---

Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I am still dealing with the amendment. When I have finished, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The amendment also says that the Bill

"fails to address the real problems of crime".

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hamilton is aware that 1995 is the fourth successive year in which recorded crime has fallen. The amendment talks about 17 years of rising crime. Where has the hon. Gentleman been for the past four years? Has he not seen the success of the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, now President of the Board of Trade?

The hon. Member for Hamilton talks about the clear-up rate falling. In fact, the clear-up rate rose in Scotland from 1994 to 1995. Six out of eight of Scotland's police forces showed a fall in the number of crimes recorded in 1995. It is sad that the hon. Gentleman is so intent on playing party politics that he is not even prepared to give the Scottish police credit for their outstanding job in improving the clear-up rate and reducing the incidence of crime in our country.

Mr. Robertson: The Secretary of State said that I made reference to the clear-up rate; where and when?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that he has not made reference to the clear-up rate, I accept that. In the amendment, he says:

"and miserably fails to address the real problems of crime in Scotland which have so greatly increased in the last seventeen years."

I am pointing out to him that the clear-up rate has risen, and that the incidence of crime has fallen. If he says that he has not mentioned clear-up rates specifically, I accept that, but I hope that he will acknowledge that the clear-up rate, which is improving, and the crime rate, which is falling, do not bear out the situation suggested in the amendment.

I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and I now do so.

Dr. Godman: I am pleased to give the Secretary of State a breather.

My question relates to a matter of deep concern to me. Clause 23 offers welcome additional assistance to child witnesses, and I readily acknowledge that sympathetic and compassionate changes have taken place in the way in which children are cross-examined in our courts; but why do the Secretary of State and his Ministers and officials so stubbornly refuse to extend such protection to others who are equally vulnerable? I refer to people with learning difficulties, for example, or those with mental handicaps. Why are they not given the same protection? That could surely have been provided in the Bill.

Mr. Forsyth: I shall be happy to investigate the matter, and to discuss it with the Lord Advocate. It may be a

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1043

matter that the hon. Gentleman would like to explore in Committee; I hope that he will have the opportunity to serve on the Committee and make just such points.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton complain about the length of my speeches. One reason why my speeches are so long is that I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not intend to do so now.

Mr. Foulkes rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State said that he would not give way.

Mr. Foulkes: I am trying to help him.

Madam Speaker: Order. He does not need any help. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Forsyth: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Foulkes rose--

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not persist. He knows full well that the Secretary of State said that he would not give way at the moment.

Mr. Foulkes: I was giving him another chance, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak later.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.

Having dealt with the Labour party's amendment, I turn to that of the Liberal party. I have to say--

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): This is a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, and I think that I have a perfect right to complain about the nonsense being put about concerning our Bill. The Liberal Democrats' amendment says that the Bill

"will require the building of unnecessary new prisons".

That is a concept with which the Leader of the Opposition would certainly not agree. What are unnecessary new prisons--prisons used to house people who are a threat to our society and who have been convicted by the courts? The Liberals appear to think that we can be protected by having people outside prison rather than in.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: In a moment--then the hon. and learned Gentleman can deal with both parts of what I am saying.

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1044

The amendment also states that the Bill will

"damage the process of parole leading to a greater risk to the public".

The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that people are less likely to be a risk to the public if they are out of prison on parole than if they are inside, behind bars, secure and locked away from the public. That is an extraordinary position, which I never thought to see reflected in a Liberal Democrat amendment.

Mr. Campbell: May I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the part of the Bill entitled "Financial effects of the Bill", which refers to the resource implications flowing from the proposals in part III on the early release of offenders? As he knows, the Opposition contend that that is a reversal of the policies adopted by the Government in 1993.

The same paragraph in the explanatory memorandum states:

"They are likely to result in an increase in the prison population . . . of 2,200 five years after implementation. An increase of this order would add £65 million to £100 million per annum at current prices to expenditure on prison places."

That is unnecessary expenditure. The money should be spent on the prevention of crime, not on punishment arising out of a ludicrous reversal of policy.

Mr. Forsyth: The best way of preventing crime is to keep criminals behind bars.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: No, it is not.

Mr. Forsyth: Reoffending rates clearly show that, if burglars and others are behind bars, they are not out burgling people's houses.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) rose--

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman must not get too excited. I am still dealing with his hon. and learned Friend.

The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that money should govern the number of prison places and the disposals of the courts. We, by contrast, think that the courts should make the punishment fit the crime, and that we should find the resources to meet the disposals of the courts. It is ludicrous to argue that the disposals of the courts should be governed by considerations of finance. It is the first duty of government to protect the public; that means that dangerous criminals should be put behind bars for as long as the courts think appropriate to the nature of the offence.

Mr. Campbell: I shall take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on the responsibility for putting criminals away. I spent four years as advocate-depute in the Crown Office, prosecuting in the High Court, and I venture to suggest that I have put away more criminals behind bars than the right hon. Gentleman has had hot dinners.

The point is: we are in a period of scarce resources, the Government tell us. That being so, we should apply them in the most effective possible way. The most effective way of bringing comfort to the population is by preventing crime, not by punishing those who commit it.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not disagree about preventing crime. As for putting away criminals, and hot dinners, I have no

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1045

doubt about the hon. and learned Gentleman's achievements--although I hope that his advocacy in the courts was somewhat better than it has been in respect of this Bill.

Mr. Campbell: That is a personal attack.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned about putting criminals away. My concern is that, once they are put away, they should stay away behind bars. It is no earthly good securing a sentence of 10 years in the court if people are let out after five years. We think that they should serve their sentences and not return to the community after five years, subject to supervision or anything else. I repeat: they must serve their sentences, and if they get remission it should be earned by their behaviour in prison--working, dealing with their reoffending behaviour, alcoholism, drugs and so on.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman must understand that, when resources are scarce, the public are much more likely to be confident of the judicial and legal system if they believe that the resources are being spent on prevention.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about people earning their remission. Why, then, does he not acknowledge that early remission will depend on the subjective view of prison officers, who, as a result, will be open to charges of favouritism or--more seriously--to the threat of intimidation?

---