| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Overseas Domestic Workers (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is a modest and narrowly drafted Bill. It gives a limited protection only to a tiny minority of all domestic workers from overseas now in Britain--to those who are plaintiffs or witnesses in cases coming before our courts. It is in the interests of justice.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Crime (Sentences) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) This section has effect for the purposes of setting out the basis on which the court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this Part.
(2) Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender.
(3) Under sections 2 and 3 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years under subsection 2(2) or, as the case may be, of at least three years under subsection 3(2) the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which--
(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and
(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I speak also to the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 4, 18, 20, 26 and 28. As usual, I take the first few moments to allow noble Lords to leave the Chamber in an orderly but not too slow manner.
As I said in the debate at Second Reading, mandatory determinate sentences are at the heart of the Bill. It is therefore essential that Members of the Committees should get this matter right as we embark on the Committee proceedings. The starting point for our consideration of the amendments must be the statement of the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference in 1995. It has been referred to on a number of occasions. When announcing the plan for mandatory minimum sentences, the Home Secretary made no exceptions whatsoever. That was the pledge he gave to his party: that there would be mandatory minimum
Last year he produced a White Paper. That White Paper contained for the first time an exception. It said that there could be judicial discretion under genuinely exceptional circumstances. In November last, the Bill was produced . The Bill no longer refers to "genuinely exceptional circumstances", if indeed that phrase ever meant anything. It now refers to "exceptional circumstances". If anyone talks about U-turns, let us be clear that the U-turn was that committed by the Home Secretary in resiling from his pledge to the Conservative Party Conference and introducing a Bill which provided for the first time for judicial discretion.
When the Bill was before another place, my colleagues in the Commons, and other Members from all parts of the House, spent a great deal of time seeking to discover what "exceptional" meant. We failed even to gain examples, let alone a definition, of what it meant. The only example that I can find was given by the Home Secretary at Second Reading. He seemed to think that a police informer might be an exceptional circumstance which would deserve other than the minimum sentence. I find that curious because other suggestions have been that "exceptional" would be unforeseen circumstances; and the fact that a defendant is a police informer is not unforeseen. The Conservative chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons thought that this was bad law because it was unclear. It is still unclear; and it is still bad law.
The amendments which we have set down today follow our probing in the Commons and represent our determination to provide a workable definition of judicial discretion. Mr. Douglas Hurd in his speech, to which I have already referred at Second Reading, said that it was important to get the phrasing right. Indeed it is. It is important that we should try our very best to do that today.
The independent legal watchdog Justice--I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in his place today--described the effect of our amendments as being,
I accept that definition. Under that definition it cannot be said that these are wrecking amendments.
Why is it essential to clarify the Bill at this stage and in this way? It is essential because if judges cannot make the Bill work there are no answers to the serious questions which I and other noble Lords raised at Second Reading. If there is inadequate discretion, and if the Bill is bad because it is unclear, how can we be sure that in the appropriate circumstances the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute? How can we be sure that juries will convict? How can we be sure that witnesses, in particular family witnesses, will give evidence? How can we be sure that there will not be an increase in not guilty cases of people who feel that they have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty because if they plead guilty there is a mandatory minimum sentence which cannot be varied in any way. There has
The other amendments in the group are strictly consequential on the statement of principle in Amendment No. 1. Amendments to Clauses 1 to 3 allow judges to have regard to either or any of the offences and to the offender. The issue was discussed at Second Reading and it was made clear that it was necessary to have that provision to allow judges to be secure of their discretion. I believe that the phrase "acceptable" in Clause 1 is acceptable. As I said at Second Reading, in that case the judge sets the tariff and the Parole Board sets the release date. However, for those Members of the Committee who disagree with that judgment, there will be an opportunity in debate on Amendment No. 3 to discuss an alternative point of view.
In Clauses 2 and 3, where "exceptional" is particularly obscure, the word is removed and replaced by the words that the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which,
In a letter to my honourable friend Jack Straw, the Home Secretary said only yesterday,
is necessary. We agree entirely. Judges will award much tougher sentences to professionals. For example, sentences of 12 to 20 years' imprisonment for professional Class A drug dealers are quite common now even on the first offence. But we have to accept that the kind of offences that come under the categories of burglary and Class A drug dealing are very varied. Many burglars are pathetic losers; many small drug dealers are themselves addicts who need treatment rather than lengthy prison sentences. The effect of the "three strikes and you're out" policy in California as first applied--I do not claim that that is what is provided in the Bill--is very well known. In the past month, a man convicted under that policy, given 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pizza, had his sentence reduced to two years on appeal.
In case there is any doubt that judges would operate these clauses fairly but firmly, which may be an argument that the Government will use, my Amendments Nos. 8, 21, 29 and 32 clarify and secure the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against leniency for any of the offences in the Bill.
This morning on the "Today" programme the Home Secretary said three or four times that these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. At the same time he refused to hold the kind of constructive talks requested by Jack Straw which took place to such good effect on the Police Bill.
The Committee does not have to take my word for it that these are not wrecking amendments. The view of Justice, which I quoted, that they,
is a just judgment. It proves that these are constructive and workable amendments. I beg to move.
"to ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences".
"(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and
(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
"tough and effective action to deal with serious criminals like professional burglars and drug dealers",
"ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences,"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page