| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Lawrence : In my view, the Government are quite right, in the present climate of law and order, to reject their Lordships amendment. Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1962 there has been an alarming increase in murders, in crimes using guns and weapons and in the killing of police officers. In the five years to abolition, there were 290 murders a year, whereas in the past five years, there have been 647 murders a year--a doubling in the murder rate. In 1962, 2,000 crimes were committed with guns and weapons. Today, 10,000 crimes a year are committed with guns and weapons. That is a fivefold increase. In the 24 years to 1965, 14 police officers were killed in England and Wales, whereas in the 24 years since, 53 police officers have been killed. That is a threefold increase. In the past 20 years, 59 convicted murderers have been released and have killed again.
It is doubtful whether life imprisonment works adequately as a deterrent, and this is hardly the time at which to weaken or appear to weaken the law further. The reason why the mandatory life sentence is so important-- although, for the overwhelming majority of British people who want capital punishment restored, it is second best--is that the crime of murder is not like other crimes. It is unique. It involves a life being taken by a deliberate act, and in the eyes of the public, it should be dealt with by a unique sentence. To do away with the unique sentence for that unique offence would undoubtedly weaken public
Column 885
confidence in the system of law and order because it would remove an element of deterrence. That confidence would be further weakened, if, in certain circumstances, the sentence passed for a murder turned out to be too light because the crime itself was in reality less serious than it appeared.One of the problems with the press today is its bad reporting of criminal trials. Its representatives are there at the start of the trial when the prosecution opens and they are there at the end but they are seldom there in the middle when the evidence is being given. The headlines scream, "Only two years for murder. This is a disgrace. Guilty judge, guilty jury, guilty system." That is nonsense but the public react and respond to the bad reporting in the media. Yet the facts of the case may be such that a sentence of two years may be quite adequate. Under the present system, a murderer gets life and the machinery of the system then determines whether he should be let out after two years. He may not spend his life in prison but the sentence will last for life and, if he offends or becomes a danger to the public once more, he will be recalled. The sentence of life imprisonment is a deterrent--albeit second best to the deterrent of capital punishment. The public will not be disturbed and their confidence will not be undermined because they know that, under the present system, there is an element of deterrence which continues and endures.
There is another side to the coin. If the judge feels that it would not reflect the wishes of the public if he passed a light sentence, he might well pass a more severe sentence than the criminality deserves. The effect of the amendment, supported by liberals, would be to harden sentencing. It would be counter-productive. It would not achieve what is wished and would distort the prison population still further.
The abolition of mandatory life sentences would have another effect. It would require the passing of sentences of 50, 60 or 70 years in the most heinous of cases. Will judges be prepared to pass such sentences? The logic of that would be to follow the American example. We hear of sentences of 99 years, to run consecutive to other sentences of 99 years. We hear of sentences of several hundred years passed on people who have committed a series of heinous offences. That makes a laughing stock of the sentencing system. I concede at once that the public confidence aspect is less important than the justice of the case. The question is, would more justice be done if we abolished mandatory sentences? That would be the case if "life" always meant "life", in all circumstances, with all murders and with all offenders, and regardless of whether a mercy killing had taken place. That, however, is not the position. The Home Secretary, acting on the advice of the Parole Board, decides whether the circumstances warrant earlier release.
That is a fair way of dealing with such matters. It is not obvious to the public that they are being dealt with in that way, but, as I have already conceded, the justice of the case is more important than the public confidence aspect--although that too is terribly important.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that actual sentences should be determined by a judge rather than by the Executive. At first, that may seem an attractive point ; however, nowhere else in the sentencing system is the sentence determined by
Column 886
the judge. It is determined by the Parole Board, with the support of Parliament. The judicial sentence can then be reduced by two thirds, or by half, or sometimes in variance of the two.In passing a judicial sentence, the judge is not allowed to take into account the date of parole, or the fact that the accused may be likely to have his sentence reduced by a third. The judiciary does not really determine the length of sentences, and rejection of the amendment would not breach the position relating to Executive and legislative release.
What of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there should be a variation in sentences for murder? In the case of less heinous murders--the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of the two little girls--the answer is surely the same that we would give if we were discussing euthanasia. There may be some justification for a particular killing, but when the system says no to all killing we at least know that some deterrence exists- -that people will be deterred from killing too easily, and that lives that should not be taken will occasionally be saved. That argument applies to euthanasia ; it also applies to maintaining standard sentence--uniquely--in cases of murder.
I understand why their Lordships took the view that they did. They did not have to deal with the public, as we do. Although public confidence is a matter for their consideration, it is nothing like as much a matter for their consideration as it is for the consideration of Members of this democratically elected House of Commons. I would guess that public opinion was the reason behind the Cabinet's refusal to adopt the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) when he served in a Labour Government.
Mr. Archer : Does the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that we can all become wiser with the passage of time, especially when a number of people have given thought to the issues and produced reports?
Mr. Lawrence : If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of his position, of course I accept it. I assumed that his position had remained consistent throughout, and that he did not consider the abolition of mandatory sentences acceptable. I know that that point of view was expressed when the last Labour Government were in power. My point is that that Government did nothing to change the position--not just because the right hon. and learned Gentleman held a different view at that time, but because public opinion did as well. The Labour Government took account of public opinion ; now we are taking account of what we perceive to be public opinion.
Not only would the removal of the mandatory life sentence constitute a betrayal of the public--who, in a sense, entered into a bargain with the Government who abolished capital punishment that they would, while abolishing it, maintain the deterrence provided by life sentences--but it would constitute a betrayal of the hon. Members who supported the abolition of capital punishment on a number of occasions because the Government had said, "There will still be a deterrent--life sentences." If that deterrent is now removed, many hon. Members--certainly many Conservative Members--who have voted in the past for the retention of the abolition of capital punishment will feel that they would now reach a
Column 887
very different conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) indicates that he is one example : there could be no finer example.5.15 pm
As I have said, acceptance of the Lords amendment would be a betrayal. In 1962, a kind of pact was made with the British public to enable the Labour Government to abolish capital punishment. Now, acceptance of the amendment would betray all those who were assured that the alternative to capital punishment was the life sentence. That is why my right hon. Friend has made his position clear on the basis of public confidence. He is absolutely right to do so, and his view demands our support as a matter of common sense.
The time may come when we shall be able to contemplate a change from the mandatory life sentence. Given a substantial reduction in the number of violent crimes, the public may then be in a frame of mind to accept the logic of the case. That time, however, is not yet here. Our view was held, after careful consideration, by the Crown prosecution service when it gave evidence to the Committee in the other place ; it was also held--again, after careful consideration--by the Police Federation, until it decided to change its mind last week and a police murderer was released on parole. Right or wrong, such decisions are no less likely to be made when there is no mandatory life sentence than when there is.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I support the rejection of the Lords amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a telling point when he reminded us that Members of the other place have no constituents. In many respects, their beliefs do not reflect the views of the public ; they are not listening, in the pubs and clubs, to what the public genuinely feel about this important matter.
I speak not only as a representative of the public, but as one of the few hon. Members now present who has had the opportunity to defend accused persons in murder trials on more than one occasion. I shall never forget the atmosphere of those trials, and the sense of the seriousness of the matters with which they had to deal. The background of today's debate is the rise in the number of murders in the United Kingdom in the past few years. Some of those murders involved the use of guns during the commission of offences of dishonesty ; others involved the indiscriminate killing of victims unknown to their murderers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is clearly concerned to hear that. Murder is a heinous and terrible crime : the public recognise it as such, and so should we.
In 1967, the Labour Government abolished the death penalty. There was a free vote, and the matter was debated fully. The death penalty was abolished, however, on the understanding that it would be replaced by the life sentence. That reflected the strength of public feeling, and the seriousness of the offence in question. That feeling still prevails. How many hon. Members who are sitting here now receive letters from the public saying that the life sentence should mean life?
Mr. John Greenway : My hon. Friend asks how many hon. Members are sitting here, but not many hon. Members are here ; it would be different if we were
Column 888
discussing dogs. Does not that show that the majority of Conservative Members support what the Home Secretary is doing?The seriousness with which the public view the imposition of the life sentence for the offence of murder cannot be underestimated. Our sentencing policy does not follow the principle that life means life, but for serious offences such as terrorist murders, indiscriminate killings, gangland murders anmd other offences at the top of the scale, judges make recommendations. How many times have we read that a judge recommended that a minimum of 30 years be served? That is the way in which judges convey to the man in the dock, to the public and to the courts the seriousness with which they view such crime. I defended a woman who suffered from post-natal depression and killed her child. I placed her in a different category from a gangland member who murders a drug courier because he betrayed the system. The gradations in offences can be met by the existing system.
We must respect the public's views. When somebody commits the offence of murder, the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Lords amendment is an unnecessary dilution of the public's strong feelings and of the need to emphasise the terrible nature of the offence.
I support one point that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made. He sensibly said that the judge hears all the evidence and sees all the witnesses, including the accused if he gives evidence, and reads the social inquiry and psychiatric reports. Where the judge recommends what the sentence should be, it should be followed by the Home Office. I feel much disquiet about sentencing by Ministers and not by judges. The split between the independence of the judiciary and of Ministers is being eroded. I urge Ministers to take note of what the judge says. The existing system can continue without the interference of the Lords amendment and I recommend that the House rejects it.
Mr. John Greenway : I must refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose views I much respect. I was deeply shocked by his remarks. What he suggested as the policy of the Police Federation is an ill-thought-out policy that it should reconsider and, in due course, reverse.
I share my hon. Friend's passionate belief that our police deserve all the protection that Parliament can provide. On 17 December last year, I opened the debate on the restoration of the death penalty, and I share my hon. Friend's profound belief that, if the death penalty were available for the murder of a police officer, less police officers would be murdered.
Mr. Greenway : I stand corrected.
We must accept the decision of the House, but it is an important point and not one to be made the subject of a trivial intervention. If we cannot have capital punishment for the murder of a police officer, we want a certain penalty. It is better to have the certain penalty of a mandatory life sentence, flawed though that is--the thrust of the debate has been the extent to which it is flawed and where we should strike the balance-- because life does not
Column 889
mean life under the present system, and even less so under part II of the Bill, where we are trying to achieve more certainty in sentencing.My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is wrong in his assessment that the courts will provide a deterrent in sentencing someone who has murdered a police officer and that that is a greater deterrent than the mandatory sentence. No one will be aware of the sentence until after a police officer has been murdered. We are on the slippery slope of finding out subsequently.
I have considerable sympathy with the Police Federation's disappointment at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know well that many police officers were disappointed, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and to the Police Federation that the one man who knows what it is like to make the difficult decision whether to release on parole the murderer of a police officer, following the recommendation of the Parole Board, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has argued well this afternoon for the retention of the mandatory life sentence, and therefore the retention of a system in which he and his successors will be confronted with that difficult decision.
Mr. Shersby : As a former Metropolitan police officer, my hon. Friend understands only too well, as he said in his speech, the reaction of the Metropolitan police and of other police forces to the circumstances surrounding the Shepherd's Bush murder. He will know that when I spoke to the police conference in May, I made it clear that in my judgment it was an important issue for it to consider. I left it in no doubt that the 20-year sentence was important. In my final remarks, I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and pointed out that he had to make that difficult decision, of which I fully approved.
Mr. Greenway : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, but the decision that the Police Federation has taken, which he announced to the House this afternoon, is based on a knee-jerk reaction to one difficult case and is not properly thought out.
Mr. Kenneth Baker : My hon. Friend kindly referred to me and he will know that the Home Secretary often has to make difficult decisions. In the Shepherd's Bush case, I was bound by decisions that had been taken by my predecessors, as the House knows. I have no doubt that the Police Federation will reconsider its views, for the simple reason that, if it supports the Lords amendments, the undertaking that Sir Leon Brittan gave the House in 1983, and which was confirmed by me--that anybody convicted of killing a policeman would serve at least 20 years--then falls. I doubt whether the Police Federation has considered that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will draw it to the federation's attention.
5.30 pm
Mr. Greenway : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His comments will have been helpful to the House and to people outside. Some points made in the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) go to the heart of the difference between our views. He said, in effect, that not all murderers deserve a
Column 890
life sentence. But every murder victim has already been subjected to a life sentence. More important, the balance which must be struck should surely be in favour of ensuring that those who should receive a life sentence do so. Only a mandatory sentence delivers that certainty.Lord Lane argued about the arrangements under the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1988 whereby the Attorney-General has the right to appeal against a lenient sentence--something opposed by the Labour party. I do not believe that we can expect with certainty that the right sentence will be passed on appeal any more than we can expect that the right sentence will be passed by the judge who heard the case. Therefore, there are differences between us as to a murderer's rights.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about a civil right and justice being denied because of mandatory sentences. Again I ask : justice for whom --for those who kill or for those who are killed? The fulcrum of the problem rests on that issue. Do Members of Parliament believe that there is a sentence for those who commit the most heinous crime of murder which can deter some murderers? I happen to be one of those who believe that it can deter. That is why I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are right to come down firmly against their Lordships' amendment and to call upon the House to reject it.
Mr. Hind : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Greenway : I shall not give way because I wish to make further comments, and time is pressing.
We must bear in mind the far-reaching changes in sentencing policy that are already included in the Bill, particularly the provision for the early release of prisoners under part II. There will be major, fundamental changes in sentencing policy.
In simple terms, before we even consider whether we should abolish the mandatory sentence, we should see how the new provisions in the Bill work in practice. In essence, we are saying that a person who is sent to prison for 15 or 20 years for having committed a serious crime, such as manslaughter, rape or armed robbery, will serve half the sentence. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, if the mandatory life sentence is abolished, it is still open to the courts to impose a life sentence. I strongly suspect--my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enunciated this point--that, in practice, judges will impose a fixed term, rather than a life sentence. That will mean that the criminal will serve only half his sentence.
I joined the police just after the murders in Shepherd's Bush. I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that the 30-year sentence became only a 25-year sentence, but I do not for one moment believe that judges these days would impose a 50-year sentence. That idea does not stand up. Until we have seen how the arrangements in part II work in practice, we should not go so far as to abolish the mandatory sentence.
Mr. Hattersley : Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to a point repeatedly made not by woolly-minded readers of The Guardian but by Law Lords ? The Law Lords said that the mandatory sentence was blunting the edge of the deterrent, because it was assumed in popular fiction that every sentence was the same and that it turned out to be nine or 10 years. They believed that what was really needed as a deterrent was a series of headlines stating,
Column 891
"Policeman's killer sentenced to prison for 25 years." The Law Lords thought that the mandatory argument was working in the other direction.Mr. Greenway : I should have thought that potential murderers of police officers would see the publicity surrounding the release of John Witney after serving 25 years. I should have thought that potential murderers would hear the message from the House--certainly from Conservative Members--that that is the minimum term that we would expect murderers of police officers to serve.
Those of us who wish to reverse the decision made by their Lordships believe that there is a greater certainty that murderers will serve long sentences if the mandatory life sentence is maintained rather than abolished.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) : I do not intend keeping the House long. This has been an interesting debate. Having read the proceedings in Standing Committee and in the other place, I do not know whether, if I were in my old job as a university teacher and were marking the debate out of 100, the score would be better in the other place than in this House, but I suspect that it would be. Two important principles have come out of the debate. The Government have fallen into some confusion because they have no consistent principle in this complicated matter. Once one gives up pursuing a consistent principle in this matter, one loses one's way. The principle of what goes on in our judicial system was thoroughly discussed in the other place by people involved in the sentencing process.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) put his finger on the point, referring to four essential principles. He was challenged to say why he did not introduce this change when he was a member of the Labour Cabinet. He was right to say that one does not start where one wants to stop. During the past 15 years, there has been an interesting change in the attitude of influential people in our judicial system--at one end, the judicial lobby and, at the other, the justices and those who represent them in the other place.
There has been an important change in thinking. It has taken a long time for that to happen. Labour Members believe that time is important. We have had 15 years of well-informed debate on this matter, with committee of inquiry after committee of inquiry. Many people at the highest levels of the judiciary have changed their minds in the light of experience. As we pointed out consistently in Standing Committee, most people with some expertise in this matter believe that it is time for a change. If the Lords amendment is reversed, an opportunity will have been missed.
Some people, including the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), have talked about the views that will be expressed in the pubs and clubs. We believe that it is important to listen to those views in addition to those of the people involved in the judicial system, but at the end of the day, we must judge, and our judgment is that the country wants an effective deterrent. What the judiciary wants matches what the men and women in the pubs and clubs want. In other words, they want an effective deterrent.
It has become clear from the debate in another place and from the many committees of inquiry that, if the same mandatory penalty were passed for all crimes of murder,
Column 892
the whole issue of deterrence and the whole range of murders would be confused. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) clearly stated, we feel very strongly that the wicked men who shoot policeman should receive the sentence that they deserve, but there is a difference between such murders and other murders. If the penalty is used right across the board and if the same sentence is given to, at the one extreme, the wicked men who shot three policemen in Shepherd's Bush and, at the other extreme, to the agonised spouse who, at the end of his or her tether, helps his or her partner to die, it will make the deterrent ineffective. I refer to two hon. Members--Mr. Hind : The hon. Gentleman referred to what he believed to be the view of people in the pubs and clubs. Does he agree that the man in the street understands that if a bank robber tries to shoot his way out of a corner and kills a police officer, that bank robber knows that he will receive a life sentence and probably more? That is the simple message. The bank robber will receive not merely a life sentence, but probably a recommendation to go with it. The bank robber understands that and will think about it when he has his finger on the trigger.
Mr. Sheerman : That issue is interesting in itself, but it has nothing to do with the debate.
We are not arguing against having a life sentence for the wicked people who perpetrate the crime that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West describes. We want a mandatory life sentence for such an evil deed. However, I wish to refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech. Another principle that we pursued in judging whether to accept the amendment was that it should not be the job of the Executive to make the decisions or to interfere with the decisions which are properly those of the judiciary. If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that there was one issue on which he disagreed with the Home Secretary although he would go dutifully into the Division Lobby at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman said that sentences should be determined by judges, not by Ministers. That was the whole point of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook--that, at the moment, the Executive has a very dubious role in these cases.
It has been made clear in the debates in another place--and former Home Secretaries have also been candid about this issue--that it is not the Home Secretary who makes the important decision, but a junior Minister. It is not a junior Minister who has read all the proceedings of the trial, but one who perhaps has a little help from an appropriate civil servant. It is not a Minister who has been briefed or who has read the ramifications of the case. We know what happens and we know that justice is not being done in such cases. 5.45 pm
I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). If, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the hon. Gentleman's speech holed the Government ship beneath the waterline, surely that of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West blew away the main mast. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point. He said that the Police Federation had changed its mind, and that is an important decision. I know that Conservative Members do not like that, because they prefer the Police
Column 893
Federation to agree with the broad thrust of their policies. It was the particular case of three policemen who were murdered in a ghastly way about 26 years ago which made the federation realise the problems of having the Executive--a Minister--interfering with what should be left to judges. We may want judges to make specific recommendations of very long, determined sentences for people such as the Shepherd's Bush murderers. That would seem to be the logic of our position and there is nothing wrong with that. We shall defend that logic and, in this instance, we believe that the Police Federation's change of mind shows eminent good sense.We believe that ideas have changed and that there is now a consensus, not a party-political consensus but one of informed people who believe that the time has come to change the law. We have had a good debate, and there was an excellent one in another place. The Government would be shirking their responsibilities in their duties to the country and to the criminal justice system if they did not, at this late stage, change their mind and support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that we have had a good debate. We have discussed several issues, including the part played by the Home Secretary and by Ministers in the decisions on the length of time that people will spend in custody and the length of time that they will spend out of custody but still on life sentences.
My first point relates to an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Of course the sentence should be passed by the judge. It is the judge who makes the decision, following and acting on the mandatory penalty set out by Parliament that the crime of murder requires a life sentence. At that point, the case goes to Ministers for them to consider the proportions of the sentence to be spent in custody and those which will be spent on licence.
We also considered the Home Secretary's decisions and discretions and his accountability to Parliament for those decisions. Opposition Members seem to find that accountability difficult to comprehend.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South) : Will the right hon. Lady give way ?
Mrs. Rumbold : No. [ Hon. Members :-- "Go on, give way."] Not at all. I want to develop my argument a little longer, if I may. The hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber only recently and has not sat throughout the debate. It would be courteous for me to take the opportunity to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friends. I do not feel that I shall be tempted to allow the hon. Gentleman's interventions.
As I said earlier, one of the most important aspects of the decisions that are taken by the Home Secretary is that he is ultimately accountable to the public. We have heard a great deal about the public's view of the way in which murder is treated and about the way in which the judgments passed by the courts and by the Home Secretary act as a deterrent against more people committing the crime of murder. If Parliament is representative of the people and speaks for them, surely the Home Secretary, who is charged with the keeping of good order and with
Column 894
ensuring that good order is seen to be kept, is also held to be accountable for his decisions about the length of time that different types of murderers serve.My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in his capacity as spokesman for the Police Federation, rightly pointed to the recent release of Mr. Witney. Mr. Witney has served 25 years of imprisonment for committing a heinous crime. The crime of killing police is considered heinous by all Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Huddersfield and, I suspect, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), endorse that view, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. No one wants people who commit the crime of killing police to be treated other than with the most serious commitment to custody. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that we consider a sentence of 20 years to be the very minimum.
The decision on the case was taken after consultation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the Lord Chief Justice. In 1985, Sir Leon Brittan decided, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that a distinction could be drawn between Witney, who did not fire any shots, and his two co-defendants, who did. The decision to release Witney is based on the advice of the Parole Board that he no longer presents a risk to the public. The risk factor is the cogent factor in the decision making of Ministers or of the Home Secretary about the point at which a person has served the length of time that is suitable as retribution. The remaining issue to be decided is whether the person presents a risk to the public if he is released.
Mr. Archer : Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Rumbold : I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to continue, because I have one more point to make about the importance of murder.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) summed up the position well. I find it difficult to accept the notion that one can distinguish between one murder and another. I understand the difficulties that people have, because some murders are premeditated, and are especially ghastly and horrific. For other murders, there may be reasons for saying that one could think more kindly of the person who committed the crime. Essentially, human beings do not have the right to take the life of another person. We have never decided that that is the case. I seriously suggest that, when Opposition Members try to distinguish between one type of murder and another, they do no great service to the general public's view that murder is a serious crime which should attract the most serious penalty-- life imprisonment.
Our debate has been interesting. I say to hon. Members who have argued that we should accept the amendment that it would not be a wise move for the House at present if we take seriously into consideration the feelings of the general public about the importance of having clear signals of deterrence for the worst crimes that can be committed by people against others. I for one hope that we shall retain the present system which allows my right hon. Friend and any future Home Secretary the right to take the decision for which he and he alone is accountable to the democratically elected House of Commons.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 236, Noes 158.
Column 895
Division No. 191] [5.55 pmAYES
Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkins, Robert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Batiste, Spencer
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Benyon, W.
Bevan, David Gilroy
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Buck, Sir Antony
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Chris
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Churchill, Mr
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cran, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Devlin, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Dover, Den
Dunn, Bob
Durant, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Eggar, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Evennett, David
Fallon, Michael
Favell, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Fishburn, John Dudley
Fookes, Dame Janet
Forman, Nigel
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Fox, Sir Marcus
Franks, Cecil
Freeman, Roger
French, Douglas
Fry, Peter
Gale, Roger
Gardiner, Sir George
Gill, Christopher
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Goodlad, Alastair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Gregory, Conal
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Ground, Patrick
Grylls, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Hague, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hannam, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Harris, David
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Hayward, Robert
Heathcoat-Amory, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Hill, James
Hind, Kenneth
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Hordern, Sir Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Irvine, Michael
Irving, Sir Charles
Jack, Michael
Janman, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Kilfedder, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy
Knapman, Roger
Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Knox, David
Latham, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Lightbown, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
McCrindle, Sir Robert
Macfarlane, Sir Neil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Maclean, David
McLoughlin, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Madel, David
Malins, Humfrey
Maples, John
Marland, Paul
Marlow, Tony
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Maude, Hon Francis
| Next Section
| Home Page |