---

8 pm

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman said that that would put me right. He has not yet put me right on whether he is prepared to vote for amendment No. 6, or on whether, in believing that mandatory sentences are generally acceptable with only limited exceptions, he agrees with the expenditure of £3.6 billion on building new prisons that will be required, according to the Government's own estimates.

Mr. Michael: We shall come to Government expenditure in a later debate. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that it gets worse. Some of the Government's amendments increase the cost quite considerably. The Government are responsible for their own amendments to the Bill and for making sure that its clauses are accurate and clear. It would be ludicrous for the Bill to catch people it was not intended to catch. Amendment No. 1 seeks to clarify that anomaly in relation to section 18 offences.

There are a number of ways of addressing the wider aspects involved. One is for the Government to come clean about what is meant by "exceptional circumstances", so that there is sufficient clarity for the definition to apply in the courts and to be taken into account under Pepper v. Hart, or, alternatively, for the intention of the House of Commons to be clarified.

I was most surprised that the Government did not draft amendments to clarify the issue and respond to the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. The Minister may provide that clarification in his reply to this debate. I suspect that he will not, in which case the prediction of the hon. and learned Member for Burton that the issues will be addressed again in another place is far more likely to come true.

Amendment No. 1 deals with section 18 offences. It is surely far more sensible to give the courts wider discretion to pass sentences other than life imprisonment in that narrow range of offences. The amendment would retain a life sentence as the presumptive sentence on a second conviction for a section 18 offence, but it would give judges wider discretion to tailor sentences to the wide variations in the circumstances of section 18 offences.

Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley): I shall make a brief speech warmly to endorse and pay tribute to the speeches of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). Interestingly, from a rather different perspective, I found myself in agreement with much of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).

Back Benchers on both sides of the House have referred to the need to do justice. The Bill, by introducing mandatory life sentences and minimum sentences, will make it more difficult, rather than easier, to do justice. I agree with those who have said that the Bill needs to be amended if we are not to fall into the serious trap of going down that path.

Some time ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill entitled Determinate Sentences for Murder. It attracted considerable support in the House. It would not have prevented judges from passing life sentences in many,

15 Jan 1997 : Column 393

probably most, cases of murder--I am sure that a life sentence will be appropriate in some cases for which it will become mandatory under this Bill--but I feel that the Bill is moving in entirely the wrong direction.

I believe that, as it stands, the Bill will bring the law into disrepute. If we do not amend it, attacks on the state of the law will be emblazoned across the newspapers when manifestly unjust sentences are imposed because the judges have no alternative. If there are no adequate changes, I am sure that we shall have to return to the issue in the foreseeable future, just as the House found it necessary to do so soon after it introduced the regime of unit fines.

It is interesting that there has been something of a consensus about the current form of words in the Bill and those proposed in the amendments being unsatisfactory. I hope that some changes will be made before the House of Lords has done with the Bill.

Although the Opposition will not like me to say this, I regret the fact that, despite the strong reservations that must exist among their supporters, they decided to walk away from the issue. Those reservations are also felt by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have expressed them elsewhere.

There is still an opportunity for us to pull back from the brink. I hope that the other place will enable us to do that, and believe that before we have done with the Bill we shall have some more interesting debates.

Mr. Maclean: This has been a fascinating debate. All the amendments concern circumstances in which a court may set aside the automatic life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence in clause 1 or the mandatory minimum custodial sentences for a third time class A drug trafficking or domestic burglary offence in clauses 2 and 3.

This is a vital issue that goes to the heart of the Bill. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on an outstandingly good speech. It is difficult for me to say so without sounding patronising, but I have heard many speeches over the years, and I felt that my right hon. Friend's speech tonight was one of his best ever. However, that does not necessarily mean that I found it entirely persuasive.

The view expressed by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was straightforward, simple to understand and espoused a principle. They expressed a deep belief that the exceptional circumstances test is too narrow, and they wish it to be replaced with a justice of the case test. I understand that position, and in the next few minutes I shall explain why I disagree.

I was completely perplexed by the view of the Labour party on the issue and the long speech that we heard on an issue that is irrelevant to the principle--whether the grievous bodily harm test should be practically split in two, with much more serious offences at the top of the scale and lesser offences at the bottom of the scale. That is irrelevant to the issue of principle. One can only conclude that some of the darts that were placed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and some of the superb stilettos inserted by my right hon. Friend the

15 Jan 1997 : Column 394

Member for Fareham, were true. I shall not intrude further on the Labour party's difficulty with supporting us, or opposing us, tonight. I assume that it will have to take the position that it took on Second Reading: to decide later on, perhaps nearer the election.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would replace the exceptional circumstances test in clause 1 with a very different test. The test he proposes would allow the mandatory penalty to be set aside in any case where the trial judge took the view that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would, similarly, replace the exceptional circumstances test in respect of the minimum sentences for drug traffickers and domestic burglars in clauses 2 and 3.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham perhaps knows me too well. He tried to head me off from saying that, if accepted, such a change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I must say to him that it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. That is not only my view; I base it on the words of the Lord Chief Justice during an interview on "Breakfast with Frost". I shall quote his words exactly so I am not in error. One can only conclude after reading his interpretation of the interests of the justice of the case that the change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I am not trying to pick on my right hon. and learned Friend; I am basing my judgment on the Lord Chief Justice's opinion.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He is not learned.

Mr. Maclean: I consider my right hon. Friend learned, although perhaps he is not in the House's technical sense.

The essence of mandatory penalties is that they should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases. If they are not, they will not have the salutary effect that we intend and expect. There is no doubt that the amendments would substantially widen the discretion of the court not to impose the mandatory sentence.

The Lord Chief Justice recently said on "Breakfast with Frost"--the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy quoted part of the interview--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not listening.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Lady is concerned that all rules should be punctiliously observed. She will therefore be aware that seated interventions are out of order.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it in order for Opposition Front Benchers to be chatting among themselves when my right hon. Friend the Minister is winding up? That is the rule.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I will be the judge of such matters.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those of us who wish to listen cannot hear because of the hon. Lady's sedentary interventions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Maclean.

Mr. Maclean: Those of us who wish to proceed cannot do so because of interventions.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 395

I was trying to suggest that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy should have quoted further from what the Lord Chief Justice said on "Breakfast with Frost". He quoted the Lord Chief Justice's view, which I believe to be correct, that the term "exceptional circumstances" will be construed very narrowly. I believe and hope that that is the correct interpretation. My hon. Friends may not like that view, but that is the Government's wish.

---