| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
'--
(a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
"(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and
No. 63, in page 67, line 14, leave out
and insert
No. 64, in page 67, line 28, leave out
and insert
No. 65, in page 68, line 1, leave out
and insert
No. 66, in page 68, line 11, at end insert
No. 67, in page 68, line 15, leave out
and insert
Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert--
No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert--
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time--[Mr. Howard.]
Mr. Beith:
The Bill is an attempt at the general deception of the public. The prison system has no affect on most crimes. Most are undetected and most offences do not, and will not, following the passage of the Bill, result in a prison sentence.
Prison is essential for some offenders, but its record for rehabilitation does not lead one to believe that the placing of the maximum possible number of people in prison will lead to fewer crimes--indeed, quite the contrary. The Bill requires 11,000 more people--perhaps many more; that is the Government's estimate--to be put in an already overcrowded prison system, at a cost, according to Government figures, of £1.2 billion. Many estimate that the additional prison building programme will cost more.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 423
There is no provision in the public finances for that expenditure, which leads me to believe, as I said earlier, that the Government are not serious about bringing all the provisions of the Bill into force. The Minister of State said earlier that the provisions would be brought into force as resources allowed. We know what that means--that the resources are not likely to be found and the Bill is an exercise in trying to convince the public that the Government are being tough when the money is not there to do it. If the money is found, it will be at the expense of the rest of the Home Office budget, much of which goes on policing and the prevention of crime. As a result, more crimes will be committed.
Labour Members seem prepared to go along with most of that. They have probed the details of the Bill and sought amendments to some parts of it, but they appear committed to the main principle of mandatory sentencing and must therefore be committed to the cost implications that I have described. They were not willing--
Mr. Straw:
I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks with care. He was not a member of the Standing Committee--nor was I--and he was also not present on Monday, as far as I remember, when we had an interesting debate about sentencing policies in different parts of the country. Is he aware that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) brought to the attention of the House the fact that in Hereford, where he sat as a recorder, there were much tougher sentences? He accepted that that contributed towards Hereford being a more orderly area than some others.
Mr. Beith:
I am aware of my hon. and learned Friend's speech. I enjoyed his references to sheep stealing in particular, which is a problem in my part of the country. He certainly did not commit himself to the scale of sentencing and imprisonment implicit in the Bill, which the Labour party appears to support. A little earlier this evening, we had a debate about whether the principle that the courts should have at their disposal when considering whether to apply a mandatory sentence should be a narrow one or a wider one, to serve the interests of justice. The Labour party could not even bring itself to support the amendment, even though some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), voted for it. Labour Members have run away from the issue. If they get into the habit of standing on their heads, they may find that they cannot get back on their feet.
Mr. George Walden (Buckingham):
I should like to place on record briefly exchanges that I have had with my hon. Friend the Minister about the Bill. Those exchanges concern Adam Dent, the son of a constituent of mine, who has suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the law and the press.
Adam Dent, a 15-year-old student of chemistry at Oxford--something of a prodigy--was publicly accused of the attempted rape of a fellow student. Subsequently, the Crown Prosecution Service decided, on the basis of his age, his previous good character and the nature of the evidence, that no charge was to be brought against him.
15 Jan 1997 : Column 424
Meanwhile, however, the accusations--and Adam Dent's name--were bandied about freely in the press. Delays by the Crown Prosecution Service meant that there was plenty of time to spread his alleged crimes far and wide. The Daily Mail, for example, did a centre-page spread. As a direct result of exposure to allegations, on which the Crown Prosecution Service later decided not to prosecute, it became impossible for Adam to continue with his studies at Oxford. For a gifted student, this was a double tragedy. He was fortunate in having determined and articulate parents to protect his interests. That is not the case for everyone.
It was possible for the press to behave in that fashion because of a technical loophole in the law. I shall not take up the House's time with the details, but paradoxically and scandalously, it is possible to name an alleged juvenile offender who was subsequently not charged. Guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers advises police officers not to name individuals under investigation. However, that does not prevent anyone else from speaking to the media.
Meanwhile, the woman concerned received the full protection of the 1988 Act and can never be named. Obviously, I am in favour of that protection. I have no means of assessing whether her complaint was brought in good faith or whether it was to any extent malicious. Either way, she--an adult--was protected, whereas Adam--a juvenile who had not been charged--was not.
The case relates to the Bill in the following way: when I drew the injustice to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, he recognised the need to close the loophole in the law and undertook to do so. I am grateful to him for that and for his co-operation on the matter. However, it was subsequently decided that it would be difficult to do so in the Bill as it concerns sentencing.
I need hardly add that my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Dent, are disappointed. They had been pressing for a change in the law not so much for the sake of their own son--it being rather too late to redress his grievance--as for others who might be caught in the same trap. Meanwhile, their son remains exposed to innuendo and misleading reporting. Incidentally, it is with the family's agreement that I have named Adam Dent in the House tonight in the hope of making it clear beyond any doubt that no charges were ever brought against the boy. I hope that the press will continue to exercise some restraint about naming him or identifying him in any way.
Ideally, I should like the Bill to include the legislation that the Minister agrees is necessary to prevent identification of juveniles before charge. That cannot be done for technical reasons and I wish to place on public record his assurance, for which I am grateful, that the Government will introduce legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
I agree with every word of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1995 to provide for anonymity for defendants in rape cases. Like my hon. Friend, I thought it a gross injustice that an accused man should have his name plastered all over the press before being acquitted. After I introduced that Bill, I was approached by Mrs. Irene Jackson, whose son Mark was accused of rape. He was acquitted, but he could not live with the shame and he hanged himself. I do not wish that to happen to any other young man. I have discussed the matter several times with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary--
'29 and 33 to 35'
'29(5), 33 and 35'.
'29 and 33 to 35'
'29(5), 33 and 35'.
'29, 30 and 33 to 35'
'29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.
'and the Table set out in that sub-paragraph contained the following entry--
"Probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area Probation Officer appointed by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland".'.
'29, 30 and 33 to 35'
'29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.--[Mr. Maclean.]
'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.
--[Mr. Maclean.] 9.44 pm
9.47 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |