| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Life Sentences
7. Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Taylor on the imposition of mandatory life sentences on those convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time; and if he will make a statement. [34523]
Mr. Howard: Those who repeat serious violent or sexual offences should not be released until it is safe to do so. Our proposals for an automatic life sentence will achieve that objective.
Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. When will he start listening to senior members of the judiciary, such as Lord Chief Justice Taylor, Lord Donaldson, Lord Justice Rose, and so on, who take the view that the imposition of a mandatory life sentence on rapists is foolish and very dangerous? It will give the rapist an incentive to kill the victim because, at the end of the day, he will get the same sentence. With respect,
I would have thought that, bearing in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appalling record in the courts over the past 12 months, it is high time that he started listening to the judges.
Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman took that argument to its logical conclusion, he would be against all life sentences of imprisonment. I am not. I think that life sentences of imprisonment have an important part to play because they impose a risk assessment before someone who has committed a serious sexual or violent offence is released to be a danger to the public again. I am not prepared to defend a situation in which 217 offenders committed a second serious sexual or violent offence in 1994. Only 10 of them were given life sentences, which meant that they were subject to a risk assessment before they were released to be a further risk to the public. I put the protection of the public at the top of my agenda. I hope that all of us who are in positions of responsibility accept that.
Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one reason why his standing and credibility has gone up is that he has listened not to the judges but to the public and my constituents? Does he agree that people who are convicted of serious sexual offences should be properly monitored after their first offence and when they are released? What steps are being taken?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the proposals in the White Paper is for extended supervision of sex offenders, and that goes directly to the point that he raised. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) should pay attention to the views of police officers, as well as to those of the public. The police must deal with serious, violent and persistent criminals at the sharp end of life on our streets, day in, day out and night in, night out, and their opinion on the matter is worthy of special respect.
Mr. Spearing: Is the Home Secretary aware that the two murderers of the late Daniel Handley were second-time offenders? Is he further aware that Daniel Handley and his family were constituents of mine? Can he confirm that his Department is responsible for the national criminal intelligence service? In view of press reports and my correspondence with the Minister of State, will he say categorically whether that service did or did not play an efficient, effective and timely role in the apprehension of those two murderers?
Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I had no prior notice of that question and I have not seen the whole of his correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that she has looked into the matter, and has given him as full a response as possible.
Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that extended supervision of released violent offenders is long overdue? Does he further agree that the distress and tragedy of a victim of a serious violent and sexual assault is exacerbated by the knowledge that a first offender has been released to commit an identical crime the second time around? Will he please continue to listen to the public and not to the judges?
Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend about the great distress caused to victims in these circumstances. That is one of the reasons behind my proposals for honest sentencing, and also for extended supervision of sex offenders.
Prisons (Ministerial Visits)
9. Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purposes of ministerial visits to prisons. [34525]
Miss Widdecombe: I visit prisons to see for myself what is happening at individual establishments and to talk to staff, to prisoners and to members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. It is a particularly important part of my role as Prisons Minister and I have so far visited 70 prisons.
Dr. Jones: What action did the Minister take following her visit to Holloway prison on 27 July last year? Was not her visit well in advance of the decision in December by the chief inspector of prisons to pull out his team because of the appalling conditions he found there? Does she consider that she misled the House on 28 March this year by denying that she had visited the prison six months before the start of the inspection, while conveniently omitting to mention that she had been there more than four months before?
Miss Widdecombe: The answer to the second part of the hon. Lady's question is simple. She asked whether I had visited the prison six months earlier, but the hon. Lady could not add up--I therefore pointed out that she had got it wrong. I am sorry that she could not add up. As for what I did when I went to Holloway, it is on the record that I drew my concerns to the attention of the Prison Service, and it is equally on the record that the Prison Service put in an extra £300,000 in October of that year to combat the problems at the prison.
Mr. Amess: Does my hon. Friend agree that our recent visit to Chelmsford prison was extremely valuable, as we saw at first hand that prison does act as a deterrent and that Chelmsford is an extremely well-run prison?
Miss Widdecombe: I congratulate Chelmsford prison on its many achievements, and I confirm what my hon. Friend says. It is a well-run prison, and there was much in it that impressed me.
Mr. George Howarth: On the subject of ministerial visits to prisons, when the Minister visited Parkhurst prison several months ago--as I did yesterday--did she look at the special secure unit on which more than £3 million has been spent? Did she also see the additional security measures installed there that have cost many millions of pounds more? Is she aware that no prisoner has ever spent a night in that special secure unit? Is she further aware that the additional security measures are far in excess of the need for the security classification of the prison, because the Home Office and Ministers reduced its security categorisation from A to B?
Is she not ashamed to have wasted so much taxpayers' money on security measures that are no longer necessary for that prison? Why does she not reconsider the matter and raise its classification back up to security A?
Miss Widdecombe:
Just now, the Opposition were complaining that we had not responded to General Learmont's report. We removed Parkhurst from the dispersal system in direct response to a major recommendation in General Learmont's considered report. His reasoning for removing the prison was rather more considered than that just shown by the hon. Gentleman.
10. Sir John Hunt:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current level of home beat policing in the London borough of Bromley. [34526]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that all areas of Bromley are covered by home beat officers--and that the number of police officers on duty in the borough has been rising since January this year.
Sir John Hunt:
If my hon. Friend agrees, as I hope he does, that a bobby on the beat represents a strong deterrent to crime as well as giving great encouragement to the general public, can he give a firm undertaking that the recent police restructuring in Bromley will not lead to any diminution in home beat cover?
Mr. Kirkhope:
In Bromley, there is great concern that the police presence should be as near the public as possible in the community. That is why there are now 19 home beat officers, plus 25 officers attached to dedicated sector teams in the community and eight attached to the town centre unit. It is the intention in Bromley to meet the target of 481 officers overall long before March 1997, which was the original date intended. The police expect to reach that target by September this year.
11. Mr. Gallie:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what actions he is taking to curb under-age drinking; and if he will make a statement. [34527]
Mr. Kirkhope:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I believe that more effective measures are needed to prevent under-age drinking in public places. When there is a suitable legislative opportunity, we propose giving the police a new power to confiscate alcohol from under-age people drinking in public. That would give the police the means to deal with the problem immediately and at source.
Mr. Gallie:
I thank my hon. Friend for that commitment. I draw to his attention the fact that it will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, where alcohol
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am sure that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In doing so, I congratulate him on the way in which he has campaigned vigorously for a change in the law. Only a few days ago, at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting, my hon. Friend once again referred to the matter. We do not quite know the vehicle that could be used--perhaps a private Member's Bill would be the most appropriate--but we are keen to see that change in the law, because it will have an impact on what is undoubtedly a considerable nuisance.
Mr. Michael:
Will the Minister acknowledge that the promise of action to tackle the possession of alcohol by young people follows the initiative taken by Labour-controlled Coventry city council to limit drinking on the streets? Will he also consider stiffer penalties for those who sell alcohol to under-age young people, to ensure that action is taken on the issue and that we do not just have words? Given that the Minister has had legislative opportunities coming out of his ears with the number of Bills that the Home Office has introduced in recent years, does he accept that he would have the co-operation of the Opposition if he were positive about bringing forward legislation at an early date?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am almost gobsmacked by an offer from the Opposition to support Government measures to bring about greater law enforcement--it is rare for them to do so, but I welcome it. Perhaps in the meantime, I might tell those local authorities that are concerned with the problem, as Conservative Members are, that they now have the ability to take action under byelaws if they so wish. Although prosecutions of those who sell alcohol to underage people continue, the number of such offences, I am glad to say, has been dropping in the past few years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |