---

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South): Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). The Secretary of State for Health appeared in the House twice last year--the second occasion was in March last year--to make statements on intensive care beds, but neither of the promises that he made in those statements has been realised. Because of the current crisis, which has been highlighted by the British Medical Association, do you not think that it is appropriate, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should come to the House to explain what is happening in intensive care and with the many hundreds of operations that are being postponed because beds are required for emergencies?

Madam Speaker: As I said earlier, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, and no doubt they will report those concerns in the appropriate quarter.

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, on a very specific point. Last week, it was revealed that the Go Ahead Group--one of the bidders for Regional Railways' north-east franchise--was privy to inside information from British Rail, in breach of the franchising rules, which gave it an advantage in the bidding process. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the surge in its share price may well be related to the possession of

13 Jan 1997 : Column 25

that inside information and the commercial advantage that it gave the company. As the Government intend to announce their preferred bidder for the franchise very soon--possibly later this week--it is essential, before any such announcement, that the Minister makes a statement to the House and that the Government assure us that the franchise will not be granted until the investigation is completed by the stock exchange.

Madam Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what has been said today, may I bring to your attention the report on the front page of the Evening Standard about the death of an elderly woman at Guy's hospital arising from the fact that her heart operation was postponed three times? Considering all that has gone on since the House went into recess, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the House at some stage today to explain what is happening? Are not Ministers accountable to the House?

You advised one of my hon. Friends, Madam Speaker, to table a question--presumably an oral question--for the next time when the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues are due to answer. That could be some time away. Given the urgency of the issue and the fact that people are dying because of failures in the health service and the failure of the Government to protect the NHS, the Secretary of State should make a statement today, or at least on Tuesday. Is there any way in which we can persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House and make such a statement?

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it refer to the same matter?

Mr. Shaw: No.

Madam Speaker: As I explained earlier, I have no authority or influence over the Secretary of State, but what has been said today will no doubt be related to him without delay and perhaps there may be a statement forthcoming later today or tomorrow on these issues, which are of obvious concern to a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, shortly before Christmas, there was a small problem that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with the House: a unit outside the Palace of Westminster--known as the audience participation unit--endeavoured to fiddle a BBC poll. In view of the way in which points of order have been raised today, is there not substantial evidence that the audience participation unit is active within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?

Madam Speaker: That is a very good try. I can see that we are in for a very happy and joyous new year.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 26

Orders of the Day

Crime (Sentences) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

Extended periods of supervision for violent offenders sentenced to four years or more

'.--(1) Subsection (2) below applies where--
(a) there is released under this Chapter an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter; and
(b) the court by which he was so sentenced gave a direction under subsection (3) below.
(2) Section 13 above shall have effect in relation to the offender as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection--
"(2) On his release, the offender shall be subject to a release supervision order--
(a) where he is released otherwise than under section 8 above, for such period as is specified in the direction under section (extended periods of supervision for violent offenders sentenced to four years or more) (3) below;
(b) where he is released under section 8 above, for a period equal to the aggregate of--
(i) the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and
(ii) a period equal to so much of the remainder of his term as he would have served but for his release under section 8 above;
and in applying paragraph (b) above account shall be taken of any early release or additional days awarded to the offender before his release."
(3) Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter, it shall give a direction under this subsection unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so.
(4) Where the court does not give a direction under subsection (3) above, it shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and what the exceptional circumstances are.
(5) A direction under subsection (3) above shall direct that the offender's release supervision period shall be such period as is specified in the direction.
(6) The period so specified shall be--
(a) a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment (rounded up to the nearest whole day) or a period of 12 months, whichever is the longer; or
(b) if the court considers a longer period necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation, such longer period, not exceeding 10 years, as it may determine.'.--[Mr. Michael.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

3.46 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause addresses one of the great scandals of our time--the failure of the criminal justice system to deal with violent behaviour in British society. We all know that there is no magic solution. It is not just the criminal justice system that is failing. We shall deal later with issues relating to the treatment of offenders with psychiatric and mental health problems.

13 Jan 1997 : Column 27

The basic failures of the criminal justice system, which we have highlighted in previous debates on the Bill, were laid bare during the Christmas recess by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. In figures published during the holiday, he showed that fewer violent offenders are convicted or cautioned now than in 1980, despite the doubling of the number of recorded violent crimes.

The police force area figures complied by the House of Commons Library from Home Office statistics show convincingly that violent criminals are almost three times more likely to get away with their crimes than was the case when the Conservative party took office. Between 1980 and 1995, the number of recorded violent offences went up by 137 per cent., from 133,359 to 316,332--a dramatic rise--while the number of convictions and cautions dropped by almost 15 per cent., from 71,924 to 61,398. The number of people found guilty in magistrates and Crown courts has fallen by more than 39 per cent.

Since 1992 alone, recorded violent crime has risen by 11 per cent., while the number convicted or cautioned has dropped by a quarter. The 19 per cent. drop in cautions since 1992 has not been reflected in a corresponding increase in convictions. Indeed, in the magistrates courts, 39 per cent. fewer people were found guilty in 1995 than in 1992.

Those are shocking figures, which show a widening gap between the number of violent crimes and the number of violent criminals being brought to justice for those crimes.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): The number of criminals who are brought to justice obviously has an impact on deterrence and therefore violent crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would also deter violent crime, and if not, why not?

---