29
applies equally to these remaining offences. I know of no argument applicable to the penalty for murder that does not apply equally to the penalty for treason and piracy.I should like to spend a few moments making clear what we are not seeking to do. Some observant commentators have noticed that we have not sought to abolish the death penalty for offences against the Army Acts, re-enacted in the Armed Forces Bill. They relate to offences such as mutiny in time of war. I do not believe that our nation would be any safer because we have capital punishment for mutiny in time of war, but I recognise that the arguments are different. It may be better not to complicate the debate by introducing those considerations. I shall be satisfied for the present if we can achieve consistency in time of peace.
4 pm
I should like to turn to the second thing which we are not seeking to do. We are not addressing the content of the law of treason or of piracy. I have heard a rumour, which may be entirely without foundation, that, when the Home Secretary addresses the Committee, he will argue that, because the substantive content of the law of treason is in need of revision, that should be regarded as a reason for retaining capital punishment. If he says that, it will be a curious argument--that anyone who is convicted under a law which admittedly is in a muddle should for that reason be hanged. You and I, Mr. Walker, might have thought that it would be an argument in the opposite direction.
If it helps, I agree that the substantive law of treason is much in need of revision. Much of it still stems from the Treason Act 1351, and consists of such a strangely assorted list as compassing or imagining the death of the sovereign ; violating his eldest daughter, provided that she is unmarried, so it does not apply to Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, and slaying the Chancellor or the King's justices, provided that they are in their place undertaking their offices--so they are not protected by the law of treason if they are having dinner or walking the dog.
In 1977, the Law Commission published a working paper inviting comments, and it became clear, if it was not blatantly obvious already, that the law was in need of a wash and brush-up. The project did not go any further, which was not in any way the Law Commission's fault.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : The argument that treason is a particularly evil thing is a complex matter to many of us. Treason means that a British subject betrays his own kind. It is said, even by the Russians in their perestroika and glasnost days, that George Blake helped to kill 45 agents. The Gulf has been mentioned today. If someone betrayed British troops, resulting in the loss of the lives of hundreds of those troops, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that it was terrible for the state to say, "This has been a heinous crime and that person should give up his life"? Are we really going to say that anyone who betrays other people can cause the death of those people without that costing his life?
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Walker. I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but the Committee will know that, at the end of Question Time, I asked Mr. Speaker whether he had had any request from the Government to make a statement about the introduction of conscription. He replied that he had
Column 30
received no such request. We now know that a written question gives a substantive answer, reintroducing the principle of conscription to this country--The Chairman : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are in Committee, and that this is not a matter for the Committee.
Mr. Dalyell : Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. My point of order is very simple. Surely such an important decision should be revealed to the House in an oral answer or a statement. To introduce the principle of conscription in a written answer is absolutely unacceptable--
The Chairman : Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern but I am sure that he will recognise that, because we are in Committee, I cannot deal with this matter.
Mr. Dalyell : Further to the point of order, Mr. Walker. Surely, even if the House is in Committee when something as important as this happens and when the House is treated in this way, there must be a way in which we can ask for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement.
The Chairman : A Minister cannot come to the House and make a statement on such matters while we are in Committee. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless use his experience and ingenuity to seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on a more appropriate occasion.
Mr. Archer : The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was on an important matter, but I think that it was addressed to you, Mr. Walker, rather than to me, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I return to my argument. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) asked me to respond to the suggestion that treason can be a terrible offence. I agree--
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Not "can be" ; it is.
Mr. Archer : It depends on all the circumstances.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Treason is a terrible offence.
Mr. Archer : That depends on what someone has done. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I readily agree that treason can be a terrible offence--so, I believe, can murder--but that is not what we are debating today. I do not believe that our country would be any safer if we retained capital punishment for the offence of treason--any more than individuals would be safer if we reintroduced capital punishment for the offence of murder.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Archer : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed. He will no doubt have the opportunity to develop his argument in due course in a speech of his own.
I was about to make a confession, Mr. Walker. Purely inadvertently, I failed to include in the new clause a reference to the Treason Act 1775, dealing with compassing the death of the sovereign. The fault is entirely mine. I noticed it myself and I understand that the Home Secretary's advisers noticed it subsequently. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not consider that a reason to deprive the House of the right to make a decision
Column 31
on principle. Clearly, any defect for which I am responsible can be rectified at a subsequent stage in the consideration of the Bill.Mr. Wilshire : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a confession and offering the House an apology, may I say that there is only one issue on which I have disagreed with him so far? He keeps referring to the list of hon. Members who have signed the amendment as "we", and he makes it sound as though they are all Labour Members. Does he accept that many Conservative Members, myself included, would have liked to sign the amendment, and fully support the arguments that he is advancing?
Mr. Archer : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially as he is a fellow Methodist. I confess that I did not specifically invite him to sign the amendment, but it would certainly have pleased me had I seen his name on the list of those who did.
If the offence of treason were abolished, the people to whom I have referred--members of the royal family, the Chancellor and the judiciary-- would still be protected by the ordinary law relating to murder and other violent offences. Clearly, if anyone offered violence to a member of the royal family or a judge, they would be prosecuted under provisions quite different from those of the 1351 Act. Our criminal law is in need of some reform, but I do not believe that we have been reduced to that.
I agree that there is a need to review the position relating to the substantive law of treason. But the new clause is not about the substantive law ; it is about the penalties. The statutes which the new clause proposes to repeal were intended to civilise the penalties. The Treason Act 1770 was not concerned with the substantive law. It provided that a woman convicted of treason should be hanged instead of being burned. The Treason Act 1814 extended the same leniency to men by providing that a penalty of hanging should be substituted for the penalty of disembowelling.
If the Secretary of State promises to review the law on treason, many Opposition members would say, "Not before time." However, that relates to the substantive law and not to the penalty. We believe that this debate is about penalties and that the arguments which persuaded the House two years ago, and which will no doubt be deployed again today, apply with equal force to the offences of treason and piracy.
| Next Section
| Home Page |