| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Interventions should be shorter than that.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. It is all very well for Ministers to come along now and say that they
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1063
have an answer. In an interesting answer earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State quoted 23 cases, of which five would qualify under these provisions. We can take it from his non-answer at that time that the Lord Advocate did not appeal against the leniency of any of the sentences handed down by the court in those cases. Is that right?
Mr. Michael Forsyth: There were 23 cases, five of which involved three or more offences, so 23 would fall within the provisions of the Bill. I am not clear whether the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) thinks that his hon. Friend is in favour of this. Does the hon. Member for Hamilton intend to support these provisions? If not, what will he say to his hon. Friend?
Mr. Robertson: I will answer that, and the Secretary of State may find out something at that time.
The Secretary of State keeps asking questions instead of answering them. He seems to think that he is already in opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said that in 1994 there were five cases that fell into the category of repeat offences. In not one case--23 or five--was there an appeal. That point must be taken on board. We deserve to know whether the sentences were right or wrong. The court had the discretion to impose life sentences, but there was no appeal by the Lord Advocate.
The impact of the Government's proposals will simply be to increase sentences across the board. As the Secretary of State reflects on the opinion poll rating today, I wonder why there are so many gaps in the Government's crime strategy for Scotland. Why is there nothing about bail and the perennial complaint from the police and the prosecutors about criminals offending and reoffending while on bail? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that it was in the last measure, but he is busy tearing that up. If the problem still exists, why is he not doing something about it?
If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about tackling crime, surely, in this year of all years, he should be looking at the broader picture of what causes crime and the sources of crime. What about the wider, comprehensive approach that was promised in the White Paper before it fell down the drain of empty soundbites?
In the 89 pages of the White Paper, why did the Government devote only 22 short paragraphs to the critical wider social issues and only 10 lines to training and unemployment, which are the most fundamental issues underlying the growth in crime? Why is there so little attention to crime prevention--only 13 paragraphs in the White Paper and nothing in the Bill? Why is there nothing about the persistent problem of anti-social neighbours--small numbers of people can pollute and destroy whole communities? Has he no comfort to offer those whose lives are made a misery? In towns all over the country, underpinned by poverty and deprivation, the problems of crime and disorder breed.
The Bill has gaps. There is nothing about the punitive strategy against criminal injuries compensation for which the Government were responsible and which came into play this year. There is nothing about witness protection when we know that that is a considerable problem in Scotland. There is nothing about the recommendations of the Sutherland committee report on how miscarriages of justice should be handled.
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1064
We have some of the fig leaves produced by the Government, but not the central recommendation of that distinguished committee, which is that there should be an independent body to consider such matters. Those issues need to be tackled and will be tackled by a Labour Government. The sooner we get the chance to do that, the better it will be for Scotland.
I want to make another serious criticism about something else that is not in the Bill but which was promised through a medium from which we expect to hear all the Secretary of State's new thinking--The Sunday Times. The Secretary of State has already told us that the Bill promises electronic tagging for Scotland, but there has been no piloting, no research and no attempt to run trials. Instead, we are to use the inconclusive English experiments as the basis for reform in Scotland. Instead of rushing into measures without proper trials, why do not the Government base their arguments on proper pilot studies and research? Why has not the Secretary of State run pilot schemes first?
Mr. Robertson:
Before the right hon. Gentleman jumps up again, let me tell him that we are prepared to consider electronic monitoring if it can be shown to work, but not at any price. I will give way for the last time.
Mr. Forsyth:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said earlier--which was that, in the Bill, electronic tagging applies only to people over 16, but that we will consult on extending the provision to those under 16. We have made it perfectly clear that our intention is to pilot those provisions in Scotland. However, it is not possible to have a pilot without the power to have one, and the Bill provides that power.
The hon. Member for Hamilton is in the ridiculous position of wanting to vote down the Bill, through his reasoned amendment, because it does not provide for piloting the provision for those under 16 years old. The Bill provides for electronic tagging for those over 16, and the Government have always made it clear that that provision would be subject to a pilot. If the hon. Gentleman got his facts right, he would not be wasting the House's time.
Mr. Robertson:
The fact does not seem to have penetrated through to the Secretary of State that we will not be voting against the Bill: we will be voting for a reasoned amendment that asks the Government to go away and think again on the critical issues--[Interruption.]
Mr. Gallie:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today I will have to make a decision on which way I vote on the Bill. At that point, I will be faced with an amendment that says:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It is not for the Chair to give guidance to any hon. Member on how they may wish to vote on any subject debated in the House.
Mr. Robertson:
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Ayr is seeking guidance on how he should
5 Nov 1996 : Column 1065
Mr. Bill Walker:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it correct that, if the reasoned amendment is successful, the Bill will fail?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
In one word, the answer to the question is yes.
Mr. Robertson:
After reflecting on the reasoned amendment, the next Government, or this Government, can introduce a Bill--[Interruption.] That is the purpose of a reasoned amendment. The synthetic noise by Conservative Members today--a very bad day for the Scottish Tories--is what will be remembered--[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that it is getting better. Public opinion was 11 per cent. when he started his frenzied bid to grab attention, and it is back to 11 per cent. today. Yes, things are getting better. Things are getting better for Scotland, when the Labour party is on 45 per cent. and the Tories are on a mere 11 per cent.
I should tell the Secretary of State that it is all very well to tell the House, "We have not proposed tagging for people under 16, but we might consider something later on." The seriousness of what is being suggested should not escape even him. The Secretary of State's "senior sources" have said:
People who believe that the children's panel system is good and that it has worked well, who believe that it is the envy of countries across Europe and who are deeply concerned that tagging offenders and children under 16 will put an articulated lorry--never mind a horse and cart--through that system will take no comfort from the thought that the Secretary of State will consult on the matter. The Secretary of State knows only too well--because the headquarters of the reporters administration is in his constituency--that the system will be irreparably harmed if the experiment proceeds. A knife placed at the heart of the youth justice system should not be his legacy when he leaves Stirling.
"That this House declines to give a Second Reading"
to the Bill.
"We are now exploring with officials the dispersal of electronic tags for children."
He says that he will consult on that measure. The Government consulted on the poll tax, but they rejected the results of that consultation. They consulted on nursery vouchers, and they rejected the virtually unanimous opinion that was expressed. They consulted on water "quangoisation", but--despite the fact that 97 per cent. of the people in half of Scotland voted against it--they rejected that consultation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |