---

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. I fully support everything that he is trying to do and I am sure that he will be successful.

I point out that, as yet, there is no effective or adequate deterrent for a large group of miscreants, many of whom are young. I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that I shall seek to bring forward an amendment to make corporal punishment available to the courts. We know very well that the Opposition--that make-believe party of law and order--are unlikely to want to debate the issue. However, it is quite proper that those people and the problems that they cause should be debated on the Conservative Benches, if not by Labour Members.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I cannot follow my hon. Friend down that route. It may be correct to debate the matter, but I am told--it was before my time--that the sentence was not used long before it ceased to exist in 1948 because it was generally considered to have little effect.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): Let us be clear. The Secretary of State will recall that, when the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised the issue in a similar debate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it categorically clear that he opposed the reintroduction of flogging or birching by courts. Will he confirm that view?

Mr. Howard: I thought I had. In case there is any doubt, I certainly do confirm it.

Part I of the Bill introduces mandatory prison sentences for certain serious offenders. Clause 1 requires the courts to impose a life sentence on anyone aged 18 or above who is convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual crime such as attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or serious wounding. Those offenders should only be released if, and only if, it is safe to do so. The automatic life sentence will ensure that that is the case.

The courts will determine at the point of sentence the minimum term of imprisonment that must be served for purposes of retribution and deterrence, but release will not automatically follow the completion of that term. It will depend upon a satisfactory risk assessment by the Parole Board. If the Parole Board considers that the offender represents a risk to the public, he or she will be kept in prison--if necessary, indefinitely. Those released will be on life licence and subject to recall at any time.

The need for that provision has been questioned, but the case for it is overwhelming. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence, having been previously convicted of at least one similar offence. Of those 217, only 10 received a life sentence. The others had to be released at the end of their determinate sentences, even if everyone involved knew

4 Nov 1996 : Column 913

that they were likely to offend again. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs and I am determined to remedy it.

Sir Peter Lloyd (Fareham): How many of those cases did my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General appeal against?

Mr. Howard: I shall supply my right hon. Friend with that answer in due course. The difficulty is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had to take decisions against the existing background and guidance of sentencing practice as set out by the Court of Appeal. The thrust of my proposals is that existing practice in relation to serious violent or sexual offenders does not meet the case in terms of protecting the public, for the reasons that I have explained.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): Pursuing the point made by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) a step further, can the Home Secretary name a single case upon which the Court of Appeal failed to act in an appropriate manner following a reference by the Attorney-General?

Mr. Howard: The hon. and learned Gentleman misses the point. In every case where someone has committed two serious offences of that kind, he should not be released until there has been an assessment of risk. It will still be for the court to assess how long he should serve for retribution and deterrence. If the risk assessment is met satisfactorily at the end of that period, the person concerned will be released. If it is not, he will remain in custody. That is how it should be, for the greater protection of the public.

Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge): Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the House whether any of the 217 offenders who were released at the end of their determinate sentences committed further murder or rape offences?

Mr. Howard: A number did. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will provide the exact number when he winds up the debate.

Mr. Robert Jackson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way again. I shall not trouble him again, but this is a convenient moment to make my point. His proposals will effectively abolish the distinction between a sentence for murder and a sentence for a second-time offence in the relevant categories. Is not there a risk that that will give an incentive to someone committing such an offence for the second time to commit murder?

Mr. Howard: I do not think that that would be the consequence. My hon. Friend is not entirely right; there will still be distinctions in procedures between the mandatory life sentence for any single act of murder and a life sentence for a second serious sexual or violent offence. Life imprisonment is already the maximum sentence for several offences. If my hon. Friend's argument was right--I have explained several times in detail why I do not believe it to be right--it would apply to all offences with statutory provision for a maximum

4 Nov 1996 : Column 914

sentence of life imprisonment. The argument has been rejected by the House in a number of contexts on several occasions.

Under clauses 2 and 3, the courts will be required to impose minimum prison sentences on anyone aged 18 or above who is convicted for a third time of trafficking in class A drugs or of domestic burglary. A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown court in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, it was 18.9 months. After seven or more convictions, it was barely higher, at 19.4 months. Some 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions were not sent to prison. On hard drugs, a recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction for trafficking in class A drugs was just over four years.

We need to change the terms of trade against such career criminals. The Bill provides for a minimum prison sentence of seven years for drug trafficking and of three years for burglary. The courts will have discretion to allow a small discount of up to 20 per cent. off the mandatory minimum sentences for offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and offer a timely guilty plea. The court will be able to set the mandatory sentences aside only if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. The judge must then explain those exceptional circumstances in open court. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to refer cases to the Court of Appeal if he thinks it appropriate.

Mr. David Hanson (Delyn): The Home Secretary has acknowledged that his proposals will result in a large increase in the prison population, with an associated increase in costs. Why does he think that that is a better way to deter crime than putting the money into crime prevention?

Mr. Howard: I do not believe that those are alternatives. We take crime prevention extremely seriously. The police take it seriously and spend a good deal of the £6 billion a year that we provide on crime prevention. In addition, £240 million is spent on crime prevention from other Government budgets. I accept that it is important to take crime prevention seriously, but serious, persistent and dangerous offenders need to be in custody so that the public can be adequately protected from their activities. That is the reasoning behind the measures in the Bill.

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), but then I must make some progress.

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): The Home Secretary has just reminded the House that clauses 1, 2 and 3 refer to "exceptional circumstances". Will he give the House some examples of what he has in mind?

Mr. Howard: There could be a number of such exceptional circumstances. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one example.

Sometimes, someone appearing before a court gives the police exceptional help, which enables them to bring a number of other serious criminals to justice. That is an important factor, which I would regard as an exceptional circumstance justifying the passing of a sentence shorter

4 Nov 1996 : Column 915

than the minimum mandatory length. The proposals have been widely welcomed by the public and the police; they are important measures. My aim is to bring them into force at the earliest opportunity.

Part II reforms the arrangements for the early release of prisoners. Our aim is greater honesty and transparency in sentencing. The term of imprisonment served by the offender should closely match the sentence passed by the court. At present it does not.

The present arrangements were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and they were a move in the right direction. They increased the time that the prisoner must serve from a third to a half, but that does not go far enough. The public are rightly outraged when they learn that a burglar sentenced to one year is out of prison in six months or that a rapist sentenced to eight years is out in four. The new early-release arrangements will ensure that the term of imprisonment imposed by the court matches much more closely the term actually served. They will also ensure that any release before the end of the sentence will have to be earned, not awarded automatically.

---