---

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No.

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has not given way to me in this debate.

Mr. Robertson: It is a rare display of taste on my part.

I question whether the Government's decision to remove all judicial discretion in such cases might make automatic sentences counter-productive. Lord Ross, the Lord Justice Clerk, has suggested that juries might be reluctant to convict sex offenders if those offenders face a mandatory life sentence. That reluctance was demonstrated by juries in capital murder cases. Given that it is already difficult to obtain convictions in such cases, should not we consider the danger that the proposals might lead to further acquittals?

Moreover--as various rape crisis and women's aid groups have pointed out--it is possible that the perpetrator, the rapist, might go further than committing rape and eliminate the witness. Is there not a danger that the provision will result in further horrific cases in which the rapist goes on to murder his victim?

Mr. Maxton: The Secretary of State was shaking his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton made the point about a rapist killing. It is worth reminding the House that yesterday, in the debate on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), a former Home Secretary, made exactly that point.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, because there is a case to be made that that will happen. Such views have been expressed not only by women's groups, but, as he said, from such Conservative Back Benchers as a distinguished former Home Secretary. The point should be considered, at the very least, as part and parcel of our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned an issue that--in his effort to be brief--he rather passed over. The issue is whether a jury would be reluctant to convict someone on a second occasion if they were aware that the consequence of a conviction would be a life sentence. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any advocate conducting the defence would be bound to put in evidence before the court the fact that the accused had a previous conviction, to bring that very point to the forefront of the jury's consideration?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, in the context of the practicalities of the Bill, made an important point. As we already know, the Bill has been very poorly thought out, and it has been condemned by those who deal with such crimes.

I remind the House that Scottish courts already have power to deliver life sentences for repeat offenders. I have repeatedly asked the question--which has not been

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1067

answered--whether the wish to turn that discretionary power into an obligation is meant to imply that the courts have been too lenient. The Government have not produced any clear evidence to justify that conclusion.

Ministers have said that, in practice, Scottish judges have only rarely used their powers. I can cite a few cases involving repeat offenders in which no life sentence was delivered. In each of those cases, however, the relevant question was not whether the court delivered a life sentence but whether it should have delivered such a sentence.

Moreover, in each of those cases, the Crown had the power of appeal. How many times--I have asked this question repeatedly, and I have received no answer--has that power been used? In his reply, I hope that the Minister will give us a specific answer and the reasons for it. I hope that the Minister will also respond to the concerns expressed by Lord Hope, who pointed out some of the serious anomalies that would be created by the Government's proposals.

Perhaps because of the anomalies that have arisen, which even Ministers have noticed, the Government have conceded that they will have to allow judicial discretion in "exceptional circumstances"--although the Government have given absolutely no indication of what that will mean. The discretion could be allowed in every case; or it could result in very lenient sentences by judges who initially set the tariff. If sentences are to be not automatic but discretionary, what is the purpose of the Government's proposal?

We are opposed to the use of inflexible, automatic determinate sentences, on the practical grounds that they are very likely to result in an increase in acquittals--as has happened in the United States--and, as Ministers have acknowledged, they require exceptions to avoid patent injustice. In fact, the Government rejected mandatory minimum sentences for such crimes as burglary during the passage of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993.

I repeat the words of the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, in 1992:

"There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says--a fixed number of years in custody. 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. 238-9.]

That was the position in 1992, but now, only a few years later in the same Parliament, the Government have completely changed their position on minimum sentences, and for no apparent reason.

The Secretary of State did not even bother to include his proposals for drug traffickers in the White Paper; we had to read about them in the Scottish Daily Mail. They fly completely in the face of the answer he gave to the hon. Member for Ayr in 1994. We read about serious new proposals on the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail, yet the Secretary of State has the cheek to ask Opposition Members to grant the Bill a quick and speedy passage.

I am glad that the Secretary of State has now established the Criminal Justice Forum, but what is the point of establishing a new consultative body when he

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1068

and his predecessors have shown a cavalier approach to any form of consultation on sentencing or anything else? We need consistency in sentencing, which is why we shall continue to support moves towards a formal system of sentencing guidelines using current statutory powers as well as a sentencing information system for the use of High Court judges.

Why does the Secretary of State ignore the special nature of Scotland's legal system when, as the Minister of State, Scottish Office said last Monday when giving an alternative explanation for there being no mandatory sentences for burglars, many of the cases are based on common law? The Minister of State said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall):

"Moreover, Scots law has traditionally relied much more on common law. We believe that all the necessary powers are properly in place."--[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 427.]

Our system is based on a common law for which there are no tariffs or sentences. In those circumstances, one has to understand the full background of an individual case and know what the plea in mitigation is before one can say whether a sentence is appropriate. However, that does not appear to concern the Secretary of State in his drive to pursue the same unthinking law and order agenda in Scotland as he did in England and Wales when he was at the Home Office.

We need a Government who recognise the special nature of the Scottish criminal justice system and who are prepared not just to be tough on criminals but to tackle the underlying causes of crime, too. Crime and criminality cannot be excused and, under Labour, never will be. We will attack those who defy society's rules of order and get to grips with what lies behind the situation acknowledged by the Secretary of State and everyone else in Scotland.

After 17 years of failure, we are told that the Bill is the answer to Scotland's crime problem. It is not. The Government have no arguments and no answers left. It is high time that they went and gave someone else the chance to deal with a problem that affects so many people in Scotland.

5.23 pm

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): Scottish people who may have the misfortune to see the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on "Scottish Lobby" on Sunday will be wholly mystified about what he is doing in his party. As you rightly ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were the reasoned amendment to be accepted, the Bill would fall. Those of us who have been here for some time know that perfectly well. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying, "Fine; the Government can bring in another Bill tomorrow," when he knows that that is not how the House works. The House has a legislative programme and, if a Bill of such importance fell, it would be very serious for the Government.

I have read in the newspapers that the Leader of the Opposition is to harry the Government morning, noon and night. I presume that the hon. Member for Hamilton expects to win the vote tonight. I think that he is in for a rude awakening when the amendment falls, but the fact that he has revealed that he wishes to defeat the Bill proves to the people of Scotland that Labour is, as ever, very vulnerable on anything to do with law and order and crime.

5 Nov 1996 : Column 1069

It is important that the people of Scotland realise that, in the past 17 years, the Labour party has voted against the majority of Bills relating to crime--there have been many--and terrorism. Even today, despite having spoken about the Bill for nearly an hour, the hon. Member for Hamilton said hardly a good word about it. Indeed, he indicated his opposition to almost every clause, one way or another. No one listening to him could feel that in his heart he supported the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has worked very hard to bring law and order to Scotland, and has introduced a Bill that the people of Scotland want.

This is, after all, a Bill to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. Why should the Labour party vote against it?

---