| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford, South): Why did the Home Secretary think that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) was not appropriate because time was not available? Why, when a longer time was available, did he think that a private Member's Bill was appropriate for his current
proposals, until the Prime Minister stepped in? Why did the Home Secretary think that my hon. Friend's Bill was not the appropriate Bill?
Mr. Howard: I have just answered that question, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen introduced her Bill at a late stage in the previous Session. There was no time to engage in the sort of consultation exercise in which we have since engaged. That was why we could not do it in the previous Session.
Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge): Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard: I will in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me while I answer the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). In this Session, we thought that the speediest way forward would be through a private Member's Bill, until we received the offer in the House last week from the Leader of the Opposition. In that context, it is right that I should draw to the House's attention a most worrying communication that my right hon. Friend the Captain of the Hon. Corps of Gentlemen at Arms has received from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip in another place. It shows that that party looks as though it is likely to obstruct the passage of that legislation and go contrary to the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition in the House last week. A passage from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip's letter says:
- "We favour the principles behind both measures but we will insist on full debates in the normal timescale provided in the Companion to Standing Orders. We would resist any suggestion that the timescale should be abbreviated in any way whatever."
Mr. Howard: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disown the Chief Whip of his party in another place. I hope that that is exactly what he will do.
Mr. Beith: I rise merely to confirm the assurance that we gave that we will support and assist the passage of these Bills, but it is unusual for the Home Secretary to conduct on the Floor of the House the sort of discussions that go on in another place to ensure that, if this House does not have the details of the Bill right when it reaches the other place, it will sort the Bill out. To assist the matter, will the Home Secretary guarantee that he will introduce no amendments to the Bill in the other place?
Mr. Howard: That fell some way short of the sort of assurance that we might have expected from the right hon. Gentleman and his party, if they were determined to co-operate to get the legislation through as quickly as possible on the fast track promised by the Leader of the Opposition last week.
Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I first tabled an amendment to provide for a law to deal with stalking during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? Does he further agree that the difficulties that were explained then by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that, before this sort of legislation could be introduced, it had to have the most careful consultation and consideration, including representations from organisations such as Liberty?
Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We pay careful attention to the representations that have been made, both by Liberty and police associations, and they have all contributed to the fact that the legislation, which we hope to introduce shortly, will be in such excellent shape.
The first criminal offence is to catch persons who behave on more than one occasion in a way that causes the victim to believe that immediate violence would be used against them, and the maximum penalty would be five years in prison. The second offence is to catch persons who behave persistently in a way that causes someone to be distressed, alarmed or harassed. The maximum penalty would be six months in prison. Those proposals will also help to protect the victims of racial harassment and nuisance from neighbours.
Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale):
As to paedophilia, why is there no Bill in Government time on sex tourism, to prosecute men in particular who engage in sexual acts with children in other countries?
Mr. Howard:
A similar private Member's Bill made excellent progress through the House in the last Session and is now on the statute book--and was none the worse for taking that route. However, we will take the hon. Lady's comment on board when we make our final decisions about the way in which our proposals will be taken through the House.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin):
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
The centrepiece of our legislation will be the Crime (Sentences) Bill. The proposals that it contains have one simple aim--to protect the public from serious persistent and dangerous criminals. The police have revolutionised the way in which they fight crime. They are increasingly targeting persistent and known criminals who commit the majority of crime. About two thirds of crimes are committed by a hard core--one fifth or so--of offenders. Operation Bumblebee and Operation Christmas Cracker are testament to the success of the police.
We need to ensure that the criminal justice system targets also the career criminal. Our proposals will do just that. They represent the most radical reforms to our sentencing system this century.
For serious sexual and violent criminals, the maximum penalty for crimes such as armed robbery and rape is a life sentence. Such offenders rarely get life, even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious sexual or violent crime.
All 217 offenders could have been given a life sentence but only 10 were. Unless such offenders are given life, they must be released even if they remain a danger to the public. That cannot be right. It does not give the public the protection that they deserve.
Two months ago, for example, a rapist was sentenced to life at Chelmsford Crown court. He was described by the judge as "verging on the satanic" and had been convicted of rape before, not once but twice. One of his victims was a nine-year-old girl. Because that rapist was not given a life sentence, he had to be released--released to rape again. He did. That is something that should never happen.
The Crime (Sentences) Bill will ensure that second-time serious violent and sexual offenders get a life sentence. In such cases the trial judge will set the tariff--the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once that term has been served, the parole board will decide whether the offender still poses a danger to the public. If he does, he will remain in prison. If he does not, he will be released on life licence and subject to recall for the rest of his life. The Association of Chief Police Officers, supporting my proposals when I announced them in 1995, said:
Mr. Howard:
My hon. Friend is right, as I was about to explain.
The hon. Member for Blackburn likes to pretend that he supports that policy, but there are fundamental differences between us. The hon. Gentleman does not, despite his strenuous efforts to give the opposite impression, support automatic life sentence for second-time rapists and other serious sexual offenders Under his proposals, those offenders--once judged safe to be released--could not be recalled back to prison. In addition, his proposal would not cover repeat violent offenders. As the hon. Gentleman explained in his document, "Honesty, Consistency and Progression in Sentencing",
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
"The public have a right to be protected."
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge):
Lord Justice Donaldson has been quoted as saying that he disagreed with that particular issue. My understanding is that a judge could say, in exceptional circumstances, that a second life sentence should not be imposed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?
"Offences of a sexual nature should be distinguished from other violent offences."
The Opposition think that the public do not need greater protection from those who conspire to commit murder or from armed robbers. Despite all the synthetic fuss that they are presently making about knives, they argued against giving the police greater stop and search powers to deal with those who carry knives on our streets and they now oppose automatic life sentences for those who twice use knives to inflict serious injury on others.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |