| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.12 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I detect impatience in the House about the progress of this Bill. Those who find the fact that we are detaining them irksome should reflect on the following: many of us need not be here discussing the domestic affairs of Scotland, and if they would only grant us devolved powers to a Parliament in Edinburgh, they could dine much earlier and we might fashion a better piece of legislation.
When the White Paper was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government took offence at the robustness of my criticism, especially regarding the imposition of automatic sentences, but also regarding the
29 Jan 1997 : Column 451
Another element--perhaps of commission, not omission--which surrounds these proceedings, equally directs us to the judgment that the Bill is flawed. I refer to the imposition in certain circumstances of automatic sentences. These constitute a substantial and unprecedented innovation in the law of Scotland. Although the statutory provision which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) just mentioned--the use of the expression "exceptional circumstances"--may go some way to palliate the consequences of the imposition of provisions to provide for automatic sentences, it does not deal with a fundamental question of principle which lies at the centre of the Bill.
For those reasons, I and my colleagues are not prepared to accept the Bill. We will divide the House on Third Reading when the appropriate moment comes, because we believe that the Bill is so flawed in principle that it does not deserve the approval of the House.
The innovation which I mentioned--automatic sentences--dilutes judicial discretion in Scotland in a way that has never before been seen. It is noteworthy that, of several Scottish High Court judges who have commented on the Bill, none has been found to support the principle on which the Government have advanced this part of the legislation. That is inevitable, because what is now proposed is wrong in principle and will result in injustice in practice.
What is proposed will certainly result in a far higher number of contested cases in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. There will be absolutely no incentive for any accused person to plead guilty if the consequence of doing so is that he or she will attract an automatic sentence. That means that many complainers--many victims--who might otherwise have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence in serious cases, especially where sexual misconduct is alleged, will have to go into the witness box to give evidence.
Faced with the draconian consequences of the Bill, juries, who will be aware of the likely consequences because they will almost certainly be told of them by those conducting the defence of an accused person, will seek to find any excuse for acquitting or for returning a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, to avoid triggering the automatic provisions. Juries will find ways to acquit. In addition, prosecutors in sympathetic cases will charge the accused person with a crime of less seriousness than is appropriate in the circumstances so as to avoid the risk that the automatic provisions will be triggered.
Earlier this week, I had the privilege of listening to the speech of Lord Bingham in another place. If hon. Members want a point of reference for what is intellectually sustainable, what is founded in justice and
29 Jan 1997 : Column 452
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised some serious points in relation to Polmont. I shall examine them and write to him in due course.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was one of the most desperately weak speeches that I have ever heard. He sought to justify abstention and, no doubt on the orders of Islington, will sit on his hands because he knows that the Bill protects the people of Scotland and will be an extremely popular law and order measure.
Only the Liberal Democrats have the courage to oppose the Bill, which they know will do a great deal for law and order and will be tough on crime. I challenge the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to vote with them, if his speech reflects his sincere belief.
Conservative Members have no dilemma about giving much stronger protections to the people of our country. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |