---

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has not explained why he uses the word "reverse". I accept that it goes further--[Hon. Members: "You are abolishing parole."] Indeed we are abolishing parole, but if the hon. Gentleman understood the 1993 Act, he would realise that it tightened the system. It required--[Interruption.]

If the House is not prepared to take my word for it, let me remind it of what my right hon. Friend the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang),

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1039

the previous Secretary of State for Scotland, said on Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill. He said:

"An even more important change made by the Bill is to provide for the full outstanding portion of any sentence to be served, should the offender commit another offence punishable by imprisonment after his release, but before the full period specified in the sentence has elapsed. It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it."--[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 239.]

The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged--

Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross) rose--

Mr. Forsyth: I am dealing with the hon. Member for Hamilton.

He has acknowledged that the progress being made in this Bill is that it is to continue the principle, established by my predecessor, of restoring the meaning of the sentence of the court.

Is the hon. Member for Hamilton seriously trying to tell the people of Scotland that the Labour party is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime when he is going to vote against provisions to give the police powers to deal with juvenile under-age drinkers and provisions for hooligans and others who could be dealt with by electronic tagging? We can see the nature of Labour Members' rhetoric and their behaviour in the House.

The hon. Member for Hamilton has still not explained why, if he is concerned about honesty in sentencing and the other matters in the Bill, he and his party have not voted against the measures.

Ms Cunningham: I am now entirely puzzled. As I recollect, 50 per cent. automatic remission was brought in in 1993 for those whose sentences were four years or shorter. That policy has operated between 1993 and 1996. Will the Secretary of State's new proposals change that? Our clear understanding from everything that has been said is that the proposals will change that policy and that the Government are going back on a measure that they introduced three years ago.

Mr. Forsyth: The Bill certainly changes the situation. If it did not, we should not be introducing it. We took a step in the right direction in 1993, and we are taking a further leap in the Bill.

To complete the education of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on the matter, under the 1993 Act, parole ceased to be available at one third of sentence. I am sure that she knows that. She seemed to be following what the hon. Member for Hamilton implied about changes to parole. The 1993 Act made parole available after half the sentence rather than one third of it. Parole will now no longer be available, and we are requiring remission of one sixth of the sentence to be earned. We think that people should serve the sentences passed by the courts.

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1040

I hope that the whole of Scotland knows that the Labour party thinks that prisoners should not serve the sentences passed by the courts and is opposed to the principle of the Bill that any remission, which will be limited to one sixth of sentence, must be earned.

Mr. George Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way in a moment. I want to finish my answer to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross, who seems confused about the 1993 Act.

That Act also required all prisoners serving four years or more to be subject to supervision on release, and introduced supervised release orders for short-term prisoners at the court's discretion. In addition, it required any prisoner convicted of a further offence after release but before the end of the sentence to be returned to prison.

It is wrong for the hon. Lady to say that we are going back on our previous position. We are going ahead and building on the principles that we established, that the court's sentence should have real meaning and that prisoners should be required to serve their sentence. When remission is granted, it should be subject to supervision. Those principles are maintained.

Mr. Robertson: Tomorrow's Hansard will show the words that the Secretary of State has just uttered alongside those of the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, now President of the Board of Trade and formerly Secretary of State for Scotland, who said, on Second Reading of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Bill:

"There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says--a fixed number of years in custody."

He must have been referring to the current Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then a junior Minister at the Home Office. He went on:

"The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under supervision."--[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 238.]

Now, however, the Government background note says that the Bill would abolish the current system of parole and early release and replace it with a system whereby prisoners would be able to earn a maximum of one sixth off their sentence through good behaviour.

Why is the Secretary of State wasting time at the beginning of this important debate trying to defend the indefensible? He is turning his back on a measure that was passed by this Parliament and abolishing what his predecessor put in place.

Mr. Forsyth: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now found his briefing. If he continues to read the quote beyond the next two paragraphs, he will find the quote that I gave the House. I will not read it all again, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to it. The most important sentence is at the top of column 239:

"It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it."--[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 239.]

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1041

The hon. Member for Hamilton is trying to make bricks without straw. No one is arguing that we are not going beyond the 1993 legislation. We are determined that people should serve the sentences of the court and that any remission, which should be limited to one sixth, should be earned. Even 93 per cent. of Daily Record readers support the Government in that respect. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be in touch with public opinion on the matter, just as he is not, I believe, in touch with public opinion in respect of a number of the Bill's other provisions.

The hon. Member for Hamilton implies that I am wasting my time in dealing with these trivial matters. I am dealing with the amendment he tabled and I am trying to show him how absurd it is for him to argue against this Bill when he was not even here in the House last night to vote against similar provisions applying to England and Wales.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I would like to make a little more progress. I am still dealing with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hamilton.

The amendment talks about the Bill providing

"hopelessly optimistic and unrealistic estimated costs and manpower implications".

That is completely untrue. We have made our estimates on the worst-case scenario--that is, that there will be no judicial compensation for the proposed changes to the rules that apply to remission.

Not all judges agree. Some judges take into account the fact that at present, when there is automatic release at the halfway point, someone who has a sentence of eight years will automatically get out after four years. Some judges say that, under the new system, in which the criminal will serve the full sentence apart from one sixth, they will not take account of that fact. Others say that they will. We have based our manpower and cost estimates on the assumption that there will be no judicial compensation.

The Government are fully prepared to ensure that prison places are provided to meet the disposals of the courts. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton is not prepared to sign up to that principle--a principle that is central to government. It has to be right for hon. Members on both sides to acknowledge that prison is necessary, that those who ought to go to prison should be put there, and that, if that means more prisons, more prisons must be built. That must be right.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) indicated dissent.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I was quoting the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said in 1993:

"Prison is necessary; those who ought to go to prison should be put there, and if that means more prisons, more prisons must be built."--[Official Report, 23 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 344.]

Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition. That, presumably, is why the Leader of the Opposition was not in the Lobby voting against the Crime (Sentences) Bill last night.

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1042

I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is aware of what his name has been put to today, because it seems extraordinary that he could oppose a Bill for Scotland one day while appearing to support a similar Bill for England the previous day.

---