| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.34 am
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). We always know where he stands, even if we do not wish to be standing anywhere near him at the time.
I should start by taking the cautious step of declaring an interest. For the past 25 years I have been a practising barrister. I have prosecuted and I have defended, and for about 10 years I have been a recorder. I am also involved in various non-political bodies connected with the legal system and the sentencing process.
One always approaches these debates with the suspicion that the politics of law and order neither enhance the law nor improve the good order of the society in which we live. Debates like this can draw out on the one side the dotty, and on the other side the sanctimonious, and there is always a danger of being left with a compromise of policy that is a bit dotty and slightly sanctimonious. I hope that we can escape that in the conclusions that are drawn from this debate.
Before I turn to my general theme, I should like to deal with a number of points that were raised by the Minister in what was an interesting and wide-ranging speech. I entirely share his view that we should take every step feasible to improve the security of our communities--the physical security of town centres and housing estates. I should also mention the security of rural areas such as Montgomeryshire, which I represent. The success of the farm watch scheme in Montgomeryshire has not only reduced the scourge of sheep rustling--a centuries-old offence that remains as difficult to detect as ever it was without the total support of the farming community. The success of farm watch has helped to reduce other crimes, too, in rural areas like mine.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred in passing to the Dyfed-Powys police. I pay tribute to that force. Under the extremely imaginative leadership of its chief constable, Ray White, it has become the most successful force statistically in the whole of England and Wales. One can understand why if one has had the sort of contact with it that I have had.
A few summers ago, there was a huge hippy invasion in part of my constituency. One midnight I rang up the police control room--the ordinary control room--simply to get a report on how things had progressed during the day because many constituents had contacted me. The switchboard was answered by the chief constable of Dyfed-Powys police, Mr. White, who was taking his turn in dealing with ordinary public inquiries on that evening of stress for the local police. That is a fine example of the sort of work which Ray White is prepared to do.
Ray White has done something else that I think that the Home Office ought to consider in response to the demands that the Crown Prosecution Service should be
brought closer to the police. When the CPS was created, the then Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), made it absolutely clear that it was his purpose to ensure that we had an independent Crown Prosecution Service. He was right. The rationale for having an independent CPS is as good as ever. Its independence in many areas has helped to improve the quality of evidence brought forward by the police because it has been able to advise the police in an independent way.
I have real misgivings about bringing the Crown Prosecution Service as close to the police as, for example, the old Metropolitan police prosecutors used to be when I was a pupil barrister in London a long time ago.
In Dyfed-Powys, Mr. White has employed an experienced criminal lawyer as the force legal adviser. Other forces have done the same. The result is that, in cases with tricky problems, and in connection with investigations as well as decisions on whether to bring charges, the force is able to turn to an in-house lawyer who can give advice, the expertise for which is founded on inside knowledge of the way in which the police service operates. I suggest to the Home Office that it would be better to increase the number of force legal advisers than to increase the closeness between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in an operational sense.
A matter to which I referred in an intervention is the position of victims of crime. I have declared my interest, so I can safely say this: from the viewpoint of someone who sits in the Crown court as a judge, it is often frustrating that in crimes of violence, the judge cannot really know, first, what has happened to the victim and, secondly, what the views of the victim are about the crime after a period of reflection. The views of the victim are sometimes rather surprising, and it is always helpful to know them.
I suggest to the Home Office that we have reached the point at which the simple step of a written statement, as suggested by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), might be appropriate. At the very least, if we do not have a formal procedure, we should have an invariable informal practice to ensure that when a crime of violence in particular has taken place, the physical and mental condition of the victim are routinely drawn to the attention of the judge. We should ensure too that the views of the victim at the time of the sentencing of the criminal are known, which may or may not, according to the discretion of the judge, affect the sentence that is passed. At least if that information is given, the judge has empirical information on which to act.
Mr. Maclean:
I do not dissent from the vast bulk of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. We want, of course, to ensure that the prosecution is able to argue intelligently on the condition of the victim. It is vital that the prosecution can present that information to the court so that the judge is aware of it. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept, however, that part of my worry about a formalised victim impact statement is that it might be challengeable by the defence? If it was challenged by the defence, we might find that there was a big argument about whether it was accurate and there might be an attempt to cross-examine the victim on the state of his or her suffering.
Mr. Carlile:
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. In the courts now, so-called Newton hearings
The Minister also mentioned drugs. I am glad that he came to that in his speech. When I started at the Bar in 1970, most offences committed by young people were related to alcohol. Now, most serious offences committed by young people are in some way related to drugs. In 1970, when I started to practise, drugs were in the dance halls and the discos. Through the 1980s, they reached the gates of the school. Now there is hardly an area in which drugs are not available within schools. I include rural areas such as those which I and the Minister represent, which are similar in character.
The drugs available include extremely dangerous psychotropic drugs such as ecstasy. Those drugs alter the balance of the mind and, worse still, alter the chemistry of the brain. Some of them may be short-acting, but their effects, as we know from the Leah Betts case and many others, can be extreme. I do not seek to play politics with any attempt by any Government of any persuasion to ensure that young people in schools, starting from a very young age, are made fully aware of the dangers of drug abuse.
Lady Olga Maitland:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
I believe that if we had a royal commission on drugs, which is my party's policy, it would come down firmly against the legalisation of cannabis and all dangerous drugs; I have strong personal views on that point.
Mr. Carlile:
I will give way in a moment. The hon. Lady should be patient.
To finish my paragraph, I urge the Home Office and especially the Department for Education and Employment to recognise that health education on drugs in schools is patchy. In some schools, it is taught well whereas in other schools, it is a fill-in subject taught by people who spend most of their time teaching other subjects and who have little knowledge of the real issues. It is time for a determined standardisation of the quality of health education on drugs.
I cannot offer a solution. I do not believe that any of us has found the solution to this desperate problem. However, from my observations in the courts over many years, I can tell the Minister that drugs are ruining not only the lives of young people who have come from deprived backgrounds, some of whom might, therefore, be expected to commit crimes, but the lives of children from perfectly organised families where there are two parents and a strong sense of responsibility. Somehow, the temptation of the drug, usually through the school at first, is overwhelming. Now I will give way.
Lady Olga Maitland:
I totally accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's personal feelings about drugs. However, how does he equate his feelings with the fact that in 1994 at the Liberal Democrat party conference, delegates voted for a motion supporting the decriminalisation of the possession and use of cannabis? Surely that passes out a dangerous and insidious message. In truth, that is the real position of the Liberal Democrats. They are soft on drugs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |