House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 Dec 1991

Orders of the Day

Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During my 20 years of practice in the law, there has been a great deal of vehicle taking, in precisely the kind of circumstances that led to the promulgation of the Bill by the Government. The courts have had powers over the years to deal with those offences. I wonder whether you could define the circumstances in which it is appropriate for the Government to introduce a law reform Bill and seek to push it through all its procedures in a day without it going to a Standing Committee to be considered carefully as to its detail, when it happens that there is no particular circumstance of urgency and when the reform concerned could lead to considerable difficulties for the courts if the measure is not fully considered?

Mr. Speaker : It is within the knowledge of the House that Bills have gone through all their stages in one day. The House itself will take a decision on the matter later this evening when the Question will be put whether the Bill should or should not be considered in Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), presumably the Government's contention is that, either because of prevalence or because of some emergency, it is necessary today, without the normal consultation, to go through every stage of the Bill. If there is such an emergency, why is it that there is no analogous Bill for Scotland? Is it the Government's contention that such an emergency, if there be an emergency, is relevant only in England and Wales? What are the intentions, therefore, in respect of Scotland?

Mr. Speaker : Of course, this Bill will go through all its stages in the normal way. The unusual feature is that that may happen in one day. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Question will be put from the Chair at the appropriate moment, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House will then decide to agree--or to disagree.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that other Bills have gone through all their stages in one day. That is true of some uncontroversial matters, but recently there have been several Bills of this kind, such as the one after the Hungerford massacre--that was rushed through the House and not dealt with properly--the council tax Bill--that was rushed through the House and is a mess--and the Dangerous Dogs Bill that was also rushed through all its stages. Yes, you are right, there are precedents, but most of them have ended in tears.

Mr. Speaker : I think that perhaps we had better hear the Home Secretary explain it.

Column 621

4.7 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill has two simple aims. The first is to make sure that everyone who gets involved in the taking of someone else's vehicle is made criminally liable for the consequences. The second is to give the courts power to sentence the serious cases in the way that they deserve.

Car crime, I think it is generally agreed, is a curse on our society. Let me give just a few facts and figures. In the 12 months to June 1991, over 550,000 cars were stolen. There were over 800,000 thefts from vehicles. About 30 per cent. of all recorded crime is car crime, and car crime is rising rapidly. It accounted for more than a third of the overall increase in recorded crime this year. It is a curse that affects us all. Many hundreds of thousands of members of the public have had their cars stolen, or their cars broken into and their possessions taken. We have seen recently how car crime can destroy the peace of mind of whole communities in Oxford and in Newcastle.

We are taking action on a number of fronts to tackle this problem. Over the last year, I have held a series of meetings with the major motor manufacturers to see what action they can take in the battle against car crime. Many manufacturers have made great improvements in the security of their vehicles. I welcome that, but there is much more that can be done. When I last met them in September, I asked them to consider urgently three specific point : first, the introduction of visible vehicle identification numbers ; secondly, the fitting of deadlocking across all their vehicle ranges ; and, most important, the development of an effective vehicle immobilising device that would make it impossible to move a car even if it had been broken into.

I am meeting the manufacturers again this Wednesday, and I shall ask what progress they have made. I think that all hon. Members have been sent a circular about the Bill by the Consumers Association. It says that it has been urging motor manufacturers to make cars more secure since 1961. I applaud what it and Which? have done. The Government have an important role in improving vehicle security. We want to see the British standard on vehicle security adopted as a compulsory European Community directive. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have raised this with our European colleagues. The standard covers locking systems, glass marking, security of in-car entertainment and deadlocking. We are working hard in the EC to get all member states to accept those requirements. The insurance industry is also very concerned about rising car crime. When I met the Association of British Insurers about six months ago, it was reluctant to take a collective view, but when I met it about two months ago, its views had changed considerably, because the claims paid by insurers rose by 46 per cent. to £225 million in the first half of the year--a substantial sum. That is equal to the value of the claims in the whole of 1989.

Since that meeting, I am glad that the industry has announced its plan to double the number of insurance ratings, for the first time taking account of factory-fitted security measures in assessing insurance grouping. I have

Column 622

asked the ABI to consider whether there is scope for offering discounts to car owners who fit effective security devices after initial sale.

There is much that the Government, the car industry, the insurance industry and others are doing to prevent car crime, but tackling the roots of car crime means, in part, tackling the roots of criminality. We must consider what leads young men--it is predominantly young men--to see crime as a better outlet for their abilities and energies than lawful activity. What causes young people to fall into crime? This year, I have been having a series of informal discussions with Church leaders, the voluntary sector, leading members of the police, probation and prison services, magistrates and others to consider what we can do to get at the roots of criminality. I intend to set out our proposals in the new year.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : Has my right hon. Friend seen the view of the chief constable of west Yorkshire, Mr. Peter Nobes, that the upsurge in the taking of motor vehicles has probably occurred since the change in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which reduced the unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle to a summary offence triable only at a magistrates court? He believes that the deterrent effect, which no longer seems to exist for young people, should be reinstated. Is my right hon. Friend willing to consider that further?

Mr. Baker : My hon. Friend should bear in mind the fact that, before 1988, only 3 per cent. of sentences were longer than six months. That effectively answers my hon. Friend. That is why I believe that the Bill is necessary.

The Bill is one of a wide range of urgent measures that we are taking to stop the plague of car crime getting out of hand.

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) : I am glad that the Home Secretary recognises that we must tackle the whole question of crime to get a grip of the dreadful problem of stealing vehicles, which has affected my area of Newcastle. Is the right hon. Gentleman frustrated by the edicts of the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose rate- capping proposals have reduced Newcastle city council's ability to tackle the core of the problem? Many youth clubs in Elswick, Benwell and Lemington have had to close because of that lack of funding.

Mr. Baker : Deprived urban areas have had one of the largest increases in expenditure since we took office. From memory, I believe that the figure was about £100 million when we took office but about £900 million or £1 billion this year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year I secured not only a good standard spending assessment for the police but an urban crime fund for the Northumbrian police of £3.66 million. That shows our commitment to dealing with those very problems.

The Bill is not the whole answer to car crime, nor does it pretend to be, but it is an important, new and urgently needed part of the legislative answer. It is difficult enough to identify anyone who was in a vehicle. It is much more difficult to establish precisely when damage occurred, who was responsible and what they intended at the time.

What is new about the Bill is that, where a vehicle is taken and damage or injury are caused, all those involved in the taking, including the passengers, will be equally

Column 623

liable to the more severe punishment for the aggravating events. All the criminals involved in taking the vehicle will be held responsible for what followed the original taking.

Of course, not all cases of vehicle taking are so serious : our whole approach to sentencing--brought to fruition in last Session's Criminal Justice Act--is to have a range of custodial and exacting community penalties graduated to fit the seriousness of the offence. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has raised that matter with me on other occasions.

For example, my Department funds various motor projects which have played an increasing role, and there are some excellent examples which focus on demanding programmes to get motor offenders to change to adopt responsible attitudes and behaviour. I believe that, organised properly, those can be effective. My Department is providing £200,000 this financial year to motor projects dealing with young offenders, thereby keeping them out of custody. That includes more than £150,000 to projects supervising offenders through the young adult offenders grant scheme. That fund is set to increase by a further £1 million next year, and I certainly expect motor projects to figure significantly within that increased expenditure. What we are talking about today is the need to ensure that bad cases do not elude tough penalties, because the present law puts burdens on the police and prosecution which they can have difficulty in discharging.

Mr. Alex Carlile : I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman said something a little earlier that was factually inaccurate. He has implied that all those who are involved in taking a vehicle are not already committing an offence, but they are. Everyone who is involved in taking a vehicle is implicitly committing an offence. The right hon. Gentleman has implied that those who travel in such a vehicle are not already committing an offence, but they are. There is the offence of being carried.

If the right hon. Gentleman took the measure which has been suggested of restoring indictability to the offence of taking and driving away, would not the courts be left with a wide range of penalties? Would not the courts therefore be able to take into account the facts of offences without going through the restrictive provisions in this ill-considered new Bill? Every item in clause 1(2) imposes a restriction on the courts. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is setting an obstacle course for the courts which will make it more difficult for them to pass tough sentences in serious cases?

Mr. Anderson rose --

Mr. Baker : Let me reply to one point at a time.

I knew perfectly well what I was saying with regard to the Theft Act 1968. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is right--when a person is charged with taking and driving away, there is a collective responsibility on all those in the car. We are extending that provision to the aggravated events that follow the taking away. The hon. and learned Gentleman can rightly say, "Leave the present offence and just increase the penalties," but it would be difficult, in respect of the offence of taking and driving away, to prove culpability for the aggravated offence and the damage that followed. That is the point of the Bill, and I shall justify it in a moment.

Mr. Anderson : I wish to follow the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).

Column 624

If the Government were serious about this matter, would they not remove some of the obstacles that now stand in the way of successful prosecutions under section 12 of the Theft Act? Under that section, the prosecution has to prove mens rea in respect of "knowing", whereas, under section 22, the handling provision, it has to prove a case in respect of "knowing or believing". By importing into section 12 "knowing or believing" for the purposes of means rea, could not the Government give an extra tool to the prosecution to deal with this prevalent offence?

Mr. Baker : With great respect, to begin with, that involves a fundamental re-examination of this and other offences under the Theft Act.

Mr. Anderson : Why not?

Mr. Baker : We believe that the right way to deal with that offence is to build on the offence under the Theft Act 1968--the taking and driving away--and add to it the aggravated offence covered in clause 1. Clearly, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) take an entirely different view which I do not believe would be an effective way in which to deal with the problem. My view is shared by all the chief constables to whom I have spoken.

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : Will the Bill deal with the problem of people reoffending while on bail? Chief Superintendent Riding of Bolton said that one youth has been arrested 30 times so far this year for taking vehicles.

Mr. Baker : That is a separate matter. I shall publish--shortly after Christmas, I suspect--the results of our survey of research on reoffending while on bail, and I shall introduce proposals. However, the Bill does not deal with that point.

I resume my explanation of the Bill, and this goes to the very heart of the issues raised by the two hon. Gentlemen. Let us consider the problems that there may be in proving the more serious offence of criminal damage. Let us suppose that the vehicle is found abandoned in a wood, seriously damaged or completely burnt out. Perhaps one of those involved in the taking--perhaps the original taker--is caught. His fingerprints are all over the car. He admits that he took the vehicle, but says that it was already damaged when he got in or that it was not damaged when he left the scene and that it must have been damaged by someone who took it later.

Perhaps the vehicle was seen colliding with another as it swerved around a corner. The witness says that he cannot be sure--at that speed, everything was blurred or it was dark--that the person being questioned by the police was behind the wheel or even in the vehicle. The accused says that it was not him, or perhaps he says nothing at all. In that case, there is a great deal of uncertainty.

What is certain--what is well beyond all reasonable doubt--is that none of the damage would have occurred had the vehicle not been taken in the first place. It is that certainty which drives the Bill. The facts are that at least 40 per cent. of cars which are criminally taken are damaged when the owner gets them back. Home Office statistics show, however, that criminal damage is charged in only 6 per cent. of cases. So, whatever the serious damage, in the remaining cases it goes

Column 625

unpunished by the criminal law. I believe that that is completely unacceptable. People who get involved in such activities need to know that they will be liable for the consequences--the aggravated offence, and not merely the taking away.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : My question arises out of genuine curiosity. Will the circumstances outlined by the Secretary of State also pertain in Scotland? I should be interested to know why Scotland is not included in the legislation. Whether or not this is the right solution, it seems odd that it does not apply to one part of the United Kingdom. Many people in Scotland--including, for example, the Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Driving--are deeply upset about the present level of sentencing in exactly the circumstances which have been outlined.

Mr. Baker : On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. I have discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he believes that there is no need to extend the Bill to Scotland, as there is different legislation for this, as for many other Scottish matters. It is not for me--as a member of the Executive--to comment on the level of sentencing. As Home Secretary, I do not comment on the length of sentences. I have personal views, but I keep them to myself in such matters.

I remind the House of the basic statistics. At least 40 per cent. of the cars which are criminally taken are damaged when the owner gets them back, but criminal damage is charged in only 6 per cent. of cases. That is the problem which the Bill seeks to solve. I deal now with dangerous driving and the injuries that it causes. Under the law at present, conviction for reckless driving or for causing death by reckless driving needs proof of who was driving at the material time and what was his state of mind. It will be easier to convict under the Road Traffic Act 1991, but it will still be necessary to identify the driver. That is perhaps not so difficult when the vehicle is registered in his name, but it is a different story when he is one of a number of possible drivers, all certainly involved but none of them owning up to it.

The criminal law demands certainty--and rightly so--before a person is found guilty of having committed a specific criminal act. However, is it relevant to know precisely which of a group of people who are already guilty of knowingly taking or travelling in that vehicle--the point on which we agreed a moment ago--had his foot on the pedal at that moment? The mischief would not have happened had the vehicle not been taken in the first place. Who is to say which of the takers or passengers is sufficiently personally culpable to get extra punishment? The Bill answers that question : they all are. Over the past few months we have witnessed a succession of very nasty cases of aggravated vehicle taking. In some cases, the law has been able to punish the basic taking itself. It has also, on occasion, been able to provide more serious charges against some of the offenders involved--in some cases it has been possible to charge for manslaughter. Thanks to the efforts of the police, the Crown prosecution service and the courts, it has, on occasion, managed to bring serious charges in some really

Column 626

bad cases, but it has not, and cannot, treat the total mischief with the certainty and severity which it deserves. The Bill will enable it to do so.

Clause 1, which is the heart of the Bill, defines the new offence and sets out what needs to be proved, and what does not need to be proved, before someone can be convicted under it. It is important to recognise at the outset that the Bill does not create a stand-alone criminal offence. Its penalties apply only to those who took the vehicle or got criminally involved with it before it was recovered. The standard of proof for the basic taking of the vehicle remains unchanged.

Under clause 1, it must also be proved beyond doubt that at least one of the four specified aggravating events occurred after the vehicle was first taken and before it was recovered. I emphasise to the House that those "aggravating events" are the four events listed at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill :

"(a) that the vehicle was driven dangerously on a road or other public place ;

"(b) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which injury was caused to any person ;

"(c) that, owing to the driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred by which damage was caused to any property, other than the vehicle ;

"(d) that damage was caused to the vehicle itself."

The Bill will not convict anybody of the crime of criminal damage, or the crime of reckless or dangerous driving, or any crime against the person. It is simply recognising an aggravated form of an existing Theft Act 1968 offence, where a vehicle is taken without the owner's consent, and damage, danger or injury follow which would not have happened if the vehicle had not been taken in the first place. The House will also understand that clause 1 does not reverse the normal onus of proving who committed an offence. It does not do so because, under the Bill, who may or may not have committed a separate criminal offence is not relevant. The Bill does not want any legal argument about the precise state of mind of those involved. It does not want to know whose foot was on the pedal, whose hand on the wheel or handbrake, or who might have said what to whom. The Bill is looking at the total aggravating consequences of the whole joyriding event, and it states that everyone guilty of taking, or travelling in the car should be liable for more serious punishment.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South) : The offence differs from the existing regime, in that there is to be a new maximum penalty of five years. Where the offender is under 18--a juvenile--he is presumably still caught by the ceiling of the maximum of two years for all juveniles. In the north of England, which can readily claim to be the taking-and-driving-away capital of Europe, about 90 per cent. of offences are committed by juveniles. How will the Bill improve the way that they are treated?

Mr. Baker : At present, 15 and 16-year-olds may receive a sentence of only one year's custody unless they are guilty of an offence likely to carry a penalty of more than 14 years--usually rape, domestic burglary, murder, arson and such offences. That will not change. To answer my hon. Friend's question directly, at present, the maximum penalty for the existing offence is six months, but very few offenders actually receive six months : instead, they receive about two or three months. Due to the custody rule of one year, the period for 15 and 16-year-olds can rise to one year.

Column 627

I know what lies behind the anxieties of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery--that the onus of proving who committed an offence should not be reversed. I daresay that that will be debated not only on Second Reading but in Committee later today. The only excuses to which the Bill will listen will be the two set out in subsection (3) of new clause 12A : that the relevant aggravating offence--the damage to the car or other property or injury to people--occurred before the person committed his basic taking offence, or that he was nowhere near the vehicle at the time.

Those defences depart from the liability principle at the heart of the Bill only to this limited extent. When the accused can show that the damage occurred before he got involved or after he had abandoned the car--perhaps two days later--the Bill lifts his liability. The accused has to be able to show that to the court. In common with other statutory defences of this kind, it is for the defence to show on the balance of probabilities that they apply.

A person convicted under clause 1 could face an unlimited fine and up to five years' imprisonment for the worst cases. Clause 3 also provides for obligatory disqualification in magistrates courts and the Crown court, and for obligatory endorsement and penalty points when, for some exceptional reason, the first penalty is not applied.

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge) : What evidence does the Home Office have that these young people will be deterred by large increases in fines? Many of them are unable to pay fines of this sort in any case, so how do they constitute a deterrent?

Mr. Baker : Many young people will be deterred from joyriding by this Bill. First, not only the person doing the driving away will be liable to the penalties under the Bill : all the other people in the car will be. That is an extension of the existing offence of taking and driving away. Such people will also be liable to be charged with the aggravating offence. That will have some effect on people piling into a car to go off joyriding.

There is also a possibility of an unlimited fine. My hon. Friend will know that under other legislation passed by the House, parents can be held liable for such fines. That too is a deterrent. We are building into the offence a series of deterrents, including disqualification. We are trying to prevent these young hooligans and criminals from grabbing cars and creating mayhem thereafter. I remind the House that clause 2 provides that the new offence is to be tried summarily if the only aggravating event was damage and the total value of that damage was below the threshold set in the Magistrates Courts Act 1980--£2,000--for criminal damage. The offence can be tried either in a magistrates court or a Crown court. This Bill has been described as tough on joyriders. It is, and I make no apologies for that. It is tough because this so-called joyriding is tough-- tough on victims, tough on property, tough on whole communities whose daily life and business have been ruined by hooligans on wheels. The Bill will enable the law to recognise the full consequences of what is involved. It will send the clearest possible message to the people who get involved that society will not tolerate such behaviour.

Column 628

4.33 pm

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook) : No one can or should doubt the seriousness of the problem to which the Bill relates. Car crime is now endemic in Great Britain, and the disease has reached epidemic proportions. The Home Secretary talked of attempting to prevent the plague of car crime from getting out of hand, but it is out of hand already. Last year, there were almost 500,000 recorded offences of theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles--an increase of 25 per cent. on the previous year's figure. Many of those offences were due to young men--it is a peculiarly male crime--taking cars, not to sell them for profit, but to drive them illegally in a fashion mortally dangerous to themselves and to others.

The question that we must decide today is whether the Bill will achieve a material reduction in the number of such offences. I have no doubt that, from time to time, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) will pop up in the House or on television to tell us that it will indeed have exactly the prescribed effect. In the spirit of Christmas, I must say that I have no doubt at all that, if the Government announced their intention to slaughter the holy innocents on 28 December, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend would pop up again to congratulate the Home Secretary on his perception, sagacity, compassion and commitment to the public good. Other more objective observers have concluded that the Bill will have little or no effect.

The majority of known car crime offenders are teenage boys : 34 per cent. of offenders are aged between 15 and 16 and 39 per cent. between 17 and 20. The need to prevent young men from behaving in a way that is often lethal to themselves and to others, and at the very best causes inconvenience and distress, is not in doubt : the question is whether the Bill will have that effect. Its purpose is the creation of deterrents so severe that young men will think twice before embarking on theft and reckless driving. Unfortunately, the group whom the Bill targets are uniquely unlikely to be deterred even by the threat of a most extreme punishment.

