| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 pm
We have a duty that for too long we have neglected. We need to make an urgent impact, and to do that we must be imaginative. We must break away from the parrot cries--one of which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)--about the need for better rates of detection. Of course we need better rates of detection, which will help. But we need effective deterrents--deterrents that truly deter. We need effective treatments--treatments that reform. By no stretch of the imagination are either of those available yet.
I recommend two approaches. First, for those who have gone off the rails for the first time, I recommend the judicious development of a system of outward bound training. Those who, perhaps, have had a bad start in life or who have taken a wrong turning can be sent on a course into the mountains to work with and take responsibility for others as part of a team. They can be challenged and, perhaps, they will succeed. If they satisfy the rigorous training conditions, they can pass out with an award of esteem. For many of our confused and alienated young, such a scheme could establish a basis of purpose and confidence in their lives on which they could build to become useful and satisfied citizens, rather than being sucked deeper into a vortex of a criminal sub-culture.
Those who are more hardened and contemptuous of society--and only them--I would threaten with the new clause. Corporal punishment should be made available to the courts in place of imprisonment, with a system of corporal punishment introduced later by statutory instrument. At whom would I target this punishment? Basically, anti-social youth--the mugger, the ram-raider, the vandal, the graffiti artist, the hooligan, those who seek to intimidate potential witnesses and the tin-pot Napoleons who seek the admiration of their peers by ever more outrageous behaviour.
Why should we apparently seek to turn back the pages of history? I believe that our first duty is to safeguard the quality of life of many of our citizens whose lives have been made miserable by these malcontents. I believe that no current deterrent or penalty is effective, and I do not believe that any Member of this House can honestly say that corporal punishment would not be a deterrent. I do not believe any historical analysis that suggests that corporal punishment fell into disuse when it was last available because nobody wanted to use it as it was not effective. However, circumstances at that time were different from those of today. At that time, we had a disciplined society--now we do not. Corporal punishment would have a great effect on criminal patterns of behaviour. Bullies are also cowards.
I do not envisage corporal punishment as a daily occurrence, and some judges and magistrates may be reluctant to impose it. In most of our cities the cane could be kept in the cupboard, but threats--along with reports of the circumstances of its occasional use--would be sufficient for it to work. Some hon. Members may feel that such a proposal is out of date--even barbaric. They have had more than a generation to prove their case and to suggest alternative remedies. They have manifestly failed.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock (Batley and Spen):
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are often told that there is no evidence to suggest that corporal punishment would work,
15 Jan 1997 : Column 362
Mr. Marlow:
Common sense, our experience of history and evidence from other countries in, for example, the middle east--although I am not suggesting that we follow the line taken in the middle east--suggest that such policies are a deterrent.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy):
Has the hon. Gentleman studied the effect of secure training orders on young people? The Government introduced those orders only recently. Is he saying that they have already failed?
Mr. Marlow:
I am not saying that any particular course of action or proposal from the Government has failed, but everyone would agree that the levels of crime--particularly hooligan crime--and disruption on some of our poorer estates are much greater than those of the past. We have a continuing social problem and although some measures are doing some good, we have not solved the problem yet.
Without the reintroduction of corporal punishment, we will not satisfy the needs of our constituents--whatever pious hopes we have and however liberal we might feel. Something has to be done. The present system is not working and we do not have a solution yet. My final point is that a truth--an unpleasant truth, but a truth nevertheless--that has been proved by history is, sadly, that civilisation cannot be maintained without an element of barbarism to protect it.
Mr. Llwyd:
I did not intend to contribute to the debate, as I have other--if I may say so--more important matters that I wish to discuss later. I have seldom disagreed so vehemently with any hon. Member.
Mr. Llwyd:
I thank the hon. Lady for that--that was typical of her contributions in this House. I disagree root and branch with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. He ignored the fact that a large percentage of young people involved in crime are from traumatised backgrounds themselves. They have seen domestic violence--sometimes severe violence--at first hand. They have seen mother being kicked around and father being dragged out by a brother-in-law, and so on. The sanction that the hon. Gentleman now wants is for society to traumatise those young people yet again. He used the word "barbaric", but that is too soft a word for what he intends. I think that his is the authentic voice of darkness and regression in this House. This is nonsense in what is supposed to be a serious debate about penal policy.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
More and more in my postbag, I receive requests from quite mild constituents who wish the return of corporal punishment. These often come after pictures of the battered features of elderly ladies and gentlemen--or, not infrequently, stories about 70 or 80-year-old women who have been raped--appear on the front page of our local newspapers.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 363
It has been said that corporal punishment does not work. Yet years ago, I practised as a barrister in the courts in the east end of London. On one occasion, we were discussing corporal punishment before the court commenced. The probation officer was vehemently against it, and said that his client that day had been caned on the Isle of Man but was back before the court once again. There then came a voice from the corner saying, "I wouldn't do it again on the Isle of Man". That is the point. Those who have had a dose of corporal punishment do not come back for a second one. It is not a glorious punishment about which they can boast to their colleagues.
I believe that corporal punishment would act as an enormous deterrent to muggers and those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred--those to whom the dignity of life of others is of no importance. They humiliate people and steal their prized possessions, and they deserve corporal punishment.
Mr. Warren Hawksley (Halesowen and Stourbridge):
I support the new clause. I have argued for corporal punishment on many occasions and I am pleased to do so again. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that attracted more support than I had expected. I served on the Standing Committee on the Bill now under discussion, but I did not table an amendment. However, in 1984, I believe, on the Criminal Justice Bill, there was a whole day's debate on an amendment that I had tabled on the subject. It is an important subject, about which our constituents are concerned. They believe that corporal punishment would be a deterrent, and to my mind that is extremely important.
The Isle of Man has already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) asked in an intervention whether there was a case against corporal punishment. Before I tabled my amendment in 1984, I visited the Isle of Man to see what the position was. At that time, the law was still on the statute book there, but was not being used.
I was told by the chief constable on the island that when crowds came over from Liverpool and Manchester for football matches, people arriving in the harbour at Douglas would invariably ask his officers on the gates whether it was true that there was still corporal punishment on the island. When they were told that that was indeed the case, the response was, "Don't worry, Guv, we won't cause any trouble while we're here."
Corporal punishment is a deterrent, and that was demonstrated on the Isle of Man. I strongly believe that we should reintroduce it here. The Opposition will no doubt suggest that it is degrading and that the European Court of Human Rights would say the same. When we talk of degradation, we should think of the victims, and how degrading it is for them.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |