| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.46 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton): The Bill, although perhaps not perfect, does more than any other Bill in recent years to respond to the reasonable desire of the citizen for better protection against crime and criminals, and it warrants the support of all Members of the House who represent those citizens.
The Home Secretary has been beset by attacks from all sides--from the Labour party, Liberal Democrats, penal reformers, judges, the Bar, the Law Society, academics and a section of the public that wants every criminal to be imprisoned for life, or shot, or worse. We have a brave and courageous Home Secretary who is holding fast, with this Bill, to the conviction that much more can be done to protect society; that prison works to protect society; that there is room for tougher sentences and more honesty in sentencing; and that we need to support the police, who are crying out for our support. He is right, and we all know it.
4 Nov 1996 : Column 986
Why is my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary right and his critics wrong? I shall endeavour to show how his critics are wrong, and I shall begin with three obvious points.
First, not all judges are opposed to the provisions in the Bill, and neither are all practitioners, all academics or all penal reformers. A sizable number of them--and I have spoken with them--support the proposals. Secondly, not all the opposition to the proposals is reasonable. I took part in the programme called "Kilroy" last week and I was howled at, when I said that we were toughening the law, by those of the public who wondered why we were not proposing even tougher sentences; why first offenders were not to be sentenced to life imprisonment for rape or serious violence; why three years for burglary was not the first sentence to be imposed on burglars; and why seven years was not the first sentence to be imposed for drug offences.
In my opinion, those attacks on me were not always reasonable. When such sentences would be reasonable, in the circumstances of a particular case, the courts have the power to impose them already.
Thirdly, many of the perceived ills of our system--this was clear from the television programme in which I took part--are not the fault of the Government. The judiciary is independent and cannot be interfered with or told what to do by the Government, save where Parliament lays down minimum or maximum sentences. If the maximum sentence is greater and the sentence imposed inadequate, the blame must unfortunately lie with the judiciary and not the Government.
Let me deal with as many of the Opposition's unmerited criticisms as I can in the limited period available. The credibility of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) must be somewhat diminished as we recall how his party's view has changed in reaction to the proposals. His decision not to vote on the Bill clashes with his first reaction to the proposals, which he attacked in a press release as
The concept of minimum sentences was attacked in a Labour policy document, "Honesty, consistency and progression in sentences", as was the scrapping of automatic early release from prison. When one knows that such opposition to fundamental principles has changed so much, one can hardly have overwhelming confidence in the hon. Member for Blackburn's judgment.
Nor can one have confidence when we recall that, as we approach a general election, the Labour party has voted against virtually every measure to toughen our approach to criminals--
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
That is not true.
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
--or has at least failed to support them. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that. Labour has
4 Nov 1996 : Column 987
Mr. Michael:
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to respond to the debate, and he can then deny that he has failed to support the tough measures that we introduced. [Interruption.] It is on the record--he cannot deny it. His words are clear in Hansard. He can deal with that matter when he comes to the Dispatch Box.
Higher maximum sentences for the worst child offences were opposed by Labour, as were secure training orders for persistent 12 to 14-year-old offenders and the taking of intimate DNA samples from suspects. Labour has decided to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime as we move nearer to a general election, as it knows from the opinion polls that that is what the public expect from their representatives.
In the light of these responses, let us study what the hon. Member for Blackburn has stated today. He said that we made mistakes in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1991 on unit fines and taking into account previous convictions, and we did. Some of us warned against the latter, but the Government did correct those mistakes in subsequent legislation.
In addition, not all the 1991 Act was bad. Most was good and remains on the statute book. We recognised error and corrected it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) wisely observed, we always aim for the best, and our proposals must change in the light of experience. My own views have certainly changed on the need for minimum sentences in the light of judicial failure to lay down minimum guidelines. But to use that as a reason for not endorsing the Bill is as irrelevant as it is ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Blackburn said that the Bill does not deal with muggers and knife robbers--a point made also by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)--and he is right. The Bill could have been even tougher on the imposition of minimum sentences, but we are under enough attack for making the Bill as tough as it is. Do the Opposition want youngsters who gang up and assault people in the streets to be at risk of life imprisonment? Very well--let them table amendments to that effect as the Bill progresses.
Perhaps they are right, but the Bill does not stop judges giving harsher sentences in appropriate cases--judges can give life to muggers now. They can give more than three years to three-time offending burglars or more than seven years for three-time drug traffickers. This Bill does not restrict judges' freedom to pass longer sentences: it only restricts their freedom in some circumstances to pass shorter sentences.
The hon. Member for Blackburn scoffed at the length of time it will take to introduce these measures. He is right to deplore the delay, but wrong to scoff. If it were possible to put the measures in place immediately, we would do so. But new prisons will have to be built, and it is not possible to proceed more quickly, much as we
4 Nov 1996 : Column 988
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was high in eloquence and arrogance and low in humility and respect for others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who did not share his opinions. His confident assertions were shown to be suspect, and his claim that his party wanted more policemen was shown to clash not with a consultation document, but with a recent policy statement that there was no point in having more police officers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that those not subject to minimum sentences will be released earlier than at present, but it is by no means clear that that can be read into clause 21 of the Bill or the abolition of the relevant provisions in earlier Acts. Even if he were right, that is not the intention of the Bill and it can be remedied as it is improved during its passage through Parliament. He knows that very well.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery says that all manslaughter cases are not the same, and that it is an injustice to say that two will result in life sentences. But he chooses to ignore the fact that a different tariff will be set for "accidental crimes", and that exceptional circumstances can avoid the imposition of the mandatory sentence. He falls into the trap of assuming that, because there are occasional bizarre cases, that is a reason for not dealing with the generality of cases. If we never dealt with the generality for fear of the exceptional, we would never pass any laws to protect the public. Such a philosophy is totally ridiculous.
"a bizarre mixture of complacency and desperation".
He then dismissed them on "Today" as
"ill-thought through and ill-considered".
One of his henchmen, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), was authorised to dismiss the proposals as "daft", while his deputy, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), described them as "a farce".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |