Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Bermingham: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No.

Mr. Bermingham: Why not?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Because other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has not been here from the start of the debate, unlike some of my hon. Friends. He will forgive me if I carry on. [Interruption.] Hon.

4 Nov 1996 : Column 989

Members will not throw me from my speech, because they know I am talking sense. The fact that they are trying to distract me from talking sense shows how pitifully poor their argument must be.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, the approach of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is attempting to give the sentence of life imprisonment a more dreadful aspect than it bears, for its purpose is to limit the risk of release. The inevitable result would not be that life imprisonment meant life, much as some might wish that to be so. I see no merit in the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticisms, so I think that we can dispense with them.

What then of the criticisms of some judges? The provisions to introduce more honesty--not complete honesty--into sentencing has the judges' support. As Lord Denning said:


The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, said:


    "I believe public confidence in the system is eroded when convicted criminals are seen to walk free from prison after serving less than half their sentences, however good their behaviour may have been in the interim."

We are doing something about that, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated.

The judges were, and perhaps still are, sensitive about the fact that limiting their discretion is part of the purpose of the Bill; as a recorder, I understand that, but the judges are surely over-reacting. Some said at first that minimum sentences were not known in our system, until the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, pointed out that, if Parliament can prescribe a maximum sentence, as it does, there is no constitutional reason why it should not prescribe minimum sentences--and it has done so, with considerable effect, for murder and for drink-driving.

I would rather that we did not have to introduce minimum sentences, as has often been pointed out--my quotation from five years ago keeps coming up--but, if the judges have not considered over those five years that a minimum sentence of three years' imprisonment for a professional burglar or seven years for a professional class A drug trafficker is appropriate, they cannot complain if Parliament decides to do something about inadequate sentences.

If only 10 out of 217 people convicted in 1994 for second-time rape or serious violent offences received the life imprisonment that the judges were capable of imposing; if judges give seven-times burglars 19 and a half months' imprisonment and do not sentence a third of them to prison at all; and if they give inadequate sentences to seven-times drug traffickers, they can hardly complain when we toughen the sentencing requirements.

It would have been better if the Lord Chief Justice and the appeal judges had laid down minimum guidelines; but they could not do it, they did not do it, and it is for us, the elected representatives of the people, to do it if the judges fail. That is what the people whom we represent want and have a right to expect.

What of the criticisms of academics, probation officers and others? I hope that I will be forgiven for lumping them together and dealing quite briefly with many of the attacks.

4 Nov 1996 : Column 990

It has been said that there will be an increase in the need for prison spaces at a time of existing pressure on the system; of course that is so, but my right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that, if we have been able to build 22 new prisons over the past decade and a half, we can do the same again over the next decade, in time to ensure that the provisions of the Bill can be put into effect.

It has been said that effective sentences will double; they will not. Guidelines--or, if necessary, legislation--can ensure that the courts take account of the abolition of parole when sentencing.

It has been said that the Bill does not create honest sentencing, because there will still be 16 to 20 per cent. reductions for good behaviour. As I have said before, that is more honest sentencing than reducing the sentence by a half or even by a third.

It has been said that there will be anomalies, and there will be, but that is no reason not to do what needs to be done to reduce anomalies and their bad effects.

It has been said that there will remain a wide range of sex offences that are not punishable by life imprisonment; that is right, but the Bill extends the provisions for dealing more effectively with treatment and supervision in prison, via the Prison Service, and out of prison, via the Probation Service, and there are further plans to deal more adequately with such offenders. Those plans are long overdue, but the problems are being addressed, and we should be complimented, not attacked, for that.

It has been said that minimum sentences never work; but minimum sentences that appear in judicial guidelines work, so why should not statutory provisions work?

It has been said that prison does not work, but clearly it does if it removes the worst offenders from circulation. I can say from my experience as a barrister for 34 years that what offenders fear most is imprisonment. They will do anything to get out of it; they will plead not guilty to get out of it. From my recent experience of talking to offenders who might be affected by "three strikes and you're out" in Texas and California, the life sentence is feared. It works with them, and it and would work with many other offenders.

If it is said, as both Government and Opposition Members have said, that prison does not work because it has done little to reform offenders, I say only that 50 per cent. of those imprisoned do not reoffend within two years, which is no worse a record than that of community sentences. I agree that more, perhaps far more, should be done to make reform a more effective part of prison life.

If one considers the criticisms objectively, it is not reasonable to conclude that they have such force as to make the Bill unacceptable. Many have no basis in fact; others are merely opinion based on little evidence; others have a scintilla of merit but can be met by improving the Bill and by further legislation. The little that cannot be so addressed is not sufficient to justify destroying measures that have, by every opinion poll going, the overwhelming support of the public; of the police, to judge from statement after statement of senior and junior officers; and, I suspect, of the overwhelming majority of the House.

The Government have taken a raft of measures to be tougher on criminals and the causes of crime. They have helped to reduce crime by 10 per cent.--the largest reduction sustained in our history. The Home Secretary

4 Nov 1996 : Column 991

should be congratulated on his successes in dealing with crime and the Government deserve the House's support for the Bill.

9.6 pm

Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds): One thing that has escaped the attention of the House is that the drop in crime in the past three years is the largest in the industrialised world. I want to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that the Bill comes at the end of a step-by-step approach by him to tackling crime and its underlying causes realistically. Its object and underlying thrust is to target career criminals--dangerous and professional criminals--and to provide sentences appropriate to act as a deterrent. Enough is enough is the message that emanates from the Bill.

Over the past few years, I have watched the Home Secretary's initiative working in my rural area. The introduction of the parish constable scheme, of liaison officers in parishes and in rural towns, of closed circuit television, and the encouragement of community action schemes all build up to give support to communities in fighting crime. I welcome the Bill and the support that my right hon. and learned Friend has given at grass-roots level to tackling the incidence of drug abuse and to the attempts of communities to fight against it.

The real issue is the profound sense of disappointment in communities as they watch what goes on in the courts and the criminal justice system. There is a clear public perception of sentencing that goes well beyond saloon bar comment. It is shared by magistrates and the police, to many of whom I have spoken. In my constituency this summer, there were unacceptable scenes of yob activity. I welcome the fact that in Committee we will have the opportunity to ensure that yobs can be named in public and shamed by their communities.

People do not only feel anecdotally that sentencing is inappropriate. In 1994, the average sentence passed on burglars with seven or more convictions was slightly more than 19 months; a quarter received no custodial sentence at all. When a first-time offender receives 16 months on average for burglary, it is utterly illogical for someone who commits seven additional burglaries to receive a custodial sentence that is only two or three months longer. People's instincts are borne out by the facts.

There has been a lot of talk about challenging the role of the judiciary. Of course, the independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct, but Parliament sets the laws and the framework within which the judiciary operates. Parliament must protect the interests of the victim, not the well-being of the offender. The protection of the citizen is at the heart of the Bill, implicitly and explicitly.

All of us who have suffered burglaries know of the horror of being burgled. That is particularly so for elderly people. So much criminal activity is undertaken by a small group of people. It is correct for the law to concentrate on tackling those individuals and ensuring that they spend an appropriate length of time in prison.

Drug trafficking is the greatest social evil of our generation. All the attempts to deal with it more liberally in, for example, Zurich and the Netherlands, have failed. We have to send drug traffickers a clear message that we will not tolerate what is going on. That is happening in

4 Nov 1996 : Column 992

conjunction with the Government's overall education, rehabilitation and enforcement scheme, under "Tackling Drugs Together".

I shall be brief as time is running out and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) wants to speak. As has been said, the Attorney-General already has the power to appeal against lenient sentences, which is helpful and the power can no doubt be strengthened. The real need, however, and the underlying core of the Bill, is to protect the public from the release of a vicious individual when it is clear that he or she remains a potential danger to our society. Nothing enrages the public more. They want honesty in sentencing and that is precisely what they are going to get.

I welcome the introduction of the clauses dealing with mentally disordered offenders. It is a grey area--especially the problem of people who are released from psychiatric institutions and those who are sometimes sent directly into the criminal justice system--and it has not been dealt with satisfactorily. I am glad that the Bill will try to deal with that problem as well.

The criminal justice system must be all-embracing and must do a number of things. It must prevent crime--through CCTV, neighbourhood watch and raising awareness--it must provide the police with appropriate powers to tackle crime, particularly organised crime, and it must ensure that the guilty are convicted and the innocent set free, but it must also ensure a sentencing policy that reflects the severity of the crime, that is not a lottery and that protects the public. That is what the Bill is all about and it has my wholehearted support.


Next Section

IndexHome Page