House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Jan 1994

Mr. Blair : I shall certainly give way to the Home Secretary-- unlike, if I may say, his decision in relation to me. But I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, as she has been waiting.

Lady Olga Maitland : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the subject of secure units, does he accept that the real problem is not the lack of beds available, because, according to the bed bureau, space can almost always be found for a child? The real problem is that the juvenile magistrates are deeply frustrated at the

Column 40

fact that they have to hand a child back to social services, which persistently refuse on ideological grounds to make use of secure units.

Mr. Blair : That is absolute nonsense. We have made inquiries of the national bed bureau within the past few weeks. It says that there is a huge surplus of demand for secure accommodation by local authorities over supply. The hon. Lady's statement is quite incorrect.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman said with a great flourish a moment ago that the Lib-Lab council in Leicestershire was now--and he used the words--prepared to co-operate with the Government in providing the accommodation. Perhaps he will tell us what the Labour party did over the past 10 years, when it refused to proceed with a proposal for secure accommodation, which had been approved by a previous Conservative Administration. For the whole decade the Labour party consistently refused to provide secure accommodation. The fact that it is now prepared to co- operate hardly alters the record for that decade.

Mr. Blair : With respect, that is only one example. I have made quite clear what has now happened and what our view of it is. The notion that that can invalidate the entirety of the policy is plainly absurd. Let me tell the Home Secretary the advantages of dealing with the matter in that way. First, the places could be achieved without delay. This country does not want to wait years before the problem is dealt with. It wants it dealt with now. Secondly, it allows the provision to be both local and integrated, as everybody, including the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Association of Chief Police Officers, have asked for.

Mr. Jonathan Evans : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : No, I must press on.

Mr. Evans : The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would give way.

Mr. Blair : I am sorry. I really must press on.

We have also discovered an internal Government document which specifically compares young offenders institutions with secure local authority units and finds that for local authority units there is not only a better record on education and training but a better rate of reconviction-- [Interruption.] I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman is going to heckle me all the way through.

Mr. Jonathan Evans : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to heckle him, but he may recall that he promised some time ago that he would give way to me.

The hon. Gentleman is receiving a briefing now from his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who knows that, as soon as I was elected to the House, he and I went to see Welsh Office Ministers to make sure that secure accommodation was available in south Wales, particularly in the Cardiff area, which is experiencing the highest rise in crime anywhere in the country. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) will explain to the House why, after all that time, secure accommodation is now to be made available in Neath--another local authority area altogether?

Column 41

Mr. Blair : That is an outrageous claim, which has been dealt with on several occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and other hon. Members were pressing for that secure accommodation, but the Government refused to co-operate, and lessons can be learnt from that.

The advantage of that provision is that it can be integrated into proper programmes of diversion, prevention and punishment within local communities. A short time ago, a report was published, showing the gaps in provision in all sorts of good programmes for young people. To make way for some of the new secure training centres, not only are we failing to build on the provisions already there but other programmes of assistance to deal with habitual young offenders are being systematically dismantled. Residential places for disturbed young children and motor projects dealing with car thieves are closing and two thirds of local authorities have been forced to make cuts in youth services. To weaken the provisions in local communities and then to claim that building the new secure training centres will help to prevent juvenile crime is a sham. We know that and I believe that the Government know that as well.

Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman knows that this is an elaborate smokescreen. He has to answer a simple question : does he think that the courts should be given the power, which they do not now have, to sentence those young people to periods in secure accommodation, or does he not? If he does, is he prepared to vote for that provision in the Bill?

Mr. Blair : As the Minister well knows, because that point is put to me every time, our dispute with him is not about the powers--we agree that the courts require them--but over our belief that it is better to deal with the problems by integrating the powers with proper local provision. That is what has been suggested by virtually everyone who has looked into the problems.

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary is selective in the points to which he replies? He responded on the Leicestershire point, but ignored the Leeds point. More than two years ago, discussions were under way with the Leeds authority on the provision of 10 extra places at a cost then of £500,000. I also know, as does my hon. Friend, that the bed bureau is run by the Leeds authority, so it has unique knowledge of the numbers of spaces needed and of the impossibility of getting a secure place. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) is wrong. Places cannot be achieved. Why does not the Home Secretary answer the question as to why the offer from Leeds, the plans made and discussed with Departments, were not followed up? Why do we still not have those places? Why--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. Hon. Members should ask one question at a time, not six.

Mr. Blair : I apologise for missing that inconsistency in what the Home Secretary said, but there are so many inconsistencies that occasionally one slips through the net. This issue shows the difference between what the Tories say and what they do on law and order. Such action could be taken now and combined in the way I set out, but the exaggerations go all the way through.

Column 42

Let us be clear about the purpose of a criminal justice system. It should be not on the side of the accused or of the prosecution but on the side of truth. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was set up to establish the framework for improving our system. I disagreed with some of its points and others disagreed with other points but, on the whole, it was welcomed. However, the Government will now depart from two key aspects of it.

First, the Government have refused to include in the Bill provision for the establishment of a proper independent review body for miscarriages of justice. That omission cannot be justified. The recommendation was widely trailed and examination of it was the principal reason for establishing the commission. There is justifiable dismay that it has not been included in the Bill. We shall be tabling amendments to include it.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Secretary's explanation of why it has not been included does not make much sense? The suggestion has been around since 1982, when the Home Affairs Select Committee first made it--its then Chairman is now a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office--and it was so uncontroversial that it had the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). The suggestion was again made by the royal commission, but the Government have still ignored it.

Mr. Blair : My hon. Friend is right. Recently, I saw comments made three years ago by the present Foreign Secretary showing why he supported such a body. Omission of that provision cannot be justified.

The second issue is the right to silence. The royal commission decided that, although abuses could be remedied, it was wrong to abolish that right, particularly in the police station. The royal commission took that view after the most careful research which showed, among other things, that it was relied upon in a small number of cases and, in the majority of them, there was a conviction or a guilty plea. Even those in the minority who dissented took the view that there had to be fundamental additional safeguards before that right could be interfered with.

What people find most worrying is the tone and attitude of the Home Secretary when he discusses the issue. Even those who have advocated curtailing the right to silence have done so with some regard to the sensitivity of the issue and with some sense of the fact that we are dealing with fundamental legal questions. When the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland moved the Irish provision, he did so in that way, not with a one-liner delivered to the Tory party conference. That was not the action of a responsible Home Secretary. The right to silence covers two entirely different situations. The first is, where a prosecution case is disclosed, the accused knows exactly what is being alleged and its significance and is acting with qualified legal advice. There is justifiable concern that entirely new facts or defences could be raised at trial and, as it is described, the prosecution ambushed. There is huge dispute about the prevalence of that, but let us assume that it happens.

I do not believe that it is inconsistent with civil liberties to allow that lack of disclosure to be properly commented on, but that is a million miles away from the other type of case. That is, before charges are brought, when the person is being questioned--he may not understand the significance of what he is asked and may not be legally

Column 43

represented--he fails to mention a fact that is later relevant. Under the Government proposals, even if that fact were subsequently disclosed before the trial so that there was no question of ambush, the failure could be used to draw inferences of guilt.

Any reasonable person could see that that approach is open to potential injustice. The Bill makes no provision for extra safeguards. The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Richard Ferguson QC, himself a former Member of Parliament--

Mr. Trimble : No, of the Stormont Parliament.

Mr. Blair : I apologise. He was a member of the Stormont Parliament. He has said that it is not the professional criminal who is at risk but the vulnerable innocent.

I asked the Home Secretary a specific question about Northern Ireland and he told me that he was unable to give figures. However, we have the figures, so let me tell him that, since the right to silence has been abolished in Northern Ireland, the number of prosecutions has dropped, although crime has been rising, and the number of convictions as a percentage of prosecutions has dropped. I appreciate that that is not proof absolute that the right to silence has not had the impact suggested by the Home Secretary, but when he tells us that the change is fundamental to getting more criminals prosecuted or convicted, it is more than passing strange that he has not even analysed what happened when the change was introduced in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what was said by the head of the anti-terrorist branch, when asked whether there was any single measure that he believed could save lives? He said that the most frustrating experience for him and his officers was when they had before them a terrorist suspect who would not even confirm or deny his identity, and that to have the ability to draw that to the attention of the jury was important. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?

Mr. Blair : I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I would say. It is that that has to be done following an examination of whether that is the problem that we face. At the very least, before we have the fullest possible evidence of its impact in Northern Ireland, it is wrong to legislate here. When the matter was debated in relation to Northern Ireland five years ago, considerable hesitation was expressed, even by those on the Government Benches. As I say, it is the tone and the attitude as much as anything else which concerns people. That same dogma and lack of balance turn up again in the proposals for more prison privatisation.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : No, I must move on. The proposals for prison privatisation have been made when we have not evaluated the existing private prisons.

The dogma and lack of balance come up again in the curbing of those who protest against fox hunting, whereas no reciprocal duties are put on anything else. I disagree totally with anyone who starts disrupting the ability of people to go fishing, and so forth. However, I do not see

Column 44

why police officers should try to prevent people from lawfully protesting against fox hunting. That does not seem to be the proper role of the police.

There is rank hypocrisy in some of the provisions. The Prime Minister said a few days ago that he wanted to "put the victim first". He should tell that to the tens of thousands of victims who will lose proper compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board provisions. If we are to deal with the criminal justice system, let us deal with the real scandal of the system. At a time when crime is rising and when there is more violent and serious crime, the number of prosecutions is falling and the number of cases which are discontinued or in which charges are dropped is rising. Courts are lying idle while crime is rising around them. A Government who are concerned about law and order should address those issues. However, during the past few months, there has been a 17 per cent. drop in the number of cases that have been dealt with by Crown courts.

Those are practical measures, but the fundamental criticism of the Government is of their lack of balance. I return, as I have often done, to the fact that only one in 50 crimes leads to a conviction. The figures are one in 200 for crimes of vandalism and one in 10 for violent assaults.

Mr. Riddick : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair : I will not give way.

Only one in three crimes in Britain is even recorded. The prison population may top 50,000. How would that compare with the 20 million crimes a year which are committed in our country? That is the case for tackling causes as well as crime, and for prevention as well as punishment.

The deceit of the claims as to whether that would work is then combined with the dogma of the refusal to accept crime prevention measures that would give us a realistic chance of cutting crime. Three years ago, the Government published a report on crime prevention which suggested that an urgent statutory framework of crime prevention was needed. That proposal was rejected because of dogma and because it would give a role to local authorities. Worse, the Government are now to undermine community policing by centralising policing in the hands of the Government and by having Ministers appoint people to the boards.

We need, of course, a proper national programme of drugs education. A Home Office report last week said that drugs and crime were intimately connected and that there was widespread concern about that linkage. The report also said that work urgently needed to be undertaken to develop education for 12 to 18-year-olds. What is the Government's response? They have withdrawn funding from drugs education co-ordinators in our schools and youth services. Time and time again, action that is required is not taken. New laws to tackle racial harassment and abuse are absent from the Bill. Safer cities projects and the urban programme are being cut and are having their funding reduced. In south Wales, police stations are at risk as a result of the problems. That is because the Government are more interested in a few grabbed headlines than in a proper strategy for fighting crime.

Let us be clear. No one but a fool would excuse the commission of crime on the basis of social conditions, but no one but a Tory would deny the influence that those social conditions can have on the way in whch our young people develop. That is why we need to remedy not just the

Column 45

faults of the criminal justice system but the culture of despair, hopelessness, drugs, violence, instability, poor education and poor job prospects that characterise elements of our young people today. To achieve that, we do not need or want lectures from Ministers on the responsibilities of everyone else but themselves. We want them to play their part in building a better and safer country of responsible citizens. We want them to open up new educational opportunities and to give our young people the chance of a decent job and training. We want them to rebuild the crumbling public services in many of our cities and towns. We want them to stop the rot of the social disintegration which is all around us. That is the "back to basics" that the country wants to see implemented today by the Government.

Mr. Riddick : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) knows full well that the hon. Gentleman who is at the Dispatch Box is not giving way to him. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would stay in his seat and remain quiet.

Mr. Blair : It is significant that when we talk about "back to basics" Conservative Members want to heckle and to interrupt to make sure that no one listens.

Mr. Riddick : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has just accused me of wanting to heckle and interrupt, when what I wanted was to make an intervention and to put a question to him. Will you now ask him to withdraw that accusation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I certainly will not ask the hon. Member to withdraw it. The hon. Member for Colne Valley knew full well that the hon. Gentleman who was at the Dispatch Box was not giving way. The rules of the House are clear and hon. Members should know them. The hon. Member who has the floor has the right to give way or not to give way. Hon. Members who choose not to give way should be respected.

Mr. Blair : I have given way a great deal during the debate, and there are other hon. Members who want to speak.

I was talking about the programmes which we want to see for our country, programmes which would tackle both the criminal justice system and the causes of crime. Government Members should know that one cannot build a strong and cohesive society that encourages responsible citizens unless one believes in a strong and cohesive society. We must acknowledge that people are not just individuals but that they are members of a society and a community and that they owe obligations to one another as well as to themselves.

To achieve that balance between individual responsibility and social responsibility, we must believe in our country as a society of responsible citizens. It is because the Opposition believe in that concept, and the Government do not, that our programme for fighting crime is better.

Column 46

5.8 pm

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking) : Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and I have no wish to make a long speech. I welcome the Bill because of its contents, and I deplore the fact that the Opposition cannot bring themselves to do the same.

There is great deal which might, and no doubt will, be said about changes in the law and about strengthening the law in relation to young offenders, bail provisions and the other matters which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary mentioned. Those measures will be generally welcomed both outside and inside the House. My immediate concern is fastened on one part of the Bill--part V, and in particular clause 61, which repeals the obligation that the Caravan Sites Act 1968 imposes upon local authorities to provide sites for gipsies and other travellers.

There is no doubt that the Act has long passed its use-by date. That was conceded by the Government and was welcomed by the House in a debate a year or so ago on the private Member's Bill which I sought leave to introduce to deal with the subject. I look forward to hearing more from Ministers in Committee about how the new system will work and how it will be applied. For example, will a target be set for the number of new sites to be opened around the country when the planning system takes over, and who will have the responsibility of making sure that sites are available?

I am a little surprised that there is no mention in the explanatory memorandum of the savings which will result from the repeal of those parts of the 1968 Act. Another point which will be of interest is the future ownership and management of existing council sites. Are those likely to be privatised? Will there be a licensing system? How will those matters be dealt with?

I have no doubt that that can be dealt with in Committee. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not be disappointed to hear that I do not aspire to membership of the Committee, because I know that many other hon. Members who are much better qualified than myself will volunteer to deal with all the points of law involved.

Part V and its provisions to strengthen the position of those people who want law and order to prevail in the countryside are an important departure from precedent. The creation of a new offence of aggravated trespass is a significant step forward that will be widely welcomed in all parts of the country where people have become all too used to disorder, intimidation and violence prevailing and interrupting the lawful pursuits of those who live in the country, value it and want to continue with their countryside sports. Frankly, I was astonished that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)--if I could have his attention for a second--felt obliged to throw a sop to his left-wing colleagues by saying that he did not see why police officers should be employed to prevent violent disorder from surrounding hunt activities and meetings.

Hon. Members : He did not say that.

Mr. Blair : I did not say that at all. Of course, whenever there is violence or the law is broken, the police should be involved, whether at a fox hunt or anything else. What I did say, however, was that it was not the function of the police

Column 47

to be employed to prevent people from engaging in otherwise lawful activities merely because they are opposed to fox hunting.

Sir Cranley Onslow : I am glad to hear that rather reluctant confession. Nothing in the Bill is likely to prevent lawful protests, and if the hon. Gentleman reads it with care he will see that. The Bill seeks to prevent people from invading the property of others and making free with it, in spite of the owner's wishes and the fact that he or she has given consent for certain activities there.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose --

Sir Cranley Onslow : I find it extremely difficult to follow the rationale of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, except in so far as he wants to curry favour with his anti-fox-hunting friends, one of whom I shall not give way to.

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

Sir Cranley Onslow : No. The hon. Gentleman must make his lawful protest in a speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Banks : I am at the bottom of the list.

Sir Cranley Onslow : I am delighted to hear it. That encourages me to speak at even greater length, but I want to be fair to other hon. Members.

It is a disgrace that organised violence, deliberate provocation and physical assaults on people and animals have become an accepted way of life for a militant section of urban society. The saboteur movement has its roots not in the countryside but in the towns. Anyone who has seen busloads of Millwall supporters brought in to disrupt a hunt knows exactly what I am talking about.

Mr. Banks : As a Chelsea supporter, may I intervene?

Sir Cranley Onslow : I am afraid that on no account will I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.

It is important to add that provision on aggravated trespass to the statute book. However--this arises from some remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight)--I must comment on the response that the offence of aggravated trespass has caused in another quarter. I dare say that most hon. Members will have seen a letter from the Research Defence Society on

"Animal extremism and medical research".

The letter expresses

"concern that the government's proposed legislation is not offering any protection to the medical researchers who have been the main targets for animal rights extremists over the last two decades."

The letter continues :

"Animal rights groups have been intimidating, obstructing and attacking medical researchers who work with animals for much longer than they have been disrupting field sports. Indeed, the scale and intensity of these attacks, which have included IRA-type car bombs utilising high explosives and mercury-tilt switches, goes far beyond anything used against huntsmen and anglers. After over twenty car bombs, all against medical researchers, the police have been able to arrest not one person in connection with these terrorist attacks." I believe that provisions exist on the statute book which make such activities unlawful and capable of prosecution

Column 48

in the most serious way. However, it worries me that the law and law enforcement agencies seem to have been unable to do anything to prevent the prevalence of animal rights terrorists. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will take this as a serious plea, and that he will respond to the Research Defence Society.

Mr. Howard : That will be dealt with in the reply to the debate.

Sir Cranley Onslow : I am glad to hear that, because there can be no justification for terrorism of that sort. The House should be satisfied that all appropriate action is being taken to deal with it.

I promised to be brief, so I shall move from the content of the Bill to another subject on which I hope that the House will find itself in agreement with me. Public confidence in the law does not depend merely on what we put on the statute book. Many of our constituents have long been at a loss to understand how the judicial process works, and their conception of it is drawn from press reports.

Many hon. Members will have received letters similar to one sent to me recently by a constituent, who said :

"I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at the ludicrous practice of sending young offenders on these expensive trips Surely some form of real punishment can be found for all these tearaways? There are thousands of honest hard-working families who can barely afford a week's holiday in a caravan--and to hear about the cost of those so-called therapeutic journeys leaves one speechless." I think that that reaction is common to all of us who have been watching recent extraordinary events. The Prime Minister's reaction, which was reported in the press the other day, strikes an echo in everyone's heart. I hope that we shall hear from the Home Office that such safari penalties will be brought to an end.

For years, many people have been puzzled why, when the House sets maximum penalties for certain crimes, the maximum penalty is not applied in a case when it is difficult to conceive that a more serious offence could have been committed under the same heading. There was an example in the newspapers last week. A drink-driving taxi driver was convicted of killing three women in a head-on collision. The judge commented that his sentencing was restricted because the offence happened before a change in the law doubling the maximum penalty from five to 10 years, which in his mind made it impossible for him to impose a sentence of more than three years. I would find it hard to explain to any constituents who asked me why such an offence--drink-driving, a head-on collision and killing three innocent women--should not warrant the maximum penalty in any case. What were the mitigating factors that enabled the sentence to be three years instead of five?

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) indicated assent. Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) indicated assent.

Sir Cranley Onslow : I see that other hon. Members agree, and are equally baffled.

Hon. Members must understand that the system has to be seen to work effectively--not merely by Members of Parliament--if the public are to have confidence.

Several other cases in which court proceedings had a curious outcome come to mind. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a gentleman--if I can call him that--who

Column 49

was involved in separating a large number of people from an enormous sum of money could come away with a sentence of 180 hours of community service. That is inexplicable. There is no rational explanation for it--or if there is, I have never heard it. I have heard suggestions about what might have gone wrong in the court. I have heard criticisms of the counsel's approach, and of the way in which the trial was conducted. I do not know the facts of the matter, but the case was of enormous interest to the public, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must realise that a public explanation for the sentence should be given. Such an explanation should be given in the House. It should be possible for a report-back process to develop, whereby incredible miscarriages of justice, as perceived by the public, can at least be made comprehensible, even if not defensible.

There is a case that is still in the public's mind and for which a report back might be appropriate. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend remembers the case of Joseph Elliot. I had correspondence, on behalf of concerned constituents, with the Home Office at the time. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote me a letter in which he said that the Home Secretary had said that he intended to take a fresh look at the details of the case to see whether there were lessons to be learnt.

The jury accepted a plea of self-defence in circumstances that most people found extremely difficult to understand. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister, when winding up tonight, finds it possible to say what, if any, results the Home Secretary's review of the case has produced.

We must have not merely the best possible statutes drafted by the most competent parliamentary draftsmen, which are clear in every detail and impossible to misinterpret or to misunderstand. That is the ideal of legislation and is, of course, sometimes achieved. We must also ensure that the system works. I was especially glad to hear the Home Secretary emphasise that.

We should be concerned not only with the Bill, but with the application, the enforcement and the interpretation of its provisions. The matter concerns not just the Government and not just Parliament. The whole system must work and be seen to work. The Bill is a great step forward, and I hope that it will be seen, interpreted and taken up by the other parts of the system in a way that will make us all glad that we passed it.

5.21 pm

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : The House listened to the Home Secretary reciting a long litany of defects in the criminal justice system. One would have thought that the criminal justice system was something that, with all its defects, had just been inherited from a previous Government, and that that was why it required such root-and-branch rectification.

The fact is that this criminal justice system has existed for almost 15 years under this Government, and has been the subject of repeated amendments through Criminal Justice Bills. I was involved in the debates on the previous Criminal Justice Bill, which a previous Home Secretary said would solve all the defects of which anyone could think.

The Government talk about dealing with the crime wave and, to use the Home Secretary's phraseology, about the

Next Section

Home Page