| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): Does the Home Secretary agree that, in dealing with burglaries, attention should be directed on those who habitually receive stolen goods and thereby encourage others to burgle?
Mr. Howard: I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact that a particular offence does not come within the very precisely targeted category that has been selected for mandatory minimum sentences does not, of course, mean that the courts should pass a life sentence in those cases. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified a category that will no doubt receive the attention of the courts where appropriate.
Persistent burglars and drug dealers are a menace to society, and they should know that if they continue to offend they will go to prison for a long time. In too many cases, non-custodial sentences or very short prison sentences are imposed on burglars who have numerous
previous convictions. It just cannot be right that burglars before the court for their seventh or subsequent conviction are getting average sentences of 19 months--serving perhaps 10 months. That is only a few months longer than the 15 or 16 months--serving perhaps eight months--of first offenders who are sent to prison. Stiff minimum sentences will provide a real deterrent to persistent offenders and ensure that those who continue to offend receive the punishment that they so richly deserve.
I do not accept that these proposals encroach improperly on judicial independence. It has always been Parliament's responsibility to set the statutory framework for sentencing, and for judges to exercise their discretion within that framework.
It has been argued that mandatory sentences will not work because it is the certainty of conviction that deters offenders, not the severity of sentence. But improving detection rates and imposing stiffer sentences are not alternatives, they are complementary. The most effective deterrent is to have both. The police are taking action to improve detection rates in a number of ways, for example, by targeting known and persistent offenders. The Government's proposals will back that up. Bringing persistent burglars back before the courts time and time again is useless if the sentence imposed is one that they can regard as a minor occupational hazard in their chosen career.
Ros Burnett of Oxford university, in a study entitled "The Dynamics of Recidivism", found on the basis of interviews with prisoners that
The public rightly expect protection from serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The proposals that I have outlined are carefully targeted at crimes of particular concern to the public--serious sex and violent offences, domestic burglary, and dealing in hard drugs. The Government believe that urgent action is required to provide a real deterrent to such offenders; to punish severely those who continue to offend regardless; and above all to protect the public from their activities. The White Paper "Protecting the Public", and our new proposals for sex offenders and for making better preventive use of criminal records, are further steps towards protecting the public in that way.
I now deal with the position taken by the Opposition parties. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is deputy leader of the Labour party, is not present for the debate, as his ambitions to become shadow Home Secretary are famous, and this would have been the perfect opportunity for him to size up the Home Affairs portfolio and to learn from the many mistakes of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
The hon Gentleman's approach to policy making consists of a four-stage process typical of the manic depressive. The first is the manic phase. He hears about someone else's idea. "That's a good one," he says, skipping excitedly around his room. During the second stage there is a frenzy of activity. He does not need anything more than Snopake, a photocopier and a fax machine--the usual tools of trade of the
bottom-of-the-market plagiarist. The third stage consists of panic as the plan unravels. Another Straw fiasco is complete. That leads to the final stage--deep depression.
Let us take the teenage curfew saga as a classic example. President Clinton makes a speech on teenage curfews. The hon. Gentleman gets to work within hours. This is a golden opportunity. He can see the headlines now: "Straw to crack down on kids". "Tony will be pleased,' he says to himself. "My job in the shadow Cabinet is safe after all."
The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), had already condemned the idea as "utter and complete nonsense", and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said the following day:
Mr. Donald Anderson:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given your traditional role of protector of the House, would it be appropriate for you to remind the Home Secretary that he is not at a Conservative party conference now?
Madam Speaker:
That is not really a point of order for me. I am sure that the Home Secretary is well aware of where he is at the present time.
Mr. Howard:
I understand the discomfort of members of the Labour party. I know that they do not want to hear all this. Let me remind them, however, of what the hon. Member for Blackburn told the Sunday Times. He said:
The hon. Gentleman tried one last desperate throw. We want to hear more about this: we want to hear the answer. A nationwide search was undertaken to identify a police force that might be willing to undertake a pilot scheme, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) was recruited to the cause. The Guardian reported that the West Midlands police were willing to start a pilot scheme; that was in The Guardian, so it must be true. A meeting was to be held between the police and the hon. Member for Yardley, after which the details would be announced. The meeting took place on 12 June, but for some unaccountable reason nothing has been heard
from the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady since. Could that be because no plans for a curfew were agreed after all, or because there was little or no support for the hon. Gentleman's ideas? I think we should be told, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that point when he replies.
Mr. Don Touhig (Islwyn):
As the Home Secretary is quoting from newspapers, may I ask whether he saw a piece in The Independent last week which said that the measure that he is describing was really an attempt to regain the initiative as a result of Labour's efforts? Is the Home Secretary, in fact, trying desperately to paper over the cracks in the Conservative party?
Mr. Howard:
I will leave the hon. Gentleman to take what comfort he may from The Independent.
Mr. Straw:
Perhaps the Home Secretary would also like to take some comfort, from someone whom he has already quoted--the president of the Police Superintendents Association, Mr. Brian Mackenzie. The Home Secretary may have missed it, but Mr. Mackenzie said of our proposals:
"Avoidance of imprisonment was the most frequently mentioned reason for not wanting to re-offend".
Under our proposals, persistent offenders will know that they will get a stiff sentence if they persist in offending.
"I'm not sure that a curfew would be a workable solution."
They were not alone. The chief constable of Gloucestershire, speaking as the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
"I think there are some huge practical difficulties."
In the face of that barrage, the hon. Gentleman back-tracked rapidly.
"The age groups affected could be people up to age 16."
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman stands by that quote; perhaps he will enlighten us now. [Hon. Members: "Come on."] I understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish to enlighten us. The next day, the line was completely different. "We are not thinking about the under-16s," the hon. Gentleman said. He told The Guardian:
"We are thinking about the under 10s possibly being off the streets by 9.00 pm".
What had started as a war on teenage crime ended as an attempt to protect the under-10s from themselves, all in 24 hours flat.
"Police superintendents have been complaining bitterly over the last few years about juveniles running wild and causing problems. The proposals from Jack Straw are one of a range of measures well worth considering. I am delighted that responsible authorities are looking at it."
Mr. Howard:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to answer either of the specific and direct questions that I had put to him a few moments before. I doubt very much that, when the president of the Police Superintendents Association referred to "juveniles", he was referring to the under-10s. He may have been misled by the report in the Sunday Times. He probably did not appreciate that, within 24 hours, the hon. Gentleman would back-track and change his proposals for dealing with the under-16s to a proposal to protect the under-10s from themselves.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |