| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have an advance look at his statement. It is a long statement, full of detailed proposals and, in the time available, he will understand if I do not touch on all the points that he raised, not least because I do not want overly to burden the House. I assure him, however, that when he produces a Bill, we shall examine it in great detail.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of large parts of Conservative Government policy. May I tell him, as he would not have been able to see, that, judging from the expression on the faces of many hon. Members behind him, his proposals will get a warmer reception on the Opposition Benches.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the crime rate rose faster in each decade between the end of the second world war and 1979 than in the past 18 years? Will he publish the appropriate figures? Does he also agree that the crime rate has dropped by 10 per cent. over the past four years, reversing a trend of 40 years under both Governments? Does he recognise that a reduction of about half a million crimes a year means millions fewer victims? Why can he not welcome that?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the last international crime survey in 1992 covering 20 countries found that there was less chance of being murdered or violently or sexually assaulted in Britain than in many other western countries? Why did he not refer to the survey of 18 OECD countries in 1993-95, which showed that England and Wales had the largest fall in recorded crime?
Although I welcome much of what the right hon. Gentleman has announced, is he aware that the public will be disappointed that he is taking such a relaxed and disinterested stance on house burglary? Why does he not recognise that burglary is an invasion of privacy and possessions and frequently a destroyer of peace of mind and quality of life?
Why does the Secretary of State not think that burglars who commit three offences should not be given a minimum sentence of three years, or is his criminal policy simply being dictated by the Treasury? Instead of dithering, reviewing and contemplating, will he now commit to introducing that sensible measure on the sentencing of repeat burglars by 1999, as we were committed to do?
Even on tagging, the right hon. Gentleman equivocates. What has caused him to accept the principle of tagging, when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), a Front-Bench Labour spokesman on the Criminal Justice Bill, said in Standing Committee A on 18 December 1990:
Speaking of jettisoning principles, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister describing secure training orders as "a sham"? Whom are we to believe? Who is trying to make the public feel good, without being willing to act in the public interest?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his new commitment to tougher sentences for violent and sexual offences? Is he aware that we will also support him as he advances our proposals for repeat drug offenders?
In 1995, the right hon. Gentleman called our proposals
Does the Secretary of State accept that we will support any new, useful attempts to tackle delay, and that it was the previous Government who introduced custody time limits and set up the Narey inquiry, on which he is to act?
Parts of today's statement will give some encouragement to the public. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that it will be widely welcomed by burglars, from whom a threat has been lifted? Does he realise that he may soon be deemed partially responsible by the victims of burglars, whose experience of that crime the right hon. Gentleman refuses to take seriously?
Mr. Straw:
The right hon. Gentleman shows the same levels of competence in dealing with this statement as he demonstrated as chairman of the Conservative party in taking it to its greatest defeat this century. He talked about the reception given to our proposals. The proposals that I announced today are based on our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the British people--not least because of its law and order measures.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. He made some ridiculous claims about the provisions of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to repeat burglars. He implied that his Administration were committed to bringing that section into force by October 1999. They did nothing of the kind--indeed, the commitment went backwards.
In April 1996, in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", the Government gave, as "an example" of how their plans might be achieved,
By March 1997, the Government's commitment had been reduced even more. I have the official Home Office press statement that was issued when the Crime (Sentences) Bill received Royal Assent on 21 March 1997. It states:
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the OECD report. That report shows that, of 16 western countries, England and Wales had the largest increase in crime between 1987 and 1994. I shall put that report in the Library. There can be no gainsaying the survey published today that shows that the people of England and Wales are more likely to be the victims of burglary, robbery, assault, theft from cars and theft of cars than those in any of the other 11 countries mentioned.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to delays. I am very glad that he approves of our plans to reduce delays in courts. However, he did not acknowledge--and he should--that, despite the fact that the number of people convicted by the courts has fallen by a third in the past 18 years, thanks to the incompetence of the previous Administration, delays have worsened by five weeks. It took nine weeks to get a case to court in 1984, and it now takes 14 weeks. That is scandalous.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Many of us are appalled by the overcrowding in prisons, and are therefore attracted by the arguments of the Offenders Tag Association. Against the background of the very constructive letter written to me on this subject by the Minister responsible for prisons, will my right hon. Friend comment on the view that, in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk, probation service care is received only spasmodically and surreptitiously, and that through-care is important? What is the Government's policy in relation to tagging in the field of back-end release--that is, curtailing the sentences of first-time offenders under the supervision of the night curfew?
Mr. Straw:
We have no proposals on my hon. Friend's last point at present, but we are certainly ready to consider proposals.
My hon. Friend asks about the practice of tagging. The analysis of the experiments in the three pilot areas shows that they are 80 per cent. successful and, whatever original concerns there may have been about tagging, there is no question--I am happy to say this--but that they have proved more successful than many expected and can make community punishments much tougher and more effective.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
Does the Home Secretary realise that we will welcome measures to reduce the delay in court procedures and to strengthen community sentences, including tagging where that can be part of an effective programme for the offender concerned? But how many additional prison places will be required for the sentencing proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself, and do the figures that he will produce assume that one in five criminals will be deterred by the existence of mandatory sentences,
"Electronic monitoring is a dangerous and irrelevant concept. It is wrong in principle. . . It has enormous implications for civil liberties"--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 274.]
30 Jul 1997 : Column 345
Given Labour Members' objection "in principle" to tagging, why should the House now believe the Secretary of State's latest plans? Is this just another Labour policy likely to be jettisoned?
"a bizarre mixture of complacency and desperation".
Is he aware that his hon. Friend the present Minister of State claimed in 1996 that they were "a farce"? Is he also aware that we welcome the Government's conversion to the public interest, which we have long promoted, but that we shall closely monitor his application?
"taking account of . . . the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications"--
exactly what I said--that the proposals for minimum sentences for domestic burglars might be introduced "in October 1999". However, those provisions would not have had any effect until 2001.
"Notes for editors. None of the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 have immediate effect. No dates have yet been set for implementation."
30 Jul 1997 : Column 346
The right hon. Gentleman skips about with a series of figures, trying to suggest that the public's understanding of the record of the previous Administration from 1979 regarding the doubling of crime and the great increase in victimisation is somehow wrong. He reminded me of Pol Pot--trying to set year zero at the date that suited him. I shall be delighted to publish all the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred--many are already in the Library, and others I published when I was in opposition.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |