House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Feb 1991

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Patten : These amendments will enable the courts to require many sexual offenders to undergo longer and more intensive programmes of supervision. The purpose is to increase the confidence of the courts--that is very important--and of the public in the arrangements for dealing with sexual offenders, to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from sexual offenders, and to try to help sex offenders to reduce the risk of their committing further sexual offences in future.

New clause 9 provides for sex offenders sentenced to custody for 12 months or more to undergo an extended period of supervision on release from prison. I hope that the House will welcome that. Under the Bill, all offenders serving sentences of more than 12 months will be supervised in the community until they have completed three quarters of their sentences. New clause 9 will allow the supervision to continue right up to the end of the sentence, if the court considers that it will be helpful in preventing further offending and--this, too, is very important--in protecting the public as well as rehabilitating the offender. It will be for the sentencer to indicate in passing sentence that the offender was one to whom the extended supervision requirements would apply. The court would have to have regard to the criteria set out in clause 26(6), the need to protect the public from serious harm, which I believe to be of overwhelming importance, and the desirability of preventing offenders from reoffending.

The most dangerous sex offenders rightly receive custodial sentences, and the courts are awarding longer and longer custodial sentences, particularly following the important guideline judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in the case of Billam in 1985 about rape. Quite a number of sex offenders, however--this may surprise but, I hope, not alarm some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members on the

Column 288

Opposition Benches--are not sentenced to custodial punishment but are given probation orders and other punishments in the community. It is the Government's belief that some of these people-- about 1,000 per year are sentenced in this way--would also benefit from extra supervision.

Accordingly, amendment No. 25 inserts an additional requirement into part II of schedule 1 of the Bill. It provides that where a sex offender is placed on probation and the court wishes to include additional requirements directed at his sexual offending--it is almost always "his" rather than "her"--the normal maximum of 60 days, which applies to requirements for attendance at a probation centre or participation in specified activities under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part II, can be extended as directed by the court.

This will give the sex offender the chance to have much more practical work done with him by the probation service and by the voluntary organisations who help the probation service. I pay tribute to what they do in trying to persuade sex offenders not to reoffend, to minimise the risk to the public and to women and children in particular. In both cases, the programme of supervision could be more intensive than with offenders whose activities do not pose a risk to the public.

Depending on the individual case, the programme might consist of more frequent and lengthy contact with the probation officer or direction to a special programme in an effort to make the offender face up to his criminal behaviour in this most difficult area of trying to stop sex offenders reoffending, to consider the consequences of his behaviour and to accept responsibility for his actions.

I have been told time and again--the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), with their links with the probation service, will not need to be told this--that sex offenders live in a fantasy world and are often not prepared to face the consequences of what they have done. They try to push it away or ignore that it has happened. They try to say that the victims actually wanted it to happen. It is critically important that these people should be brought face to face with the damage that they have done and accept responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : Can the Minister tell us about the control mechanism, as it were, in new clause 9? At present, a person allowed out on parole has to meet the conditions of the parole up to the three-quarters mark. If he does not do so, there is a recall provision which involves his completing the whole sentence. Under the new clause, as I understand it, he will be under supervision until the end of the sentence, but what happens if in the last month of the sentence he fails to carry out the instructions or advice that has been given to him? There will be no control mechanism left.

Mr. Patten : The person will be subject, as always, to recall and being brought back before the court if he fails to carry out the programme of activity laid down by the court. Working with sex offenders must be one of the most difficult jobs for the probation service and for the voluntary agencies which help the probation service. It is very tough and demanding work and it is currently in the process of great development. I am confident that the probation service will build on its good practice in helping these offenders to control and contain their behaviour,

Column 289

with a consequent reduction in reoffending sex offenders and much greater public safety for women and children. I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : It is a sad fact that the number of sexual crimes has increased. Like the Government, the Opposition believe that there must be action to deter such offenders and to ensure that those who commit some of the ghastly offences about which we all know are deterred by appropriate sentences. We agree with the new clause and the amendment.

There are two Government proposals. The first provides that a court may, when imprisoning a sex offender, direct that he must be on licence or release for the whole of the sentence and not after the three quarters point, as is laid down in the Bill. Secondly, a court may direct that a sex offender who is placed on probation with a condition to participate in specified activities or a condition to attend a probation centre can be subject to that order for longer than 60 days.

The Government's stated aims are to provide further protection for the public and to help sex offenders not to commit further sexual offences. On the first of those points--deterrence--we strongly agree with the Government. On the other, we should like some clarification as to the Government's purposes, and the resources that they have and will dispose so as to deliver that intention, since their aim is to help offenders not to commit further sexual offences.

Sexual offenders often have inadequate personalities and a history of being sexually abused when children. Those of us who have read any of the case histories of sex offenders know what a ghastly cycle of sexual abuse and intimidation is carried on in generation after generation. We also know that throwing these people into a typical British prison, even in the 1990s, is not likely to help them to come to terms with their behaviour, or to correct that behaviour. The number of units in our prison system that provide such treatment is small, as both Ministers will acknowledge.

Our hesitation about the second of the Government's proposals arises from our worry that this cannot be delivered. We believe that sex offenders must be deterred and helped to come to terms with their offending, so that they can stop doing it. It is no good sentencing a sexual offender, throwing him into a ghastly prison with no treatment, no counselling and no psychiatric help, and then turning out someone who is sexually more deviant and pathological than he was when he went in.

What do we want to do with our society? Do we want this man--as the Minister said, it is nearly always a man--to come out of prison after five years likely to commit a more horrific sexual crime? This is a special kind of offence, and one that is becoming far more common in our time. It is crucial that sex offenders have adequate treatment within prison. Sadly, that is often not the case. There are few specialist programmes in prison, and it offers little protection for the public if offenders spend long periods without help and then get a few extra months of supervision on release. We do not think that those two things make sense. It is not the quantity of supervision which is important, but the quality.

The Minister has said that the most difficult task of probation officers must be dealing with and helping sex offenders. I think that is right. The training of probation

Column 290

officers to ensure that they have the right qualities is scarce. Quality is difficult to obtain, even with good training. We need the right recruits, and then the right training. Sadly, the resources are not available. It is daft to introduce fine provisions in criminal justice legislation if they cannot be delivered with the resources available. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be a move on the quality of supervision and not just on its quantity. Some sex offenders may benefit from a treatment programme on release which lasts longer than the normal licence, but it will be impossible for the trial judge to know that. That is a problem with the amendment. Is the trial judge the best person to decide whether an extended period of treatment is right for an offender? At that stage, the decision could be arbitrary. The parole board might be in a better position to know whether the extended period of treatment was necessary.

Some of the same problems arise over the 60 days-plus for community penalties. The critical issue is the lack of specialist facilities for sex offenders. We need more specialist facilities in the community. There are few in existence, and they are over-subscribed. The probation service runs groups for sex offenders, but it obviously needs enough people at any one time to form a group. Geographically it may be more difficult to form a group in a rural environment. It is not clear exactly what the Government have in mind. Do they intend the provision to be used when a court has a particular treatment programme in view, or is it to be used more generally? Will something be tailor-made, or will there be a general prescription? The amendment merely refers to the length of contact. The accompanying press release from the Government referred to a more intensive programme and more frequent contact with the probation service. We want to know what exactly is in the Minister's mind. The new provision has been introduced at relatively short notice. The National Association of Probation Officers first knew of it from press reports, yet in a letter dated 12 December to NAPO, the Home Secretary said :

"I share your concern that the Bill contains important proposals which deserve the fullest consideration."

The proposals should have been subject to the normal consultation process, and it is a shame that they have not been. A specialist task is involved. The people who will have to deliver the service are probation officers. If there is to be a greater call on that scarce resource, planning is necessary, and the earlier consultation takes place, the better.

As the two homosexual offences of soliciting and indecency will remain in clause 25, it is likely that licences or community sentences will be extended. There is small fear that a bigoted bench would use that. Perhaps the Minister will note my reasoning and come back on that ; we may be able to discuss it at greater length later. We accept that the new clause and the amendment are necessary, and we welcome them, but we would be unhappy if, when it came to putting this part of the Bill into action, there was no move by the Government to make treatment a reality, in prison and out of prison. I am sure that this is not what the Government intend, but we would be very disappointed if they merely introduced a late amendment to the Bill to make themselves look good in the public eye without delivering the resources that are

Column 291

necessary to deal with the root problem of sexual offenders. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that score.

4.30 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not devoted more time to discussing the resources needed to make the new clause work rather than simply talking about the technicalities. I fear that throughout our ensuing debates will run the complaint that we are trying to deal with criminal justice and the reform of our prisons before we have had an opportunity to read the Woolf report and to study the recommendations that have arisen from the problems at Strangeways.

The Government's priorities are wrong. Rather than forcing through legislation at this stage, they should wait for the report. I am sure that it will deal with the treatment of sex offenders at Strangeways and with the substantial problems involved in keeping some of them separate from other prisoners. Such problems are bound to raise questions about resources, and about whether it is appropriate to house the two groups of prisoners in the same prison.

Many sex offenders lead a very restricted life in prison, not because of the nature of their offences but because of the attitude of other prisoners. Their treatment should start as soon as they go into prison and continue as they emerge into the community, but, as yet, I see very little evidence of a system to enable that to happen. The Government must think seriously about the resource implications and the achievement of continuity of treatment ; at present, far too many sex offenders are locked up for long periods, while no attempt is made to enable them to come to terms with their crimes and to modify their behaviour so that their is little chance of their offending again.

I was a little concerned about the Minister's idea of how the mechanism will work as a pensioner approaches the end of his sentence. As the law stands, a probation officer will move from working with someone on an agreed basis as part of his parole conditions to a system of voluntary supervision. If a prisoner's treatment is to succeed, is not it far more important to persuade him to accept voluntary conditions than to make the conditions compulsory--especially at the end of his sentence, when it will be almost impossible for the probation officer to enforce such conditions? By the time the offender is taken back to court, major problems will have arisen.

I do not think it helpful to bring in arbitrary decision-making by probation officers, rather than concentrating on the court's decision ; but that is simply a passing comment.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the trial judge may not be the most appropriate person to make decisions and that it is important to see how someone responds to the time that he spends in prison and to establish what is the most appropriate way to deal with him on his release at the time when he is released. At a time when he is overwhelmingly conscious of the behaviour that has resulted in his

Column 292

conviction, the offender cannot possibly anticipate whether his behaviour will change as a result of the years that he will spend in prison.

Mr. John Patten : I am very happy to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Important issues such as who should make decisions about resources I shall leave until I am dealing with similar, although not identical, points. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is quite right that the number of sex crimes has increased. I realise, of course, that he is as careful as I am to attribute a proper proportion of the apparent rise to the welcome increase in the reporting of such crimes. People are now coming forward and reporting rape, indecent assault and domestic violence--of course, domestic violence is at the margin of sex crime--in a way that did not apply 10 or 15 years ago.

Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want women and children to be encouraged to report such crimes, which hitherto have often been hidden, or submerged. It is much better to have the true crime picture than to suspect that things are going on but are not being reported. All sex crimes and attempted sex crimes should be reported, and with the welcome trend towards increased reporting the police and others have a better chance to get to grips with the problem when they have the full picture.

I welcome the general attitude of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to the new clause and the associated amendment. One or two organisations have already made their views known. At least one probation body--the Association of Chief Officers of

Probation--yesterday made a statement welcoming what is being done. The probation service generally, at its different levels, is trying to develop integrated programmes to deal with sex offenders. A great deal of experimental work is going on. It is a mistake to think that all treatment of sex offenders has to be medical or neo-medical. Much of it is a question of simply getting people to face up to what they have done. I have visited probation areas such as Cambridgeshire which have very active programmes within which people are doing this tough, difficult work.

The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked where the money would come from. They agree that these are interesting ideas and there is broad Opposition support for them, for which I am grateful, but they want to know how implementing them will be paid for. In the autumn statement we announced that we intend, over the next three years, to employ more than 800 additional probation officers--men and women. That is the biggest-ever single injection of personnel into the service. By 1993-94 we shall see also increased public expenditure on the probation service--an increase of one quarter in real terms. It is from that very substantial, not to say huge, increase in resources that we hope to fund the new programmes.

Related to this is the important issue of sex offenders in prison, which was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and the equally important issue of what happens when they get out of prison and are in the care of the probation service. Is what is known in the trade as the through-care adequate? On the question of sex offenders, I refer to the excellent work being done in Grendon Underwood prison in Buckinghamshire. Treatment of various types--psychotherapy, counselling, aversion

Column 293

therapy, and so on--is provided in about 60 of our prisons. I do not, of course, pretend that in all those prisons they are full-time activities.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Does the Minister agree that there is a very long list of prisoners waiting to be transferred to Grendon?

Mr. Patten : Yes, and it is a very competitive list. As Grendon is a therapeutic community, people are accepted only if the other prisoners there believe that they can be worked into the system. Hence, I believe, the comparative success of Grendon. As I said, 60 other prisons in England and Wales provide sex therapy courses of one sort or another--courses aimed at getting offenders to face up to their offending behaviour.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : When I visited Grendon I saw that it provided a very useful programme--whether it still does I do not know--of plastic surgery for cauliflower ears, noses, and so on, and the removal of tattoos. That seems to have an enormous effect on prisoners of all types--sex offenders and others.

Mr. Patten : That is a very valuable point. Within the past 10 days, a number of people from Grendon Underwood have come to see me in the Home Office to discuss just that sort of work. I do not want to get into the jargon, but I have to say that, clearly, many sex offenders have two characteristics. First, very often they themselves were abused, either physically or sexually, when they were children. Secondly, many of them have very low self-esteem. That is not to say that they have not done bad things, but their problems must be taken into account when we try to persuade them not to do bad things in the future and to try to go straight. I hope that they will be helped by the provision of the new clause and the associated amendment. The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked whether it is right to leave it to the trial judge to decide. I think that it is right because the trial judge will be advised by the probation service with the new pre-sentence report that will be written to national standards within set periods of time. That will give the probation service the opportunity to say whether it thinks that someone will benefit from a period of extended supervision. I would not claim--nor would anyone in the probation service or the medical authorities involved--that there is a cure for sex offending. Some people tell me that it may never be cured in the way that some of us would like. However, it can be controlled by people being made to face up to the damage that they have done to others and to realise that victims have been involved.

I hope that with those points of clarification the House will accept the new clause and the associated amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Variation and discharge of supervision orders

. For section 15 of the 1969 Act (variation and discharge of supervision orders) there shall be substituted the provisions set out in Schedule (Provisions substituted for sections 15 of 1969 Act).'.--[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Column 294

New Clause 1

Assault on a police officer

Any person convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm on a police officer in the execution of his duty shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three months, and shall not be released before he has served three months of his sentence.'. Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I wish to declare an outside interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of three months for assaulting a police officer while in the execution of his duty and where such assault occasions actual bodily harm. Another reason for the new clause is to draw the attention of the House and the Government to what is now a major problem facing the police in this country. Many of my hon. Friends have put their names to the new clause and they all, in one way or another, advise on and take an interest in police matters. The aim is to deter persons from assaulting the public servants we pay to protect us and every citizen in Britain.

The House may ask why it is necessary. There are now about 20,000 assaults on the police each year and, unhappily, the number is rising. As a result, many officers are unable to return to duty for weeks or even months. Some are permanently disabled and their injuries are so severe that they never return to duty. Some die from their injuries. That is truly shocking, and it seems clear that those who assault police officers are not deterred from doing so by the existing range of penalties imposed by British courts.

I shall give a few examples. In Lancashire, in 1989-90, there was a 38 per cent. increase in assaults on officers. Of three convictions, one involved a sentence of probation for 12 months and compensation of £50, and another was reduced to common assault and the case did not even justify a court hearing. In Northamptonshire during 1990, 208 police officers were assaulted out of a force strength of 1, 141--almost 20 per cent.

I received a fax this afternoon from the secretary of the joint branch board of the Northamptonshire Police Federation. It said : "The Chief Constable and my Chairman are continually asking the Magistrates to impose severe sentences for this type of assault, and we fully support your attempt to make a mandatory prison sentence." 4.45 pm

In Avon and Somerset, in February 1991, an unemployed person who had been convicted walked free from court after a third conviction for assaulting the police. He was given a 15-month suspended gaol sentence after finishing a one-year sentence for offences which included an assault on the police. The judge is reported to have told him that a gaol sentence

"would do nothing more than protect the police and the public." If the report is accurate, that seems a rather strange comment. I could go on reading a long list of convictions that have not incurred a custodial sentence, and where a fine has been imposed or perhaps a community service sentence. For example, in Nottinghamshire in December, there were two convictions. One involved a fine of £100 and another

Column 295

involved 100 hours of community service and £20 compensation. The constable concerned is still on light duties and may have to undergo surgery. We are talking not about minor scuffles with the police in which a police officer is nudged or shoved but about offences involving actual bodily harm.

I know that many hon. Members read Police magazine, the journal of the Police Federation of England and Wales. Some hon. Members may have already seen today the tragic case of the late PC Robert Gladwell, whose name has been added to the roll of police officers killed by a criminal assault while in the execution of their duty. PC Gladwell and a woman colleague were sent to the Plaza hotel in Queensway, Paddington, on 16 December to deal with a disturbance. The woman officer, Constable Sharon Hofland, was assaulted and sustained a fractured hand as well as being kicked in the stomach. Constable Gladwell attempted to protect her, and received a blow to the head. He suffered concussion and was taken to hospital. On returning to Harrow road police station he began to vomit. He returned to duty on 2 January this year but, two days later, he collapsed and was taken to the Royal Free hospital for emergency brain surgery. He died without recovering consciousness. A subsequent post mortem found that his death was attributable to assault.

Superintendent Don Edwardson of Harrow Road described PC Gladwell as a professional and conscientious police officer who always gave of his best. He was a former soldier who worked on bomb disposal in Ulster and in Germany. Only a month before his death, he and his wife, Gillian, had adopted a child. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the memory of a fine officer, and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to his widow. [ Hon. Members :-- "Hear, hear."]

It is not enough simply to express our sympathy, and his death in the line of duty must not be in vain. The Government must take action to make it clear that society and Parliament do not accept the fact that 20,000 such assaults can take place without a real and powerful attempt to deter them.

My constituency of Uxbridge is a law-abiding area but, even there, out of a force of 230 officers there was one case of grievous bodily harm, with eight cases of actual bodily harm and 22 simple assaults, during 1990. In Hayes and Harlington, which for policing purposes covers part of my constituency, 58 officers were assaulted on duty in 1990.

The police, who are often young men and women, are at much risk in patrolling the down-town areas of our towns and cities. The same can be said of police officers in country areas, who are frequently assaulted when, single-handedly, they have to deal with drunken rowdies after closing time.

When I first became parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I laboured under the delusion that the lot of a country police officer, as portrayed over the years, was a quiet one--that it involved little more than having a jug with the landlord now and again and keeping an eye on the boys who were involved in a bit of local scrumping. I quickly found that the reverse is true. In many villages and rural areas, only one or two police officers may be on duty, and the nearest help is probably 25 miles away. They must often deal with a bunch of rowdies who travel by coach to a pub or club in a large town but return to cause problems in their village. The difficulties and serious assaults that I have described are by no means confined to urban areas.

Column 296

How different is sentencing practice today from in the past? I am told that, perhaps, 25 years ago, an assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a police officer would almost certainly have resulted in the offender going to prison, probably for at least six months. A chief superintendent whom I spoke to about a week ago told me of a magistrate in Edinburgh, whom he knew well when he was stationed there as a young constable, telling a defendant, "I will not have you assaulting our police--six months." That was not an untypical sentence. As a result, everyone in the community knew that a person who was convicted and sentenced had committed a serious offence. That person was not, thereafter, well regarded in the community in which he or she lived.

Today, when assaults are commonplace and incur only a fine or community service, the feeling among the police is that few of the convicted person's relatives, friends or employers are aware of the gravity of the offence or of the conviction. That must be stopped. A further reason for the new clause is to demonstrate to the police, including those who have been seriously injured and the relatives and friends of those who have died, that hon. Members care and support police officers in the difficult and dangerous task on which they are engaged at our bidding. That is an important aspect of the new clause.

I invite hon. Members who may doubt what I am saying to ask any police officer on duty in the House whether they think that penalties for assaulting the police are sufficient to act as a real deterrent, or whether they feel that Parliament cares sufficiently about the dangers to which they and their fellow officers are exposed. Hon. Members will find that the answer to that question is no. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that we do not want to send more people to prison--a proposition with which most hon. Members will agree--but we are debating violent offences against those whose job it is to uphold the law. As the Home Secretary has made clear, violent sentences merit a custodial sentence. As Mr. Speaker Thomas used to remind the House from time to time, this is the High Court of Parliament. This High Court should decide today that it will not tolerate those who punch, kick, stab and slash police officers, or women officers having their hair torn from their scalps or their breasts beaten by someone who thinks that they can do so with impunity to resist arrest. It is time to call a halt.

It has been put to me by several people with whom I have discussed the problem that we do not have minimum penalties. I asked the Library to compare the position in Britain with that in other European Community countries. That is not an easy task, because unfortunately the only available documentation is dated June 1978. I would not be surprised if my right hon. Friend the Minister told me that the position has changed. According to a Home Office report entitled "Sentences of Imprisonment : A Review of Maximum Penalties", published by the Advisory Council on the Penal System, other western European countries, broadly speaking, operate a system that specifies a minimum and maximum penalty for each offence, within which judges are permitted fairly wide discretion.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : It is the same in some states of America.

Mr. Shersby : My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) reminds me that the position in some American states is similar.

Column 297

In Belgium, a minimum and maximum penalty is specified in the criminal code. The penalty for ordinary theft ranges from one month to five years. In Sweden, the minimum sentence is one month of imprisonment. In the Netherlands, the acceptance of the short prison sentence is even more marked--less than three months tends to be the norm-- and the minimum sentence is one day of imprisonment. I quote those examples to show that the concept of a minimum custodial penalty is not novel. I am asking the House not to return to the days of transportation to the colonies but seriously to consider the position that obtains in other countries of the European Community, to which we pay such regard these days.

I should like to quote from a letter that I have just received by fax from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr. Owen, to show that the argument that I am putting before the House is, I hope, balanced :

"I much regret I am unable to support the amendment, for it is far too simplistic. Would someone go to prison for slapping a police officer or spitting at him? That would in my view be totally counter-productive."

My answer to Mr. Owen is no, I do not believe that someone would. The offence must be assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr. Owen further says--it is important that the House should have regard to this--

"Having said that, I am sure you will appreciate the very strong groundswell of concern over the number of police officers who are being assaulted and assaulted quite seriously. We have no protection save the Courts and it is to the Courts that we must look for that protection.

I have over the last several years publicly expressed my concern and pointed to the leniency shown by the Courts. A recent example of 26 officers assaulted over the Christmas period in my Force resulted in the Chairmen of the Magistrates' Courts in North Wales meeting to discuss the problem.

It is right that we should draw attention to the growing concerns of the police officer on the street. We need to be sure he will approach and tackle all those incidents which he finds. If he feels isolated, who knows what course of action he will take?--to the possible detriment of society."

Mr. Owen makes my point very well, and I agree very much with the sentiments that are expressed in that paragraph.

Although Mr. Owen has reservations about the new clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take them seriously, because they support my general proposition that it is not good enough that there should be 20,000 serious assaults on the police and that this House has a duty to ensure that the men and women who protect the law-abiding citizens of this country can go about their job as we would wish them to, in the knowledge and belief that an adequate deterrent is available to deal with those who assault them. This matter requires urgent attention. It cannot be left for a couple more years or for another Criminal Justice Bill. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure me, the federated ranks of the police and ACPO that the Government will take action.

5 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I understand the purposes of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in tabling the new clause. I welcome the opportunity that it gives to highlight the risks of serious assault faced by the police force and to highlight a growing

Column 298

problem. Parliament is anxious about this matter, and the hon. Gentleman was right to provide an opportunity for this debate. I am afraid that it is not possible for me to concur with the view of the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we should accept the new clause. He made a big assumption, the force of which is not easy to demonstrate--that the proposed minimum mandatory prison sentence will act as a deterrent. There is a risk that the new clause will act in precisely the opposite direction. People who are stopped by the police want to avoid detention or being taken into custody. If a prison sentence were likely, a person stopped by the police would be likely to go to greater lengths to avoid being taken into custody and the risk of assault faced by the police would be even greater than it is. That would be counterproductive.

I would move from that view if the hon. Member for Uxbridge produced evidence to rebut it. The hon. Gentleman did not inform the House of the views of the Magistrates Association, although he informed us of the powerful view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that the approach of the new clause to this difficult problem was too simple. I believe that it is, indeed, too simple. The circumstances in which assaults causing actual bodily harm occur can vary considerably, as can the degree of culpability and of mens rea associated with such assaults. Imposing a mandatory minimum sentence would fail to take account of those variations.

The House sympathised with the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the tragic case of Police Constable Gladwell. A murder charge may be appropriate if the offender is discovered and brought to trial, but I am not sure that that case is relevant to the new clause. The hon. Gentleman says that Parliament believes that violent crime should result in severe penalties, but most people are aware of the limitations of incarceration as a deterrent. Whether imprisonment prevents crimes has increasingly been called into question. The hon. Gentleman did not discharge the burden of proof in explaining why we should depart from the normal practice of not having minimum penalties.

I should be bound to vote against the new clause if it were forced to a vote. The new clause would damage the cause that the hon. Member for Uxbridge understandably espouses--the provision of greater protection for the police. It would be more likely to lead to greater violence by those resisting arrest, which would constitute an additional threat from which the police would have to be protected.

Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point) : I intervene briefly to support the new clause so ably and convincingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). He deployed a powerful case for having additional penalties which are an effective deterrent. I, too, must declare an interest. I have been the adviser to the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the senior officers in the field, for--I hesitate to say--some 25 years. I have got to know the police well. I respect and admire them. They deserve much more than they get, given their vital task. They have always had a difficult task. Being a police officer is difficult at any time, but never more so than today when the police have to cope with a rising tide of crime, especially violent crime. They

Column 299

are the thin blue line standing between the public and criminals who do not hesitate to use violence to achieve their ends and to maim and sometimes kill.

The trend is horrifying. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave the House some examples. Let us consider the most savage crime--murder. Five years before the abolition of capital punishment, there were 290 murders per year on average. That is a frightening figure, but in the past five years there have been 647 murders a year on average. In the 25 years before abolition, 14 police officers were murdered in the course of their duty ; in the same period since abolition, 53 have been murdered--four times as many.

I have been in the House for more than 40 years. During that time I have seen a steady deterioration in public behaviour and an increase in criminality of all kinds. It behoves us to stop now and again and to ask ourselves whether we are doing sufficient to reinforce and to protect the thin blue line. If the public are to be protected effectively--that is, after all, the task of the police--the thin blue line needs to be reinforced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge could have told the House, there are several ways in which that can be done. For example, we could recruit more officers and double the police force--assuming that, in the conditions of today, young men and particularly young married men would wish to join the service. We could increase the number of police officers, or if that proved difficult, we could arm the police. [Interruption.] There is no need for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to intervene. I would never favour such a move, except that if nothing is done to give effective protection to police officers it will happen, and the public will support it.

Mr. Maclennan : Has the right hon. Gentleman studied evidence in the United States, where police forces are armed, and has he considered whether the situation there is safer for the police? My impression--it is no more than that--is that proportionately more police officers are killed in those circumstances.

Sir Bernard Braine : I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am talking about crime and policing in this country. When I first entered politics we proudly claimed that we had the finest police force in the world--the constable armed by the public, by which I mean not physically armed but mandated by the public to protect them. When I was a youngster, a police constable did not need any weapons--he was a respected figure--but I have seen the respect deteriorate, not because the quality of the police has changed but because society has deteriorated.

If we do not face up to that issue, we shall need to consider certain alternatives. The first would be to recruit more police officers. I am asking the House to consider whether young married men with children, knowing what happens on our streets, will rush to join the police force. The second alternative--

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West) : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Bernard Braine : I promised to make a brief speech, and I want to keep it brief.

Column 300

Mr. Archer : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point that he has just made?

Sir Bernard Braine : I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Archer : Twice now the right hon. Gentleman has queried whether recruits are prepared to join the police. Is he aware that I fully support his view that we need more police officers, but in the biggest police force outside the Metropolitan area--the West Midlands police--the limiting factor is not the number of recruits who are prepared to apply but the number on the strength that the Home Office is prepared to authorise?

Next Section

Home Page