Deterrents act only on rational men and women who consider and calculate the consequences of their actions. The car thief who takes a car to drive with reckless disregard for his own life and the lives of others does not make a careful calculation of what will happen when he is caught. In any event, those who take cars can already be imprisoned for up to six months for the simple act of taking and driving away. If reckless driving--it is now called dangerous driving--is involved, sentences of up to two years' imprisonment are possible. A young man who causes death by dangerous driving can be sentenced to five years' imprisonment and could be convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned for life. It is difficult to follow the argument that the penalties in the Bill will provide a deterrent which is not available at present. That point was made in an intervention by the hon. and learned member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile).

I wish to ask the Minister of State a specific question which I asked his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) during her wind-up speech in the prison security debate. Why do the Government think that, by passing an Act which does little more than duplicate sentences already on the statute book, they will

Column 629

achieve a reduction in crime? The only possible reason is the hope that the publicity involved in passing a new Act of Parliament will in itself have some effect. I have my doubts. I do not believe that potential criminals of this type read Hansard or, for that matter, newspaper reports of Parliament with the assiduity that we would all wish. In any case, I am opposed to the idea of legislation as a form of public relations. That can only lead to bad law.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten) : I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for giving me the opportunity to answer his question, which I shall do in two ways. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked why we need this change in the law. He echoed the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle). It is because of the evidential difficulties of bringing a successful prosecution, under all the different statutory provisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, when so-called joyriding takes place. Secondly, we can argue until the proverbial cows come home about whether deterrents work in this or that circumstance, but deterrence is very important, as also is punishment and keeping offenders off the streets.

Mr. Hattersley : Perhaps the Minister of State did not altogether follow my point. Rightly or wrongly--I believe it to be right--my point is that punishment, by which the Minister sets great store, is already available. The Bill is mere duplication. As to the arguments about evidence, the Minister must know that we are concerned only with the very small proportion of young men who commit this particular offence. On some occasions evidence may be more easily obtained and more readily lead to a conviction, but we are very dubious about the procedures that the Bill sets down for obtaining evidence and obtaining conviction.

I should like to echo another point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I agree that there are the greatest dangers in completing all the stages of the Bill in a single day--as is the Government's intention and as, no doubt, will be the outcome of today's deliberations but it seems particularly foolish to rush through the Bill in this way when penalties and punishments are already available to deal with the offence that we are debating. We may, of course, argue about how adequately those penalties and punishments deal with it

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden) : If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Government's approach, does he, on behalf of his party, have any specific proposals for dealing with the problem, especially in relation to 15 and 16-year-olds?

Mr. Hattersley : Of course I do. I listed them briefly in our debate on the Gracious Speech and have advocated them on many other occasions. If the hon. Gentleman can bear to remain with us until the end of my speech, he will hear exactly what they are.

Mr. Devlin : I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because his proposals have not come to fruition in the amendments. Nothing on the amendment paper would beef up the law in terms of the aggravated offence.

Column 630

Mr. Hattersley : When the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a little longer--representing another seat after the general election--he will come to understand that one can amend a Bill only according to what is in it. One cannot deal with its inadequacies in terms of its total omissions. If he, too, will bear with me until the end of my speech, he will hear me list some of those total omissions.

The truth about the Bill is that it is a return to the formula that has characterised the Home Secretary's behaviour throughout the year. A real problem is identified, such as dangerous dogs, prison mutiny and, now, reckless driving. The right hon. Gentleman said several times that this problem had come to light "over the last few months". Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph will be "over the last few months" or "over the last few weeks" or "over the last few days", because he lives according to a very short time scale.

The right hon. Gentleman discovered the problem through reading the headlines, and decided to take action on it. There was then much vacillation about what, if any, response was possible and about what that response should be. In the case of dangerous dogs, the Home Secretary said that nothing could be done ; then he promised wholesale slaughter ; and then he left us with an inefficient and ineffective compromise.

Today is the culmination of a process which began with the promise to the Tory party conference of "robust action". As we now know, that was said before the legislation was prepared. The process continued with the omission of the Bill from the Queen's Speech, because at that time there was no certainty that the legislation could be prepared. The process now ends with a proposal which is probably ineffective and which does nothing whatever to deal with the generality of car thefts.

We are again left with the conclusion that the Home Secretary's principal intention is to make headlines rather than to find solutions. It is reminiscent of the great spring offensive against crime, which was based on a massive advertising campaign and encountered the signal problem that neither the thieves nor the burglars seemed to read the advertisements.

Mr. Anderson : Can my right hon. Friend speculate on the Home Secretary's motive for truncating all stages into one day? Is the Home Secretary saying that allowing the Bill to go to a Special Standing Committee, which might have the benefit of advice from outside legal opinion which might improve the Bill, would have no potential benefit for the quality of the legislation? What is the emergency which demands that the Bill's passage must be completed before Christmas?

Mr. Hattersley : The only possible conclusion is that rushing the Bill through the House in one day adds to the air of urgency. I have sworn to do two things never in any circumstances. The first is to try to read the Home Secretary's mind and the second is to call for his resignation.

Mr. Baker : I must continue to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman on both counts. If he wants to read my mind, he should read what I say.

It is clear from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he is opposed to the general thrust of the Bill. If he is so opposed, why do we have an agreement, through the usual channels, to take the Bill through in one day? The

Column 631

right hon. Gentleman must have been party to that. He must have been asked about it and approved it. If he is really opposed to the thrust of the Bill--which I assure him, if he is about to criticise whether the law will be tougher, marks a considerable toughening of the law and is much tougher than the right hon. Gentleman could produce- -he should vote against the Bill tonight so that the whole country can see how he wants to water the law down and how lame his proposals are.

Mr. Hattersley : When provoked, the right hon. Gentleman always changes from a second-class Home Secretary to a third-class party chairman- - [Interruption.] We shall certainly not oppose the Bill but we shall, of course, vote for the amendments that are necessary to improve it. If the Home Secretary, like some of his Back Benchers, will contain himself with patience for a little longer, I shall describe some of our improvements to the whole area of policy which the right hon. Gentleman touched on but did not deal with in sufficient detail.

Mr. Shersby : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : Yes, but this must be the last time because I must make progress.

Mr. Shersby : The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need for urgency and asked why the Bill was being rushed through the House. That is a perfectly fair question, but does he agree that the tragic deaths of several people, as recently as the day on which the Queen's Speech was being read in the other place, must place on all hon. Members a degree of urgency to deal with this terrible problem?

Mr. Hattersley : Of course I agree with that in principle, but it begs the question whether the Bill will prevent the tragic occurrences to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We rushed through the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but a young boy was killed by dogs a fortnight ago. The idea that passing the Bill will automatically prevent such things is a mistake--

Mr. Baker : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that particular case?

Mr. Hattersley : In a minute--

Mr. Baker : Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley : I will give way at the end of the next paragraph. The Home Secretary has--

Mr. John M. Taylor (Solihull) : How do we know when the right hon. Gentleman is at the end of his paragraph?

Mr. Hattersley : I shall give way to the Whip if he would like to intervene.

I was in the process of commending the Home Secretary for the Government's one positive initiative. I refer to the attempt to persuade British motor manufacturers to produce more secure cars. However, after three years of attempted persuasion, beginning with a meeting in Downing street in 1988, the initiative has not yet succeeded. I was delighted to see a television commercial last night which commended a car that was unlikely to be stolen. In the age of European car production, there are difficulties in persuading manufacturers to incorporate security features the necessity for which is limited to

Column 632

Britain. The French, Germans and Italians do not suffer from the disease to the same extent. That, I suppose, is why it is necessary to obtain common European standards

Mr. Baker rose--

Next Section

Home Page