---

Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman quote his sources for saying that experts agree with that? It seems to fly in the face of all the research that I have read about what is in the minds of rapists when they commit their horrible offences.

Mr. Llwyd: I have followed the arguments in the press on the subject. I refer the Minister of State to what Lord Justice Taylor was quoted as saying in a lengthy article in The Times, in September, I think. He certainly put that view. If I remember rightly, he quoted authority in that article. I will endeavour to find it and send the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

Although there should be consistency, which is why the Court of Appeal issued sentencing guidelines for a host of offences including rape, there can never be uniformity, simply because the circumstances of offences vary, defendants vary, the effects of the crimes vary, and so forth. It is a rigid approach of that nature that has brought the Child Support Agency into disrepute. So, try as one might, unless one is dealing with offences of absolute liability, there will be variations.

Why have the Government not learnt from the CSA experience and the farcical and patently unjust unit fines system, under which people throwing litter can be fined £1,200 if they are high earners, while those committing far more serious offences might be fined a nominal £50? Has that debacle not registered with the Home Office?

I acknowledge that violent crime is on the increase and that we urgently need to take steps. Indeed, recorded sexual offences increased by 9 per cent. from 1989 to 1994, but convictions fell by more than 40 per cent. The Bill will not deal with that problem.

If the two-strikes element becomes law, the defendant will surely be tempted to plead not guilty and face a trial as, in any event, his sentence would be life and he would doubtless feel that convincing a jury of his innocence was worth a try. That has been the result in other jurisdictions. My source is California, where there has been a huge increase in jury trials together with the attendant delay and cost as the system tries to assimilate the increase. In addition, there has been a stark increase in the number of people held in prison on remand. Those two factors are almost an inevitable consequence, and I ask the Home Office to think again.

Although I appreciate that appeals should always be available to defendants on civil libertarian grounds, I view clause 4 with considerable trepidation. Inevitably, there

4 Nov 1996 : Column 960

will be a vast backlog in appeals from those who might not readily accept legal advice and those who would try their luck, as it were, although I dare to suggest that they should not try their luck in the Court of Appeal with any sanguinity. We will create further backlogs, delay and cost. That is almost as inevitable as night following day.

Several hon. Members have spoken about prisons eloquently and with great experience. The subject deserves more, but I will restrict myself to a few remarks, as other hon. Members want to speak.

In the British Isles, the imprisonment rate is higher per capita than in any other European state, although evidence suggests that crime rates in other states are broadly similar. It is the approach to penal policy that is different.

Two years ago, the Home Secretary announced--via the then chief executive of the Prison Service--that a further five or six prisons had to be built in the next few years. After the ignominious end of Mr. Derek Lewis's career, largely because of political interference from the Home Secretary, that figure had to be drastically reviewed. The Home Office now advises us that the prison population--already a European record--is set to rise by 12,000 by 2011. The Home Office says that that underlines the need for 11 or 12 new prisons.

Mr. Richard Tilt, Director General of the Prison Service, was quoted in mid-September as saying that, if the incidence of imprisonment continued to increase at the present rate, we would need one new prison per week--an extreme view, perhaps, but it comes from a person who does know, or should know, what he is talking about.

I do not know whether the Government are thinking of transforming these ideas into a sort of prison-building centre of excellence, but there is certainly a lot of building work ahead. The big question is how much better off society will be as a result. Let us not forget that the prison budget is being cut by around 15 per cent.

I share the view expressed by several right hon. and hon. Members about the need to train prisoners. They should be given education and shown an alternative to a life of crime. If we do not do so, prisons are likely to become colleges of crime, where an inmate will do nothing but improve his criminal acumen or skills. Training is of vital importance generally, but of paramount importance with regard to young offenders.

Whatever the future for this unfortunate Bill, resources for prisons need to be secured and extended. I fear that the colossal prison building programme under consideration will mean that resources will be spread yet more thinly. That may well result in prisons being reduced to inhumane places, risking the security and safety of prison officers and, ultimately, of the public at large.

By profession I am a criminal lawyer, and I have visited several prisons frequently. Believe me, there is nothing more disconcerting or frightening than an overcrowded prison where there is nothing to do other than stare at the walls. Rehabilitation must be one of the ingredients of any civilised penal policy, so that the convicted prisoner comes out of the institution better qualified to take a meaningful place in society. Anything less will increase crime and worsen the already serious situation.

I am pleased by the Bill's reference to fine defaulters, and I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the problem and are going to deal with it. I also welcome the Government's recognition of the need

4 Nov 1996 : Column 961

to deal severely with drug traffickers. Those creatures live off the misery and suffering of others. They are a disgusting band of people, who need to know where they stand. Society rightly demands that they taste stern justice. I regret that that is not likely to be the way they are treated.

Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds): What is it?

Mr. Llwyd: I will come to that--I saw that question coming.

The Court of Appeal carefully lays down guidelines for sentencing. A far better approach would be clearer recognition of the fact that drug trafficking is at the upper end of the sentencing tariff. I endorse what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who spoke for the Opposition, said about the Court of Appeal. It is an excellent idea, and I commend it to the Government. The potential risks and problems of the two and three strikes also seem to be relevant here.

I am interested that the Bill makes a definite attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and that it deprives judges--

Mr. Maclean: How does the hon. Gentleman square his last point, about telling the Court of Appeal to give drug traffickers sentences at the higher end of the scale, with his passionate plea--illustrated with excerpts from Dicey's "Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution"--for separate powers and the principle of not interfering with the judiciary?

Mr. Llwyd: It is not for Parliament to tell the Court of Appeal what to do, but a body could be set up including the Court of Appeal and given a brief to ensure that adequate sentences were passed. The whole point is that it is not for Parliament to decide--there would be a separate, free-standing body, not subject to interference from Parliament, that would advise on sentencing.

Mr. Maclean indicated dissent.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister may laugh, but I think that mine is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and I hope that it will be developed in the months and years to come.

It is interesting that the Government appear to want to deprive courts of their discretion, yet, on 3 November 1994, in answer to a written question about minimum sentences for selling class A drugs, the then Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), replied:

"None. The courts should be left to determine appropriate sentences in individual cases."--[Official Report, 3 November 1994; Vol. 248, c. 1334.]

I shall not use the hackneyed term "U-turn"--I have heard enough of that nonsense--but it astonishing that the views of the Home Office should be so different less than two years later. Perhaps the Home Secretary is not aware of the fact that judges frequently attend sentencing seminars nowadays. As a body, they are more in tune with today's society than they might have been, say, 10 years ago.

I repeat my representations about burglary. As one who was burgled last year, I should perhaps wring my hands with glee at the prospect envisaged in clause 3, but I do

4 Nov 1996 : Column 962

not. I do not do so, for reasons that have already been outlined--there is a minimal form of burglary of which the legal definition is "entering a property for an illegal purpose". That purpose need not be theft--a minimally illegal purpose will suffice. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made that point.

I note the exceptional circumstances incorporated in each clause, but if those words are to accommodate some of my concerns and if they represent an attempt to reinvest judges with their all-important discretion, I have to ask what is the purpose of all this. That brings me back to where I started: the Bill is a sad, transparent piece of political posturing, and everybody should regard it as such.

---