| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. and learned Gentleman is strengthening the case against himself. First, he tells us that we must let prisoners out early because that will save resources which can then be spent on crime prevention. It is not a matter of either/or. We need to do both; and we need to keep prisoners in prison.
Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to imply that it is not right that prison officers should decide whether prisoners have earned remission through good behaviour. Nothing could more clearly show how the system needs to be changed and why this Bill is the right measure to bring before the House today.
I turn now to the provisions in the Bill--in particular, to the provisions in respect of automatic life sentences.
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foulkes:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forsyth:
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), as he is an old sparring partner.
Mr. Foulkes:
I am an old sparring partner, too.
Mr. Connarty:
The Secretary of State must clear up one point. He has said that the previous Bill in 1993--I sat on the Committee on that Bill, and was convinced by the Government and by my own side that it was a good measure--was going to have people out in society for 50 per cent. of their sentence. They would be serving their sentence, but in society, under licence.
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1046
The logic advanced very strongly by Conservative Members was that the sentence would continue to its final point, but 50 per cent. would be served in the community. That was said to be a good thing, because, out in society, people would be forced to rehabilitate themselves properly and not return to crime. Is the Secretary of State now rejecting that principle in this Bill?
Mr. Forsyth:
No. Indeed, the only change is that we think that criminals should spend longer in prison and that their remission should be earned, not automatic. As for sentences served in the community, yes, there will be supervision, and we plan to extend that. The hon. Gentleman will hear more of that later if I can make progress with my speech.
It is, of course, for the courts to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. I am none the less persuaded that there are occasions when the only appropriate sentence is a life sentence--occasions when an offender has committed a violent or serious sexual offence following conviction for a similar offence. In such cases, we need a sentence that will ensure that he or she will not be set free to walk the streets again until it is judged safe to do so; a sentence that ensures that the criminal will not escape the threat of being returned to prison until the day he dies; and a sentence that ensures that the public have the long-term protection they deserve from the most dangerous offenders.
I shall give the House an example--one that, I know, is of concern to several hon. Members, especially those from Ayrshire. I refer to the Maguire case. In February 1977, Gavin Maguire was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on two charges of rape, a charge of assault to ravish and other charges. In October 1983, he was released after serving two thirds of his sentence. In November 1986, he was sentenced again to to 10 years imprisonment for attempted rape and serious assault. In July 1993, Maguire was again released after serving two thirds of his sentence. In August 1995, he was charged with another sexual assault, with which the Crown decided not to proceed at that time because of limited evidence. On 28 November 1995, Maguire was released from custody--18 days later he murdered a 15-year-old girl.
Under our proposals in the Bill, Maguire would have served his initial sentence in full, and to receive one-sixth early release he would have had to participate in prison programmes that addressed his offending behaviour. He would have received an automatic life sentence for the second offence, and would not have been released until he was judged to be no longer a risk to the public. Even if he had been released from custody, it would have been on life licence, and the circumstances that led to his being charged with the third offence would almost certainly have been sufficient to justify his recall to custody. Had that happened, he would have been unable to murder a young teenager. That is the point of these proposals. Tragically, it is too late for Maguire's young victim, but we in this House can act to save the lives of others.
There were 23 cases in 1994 alone in which a second serious offence was committed and in which the provisions in the Bill would have applied. Five of those 23 cases involved people convicted for at least the third time.
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1047
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I was to hear the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) saying that he does not believe in punishment, but only in prevention?
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
That is not what I said.
Mr. Stephen:
Read Hansard tomorrow.
Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any way in which Maguire could have been prevented from committing that terrible crime, save by being locked up in prison?
Dr. Godman:
You spoilt a good intervention.
Mr. Forsyth:
I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said.
I know that we are in the run-up to the general election, but such measures should not be a matter of controversy across the Floor of the House: they involve the protection of the public. It does not seem unreasonable to require an automatic life sentence in circumstances such as the Maguire case.
Mr. Forsyth:
I must make some progress; then I shall give way.
It does not in any way fetter judicial discretion as to the period that should be served by the person, once convicted. It will still be for the judge to set the relevant period--the minimum number of years that should be served. It is a life sentence, but the minimum number of years spent in prison will be determined by the judge and release will be granted only on the basis of an assessment that the person involved no longer represents a risk.
I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members are not prepared to support the Government on the legislation. It requires the High Court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment on an offender convicted of a second qualifying serious sexual or violent offence unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify not doing so. The judge will set the minimum period and the parole board will decide when it is safe to release, subject to the continued sanction of the life sentence.
Mr. Foulkes:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on this occasion, as I wish to be helpful. I am sure that he would agree that it is important not only to get the sentence right, but to get convictions. I had a helpful meeting earlier this afternoon with the Lord Advocate about a particular case in my constituency involving four alleged rapes. I shall not go into detail, but the case involved the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on the importance of making it easier for people with learning difficulties to give evidence--such people are particularly and peculiarly vulnerable.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State a question in support of what my hon. Friend said. The Lord Advocate was helpful this afternoon, and said that he personally thought that the Government should consider an amendment to enable people with learning difficulties to give evidence using a video room or screen. I hope that
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1048
Mr. Forsyth:
I have already told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that I will be happy to consider the matter in Committee--I shall also happy to hear representations from him. I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will have an opportunity to serve on the Committee that considers the Bill--he is shaking his head, but these are important matters, and it would be his chance to give us the benefit of his advice. We would welcome his appearance in the Committee, as it would liven up our proceedings. We always welcome the way in which he robustly outlines his position in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Foulkes:
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Forsyth:
I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again--he can make his point in Committee.
Mr. George Robertson:
I merely seek information from the Secretary of State on the statistic he gave us. He said that, during 1994, there were 23 cases of individuals being convicted for more than a third time. The Crown has the power to appeal against the leniency of sentences. On how many occasions did the Lord Advocate appeal in relation to the leniency of the sentences on which the law is now being changed?
Mr. Forsyth:
The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck. He voted against the provisions enabling the Lord Advocate to appeal against lenient sentences. The Labour party opposed the Crown's right of appeal against lenient sentences, just as it has opposed every other major measure that we have introduced to toughen the position. The hon. Gentleman now has the brass neck to argue that the Crown should appeal in particular circumstances as a justification for opposing what we are proposing. [Hon. Members: "What is the answer?"]
The answer that we are proposing is that I said that there were 23 qualifying cases, of which five involved people who had been convicted for at least a third time. The Bill contains provisions that will make life sentence automatic. No one has ever suggested that the Crown should use its right of appeal except in the most exceptional circumstances. We are making a general provision that will provide for the protection of the public--the proper way to deal with that is in the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman is going to vote against tonight.
If the hon. Gentleman votes against the Bill tonight, we will harry him all the way to the election and beyond, and tell the people of Scotland that he was not prepared to give them the protection to which they are entitled from sexual and violent offenders who repeatedly carry out villainous crimes in Scotland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |