---

Mr. Blunkett: I can give an absolute assurance on the latter point about other legislation that may be introduced in the House. The Crown Prosecution Service is looking at self-defence, which is, from time to time, a burning topic in the British media. It is right for the review to address signal issues of that sort.

On mandatory sentences, I am attempting to protect the will of the House as expressed in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, not least when we legislated that life should mean life in the most horrendous and heinous cases. People may have differences on the flexibility of the judiciary as regards the interface between manslaughter and murder, where there are issues of partial defence, but I do not think that there would be major disagreement in the House on the idea that, having established the principle that life means life in horrendous cases, we should hold to it.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1582
 

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that press releases should have the careful wording that he mentioned inscribed on the bottom. None of us knows what is going to happen to us during the course of any 24 hours.

Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston) (Lab): Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this matter will be of great interest to people in Scotland. Has he had any discussions with the Scottish Executive about his review, and if not, does he intend to?

Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has had discussions with her opposite number in Scotland, and of course the Justice Minister and I keep closely in touch—we had discussions just three weeks ago. The Scottish legal system being different, Scotland is of course in a different position. It has moved ahead of us or, depending on one's point of view, alongside or behind us on a number of issues relating to murder.

David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I cannot remember a time when a Minister, let alone a Home Secretary, has been dragged to the House twice in one week to explain himself: first to explain why he surrendered the British veto on asylum and immigration, and now to explain why he tried to slip an announcement of the first review of murder law for 50 years into a brief debate on domestic violence. On both occasions the right hon. Gentleman should have volunteered a formal statement to the House. However, in view of his gracious apology, I will leave all of that to one side.

The importance of the review is not to be underestimated, so perhaps the Home Secretary could answer the following questions about the proposed review. When the Law Commission reported, I think that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that there was no intention of abolishing the mandatory life sentence. That seemed to be repeated yesterday. The Home Office also said that the review would consider all alternatives. Those are mutually exclusive, so which is true? Or is it the case that the review will consider partial defences in a way that may reduce the number of people facing a mandatory life sentence?

On the point of self-defence raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Law Commission specifically excluded a partial defence to murder based on the excessive use of force in self-defence. As the Home Secretary said, this has direct relevance to the concerns over legal interpretation of reasonable force when, for example, householders are faced with burglars who threaten them in their own home. It was not clear to me from what the Home Secretary said whether the review of this would be by the Crown Prosecution Service or within the formal review. As the right hon. Gentleman said earlier this week that he was open to suggestions about changes in the law, will he ensure that the formal review includes self-defence in the matters that it covers?

Does the Home Secretary agree with the Solicitor-General, who is sitting next to him, that the partial defence of provocation should be abolished, or does he
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1583
 
agree with the Law Commission that it should be retained? Has the review been announced late because of internal Cabinet rows? In particular, is it true that the Deputy Prime Minister instructed the right hon. Gentleman to clear the precise terms of reference with his Cabinet colleagues? Is it true also that those Cabinet colleagues sought to exclude euthanasia, military killings, railway crashes or corporate manslaughter from the review?

There were more than 850 murders last year. Knife killings alone climbed by 35 per cent. to 270. There is serious public disquiet about the leniency of guidelines for murder that are proposed by the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

The review is to be welcomed. I only wish that it had been presented in a more intelligent manner.

Mr. Blunkett: I do not recall a Home Secretary not being able to make a speech on Third Reading of a major Bill, including—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Home Secretary speak.

Mr. Blunkett: I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker, to act intelligently so that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) does not get too aerated.

I do not remember, even on very controversial Bills—I have been no stranger to controversial Bills over the past seven and a half years—not being able to make a speech as a Secretary of State on Third Reading—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have granted this urgent question, and I can stop it at will. If hon. Members shout, that is what I will do, so they have a choice.

Mr. Blunkett: I merely seek to make the point that I was in no way intending to hide the review. In fact, having announced it too early and given it too much time for publicity, the very opposite is true. Therefore, I repeat to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden my offer that the terms of reference can be influenced by Members of all parties. I would be happy if he were to take me up on it.

We are not ruling out the issues around self-defence, which are very important. We legislated on amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to be able to strengthen the rights of householders in terms of not being sued, and to be able to take action in reasonable circumstances. There is controversy still about how far someone could go in terms of partial defence. Therefore, it is on those issues—this refers, as does provocation, to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised—that consideration should be given to just what the impact would be.

The Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing all homicides over the past three years. We need to take account of the actions that the CPS will want to take, and to feed the evidence into the review. The right hon.
 
28 Oct 2004 : Column 1584
 
Gentleman asked me about the Law Commission and the contradictions. It is precisely because there are contradictions on the issue of provocation and partial defence that we were not prepared to amend the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. We felt that a patch or temporary solution would not be satisfactory, which is why the review has been brought forward. Above all, we have an intelligent view of the issue, so no decisions have been taken and no avenues have been closed off other than to protect the interests of the House and the decisions that were made on murder last year. Everyone is welcome to help us get this right. If it were not a complex and difficult issue we would have been able to deal with it effectively over the past 50 years, and victims of all sorts are angered that we have not done so.

On the question of whether the review will mean that provocation may result in a lower sentence, it may mean that some people are found guilty of murder who are not at present. Provocation has been abused by perpetrators of crimes who have used it to show partial defence. Because of those complications, an intelligent, thoughtful and slightly calmer approach is necessary, as I would genuinely like the results of the review to last another 50 years. If Opposition parties are prepared to join us in getting it right, everyone in the country will be very grateful.

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I welcome the review. I am reassured by what he said about provocation, but does he not agree that the courts are only too ready to accept the defence of provocation and that many men are getting away with murder? Can he assure me that that will be looked at very seriously in the review?

Mr. Blunkett: I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be, and I thank her for her contribution to the debate. I think that we are all horrified when people claim that provocation means the wife or partner deciding to leave the household, or requesting that their partner or husband leave. Provocation cannot be used to justify domestic violence, never mind murder. Too many people are in denial and believe that it was somehow their fault that someone committed violence against them, which is why we have spent months legislating on the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. I repeat something that I have said on a number of occasions in the House and which I would have said last night—we are grateful to everyone who has contributed to the Bill's passage and to making it work more effectively.

---