| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: That is a parody of what I was arguing. There is a distinction between the persistent, professional burglar on the one hand and the small opportunist burglar on the other. Of course I believe that persistent and professional burglars should go to prison for a long time. However, I give one example. A man commits two offences at the age of 16 and then, at the age of 30 or 35 in totally different circumstances, when he is married, with a job and family and having done nothing wrong in the intervening years, on the spur of the moment he commits a burglary of the type mentioned by the Minister. Perhaps he steals a bottle of milk or something of that nature. Is she really saying that a sentence of three years should automatically follow? I do not believe that that is just.
Baroness Blatch: I have not advocated an automatic sentence of three years for anybody. I am simply saying that I support the proposals set out in the Bill. If somebody burgles persistently, whether he steals a loaf of bread, a pint of milk or 50 pence from a purse, he should receive a sentence of at least three years. It is just possible--and I do not wish to suggest that it is--that the case outlined by my noble friend could be a special circumstance to be considered by the court.
My noble friend said also that mandatory penalties mean that the same sentence follows for the same crime. That is simply not true.
I have some statistics in relation to burglars receiving sentences of more than three years and sentences of more than five years, given that the maximum sentence is 14 years for burglary. I have the 1995 figures. Of 4,400 offenders sentenced for domestic burglary at Crown Courts, 179--only 4 per cent.--received a sentence of more than three years when the maximum was 14 years. Moreover, only 18 received sentences of more than five years. Nobody received the maximum sentence.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that courts impose long, determinate sentences for violent crimes. But when the offender has served his sentence he must be released, even if there is every reason to believe that he will commit a further serious offence. That is the point being missed by the noble Lord. That is exactly what happens in a significant proportion of cases.
I give the Committee an example. A rapist was sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court. He already had two previous convictions for rape, including a conviction for rape of a child. Because he was not given a life sentence on those occasions, he had to be released at the end of each sentence. Under Clause 1, he would automatically have received a life sentence on his second conviction and would not have been free to rape on that third occasion. Such offenders will no longer be released automatically into the community.
The noble Lord does not know of a single case where a life sentence has not been given for the second offence. Perhaps I may refer him to paragraph 10.4 on page 46 of the White Paper. He will see the statistic that in 1994, 434 offenders were convicted of rape or attempted rape but only 12 were sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence which included rape but only 10 received a discretionary life sentence.
The noble Lord referred to overcrowding and an increase in doubling and trebling of prisoners in cells. The practice of three prisoners to a cell for one has been completely eliminated. As regards the practice of two prisoners in a cell designed for one person, 27 per cent. of prisoners were in that situation in 1987 and that figure has now fallen to 17 per cent. It is our policy to continue to reduce that.
Perhaps I may defend my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who was prayed in aid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I confirm that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that the courts should have discretion to set aside mandatory penalties in exceptional circumstances, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I too believe that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that at this moment no one can say whether the figure for the use of exceptional circumstances will be 0.5 per cent., 1 per cent., 1.5 per cent. or 2 per cent. This is a new set of propositions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said that we must not compare this with driving offences or other offences. This is a new set of proposals. It is a matter for the courts to use them. There is an appeal system which serves both the defendant and the Attorney-General and that can be used to determine what is just in all cases.
The proposals are narrowly focused. I believe that they are a proper response to public concern. I ask noble Lords who will be voting in a few moments whether it is not reasonable that except in exceptional circumstances, a person who has committed repeated violent crimes should receive a sentence which ensures that he is released only when it is safe to do so. Is it not reasonable also that there should be power to recall such offenders if they display further violent behaviour? Is it not reasonable for persistent dealers in Class A drugs who have been convicted not once, twice but three times to receive a sentence of not less than seven years? Thirdly, is it not reasonable to say that persistent domestic burglars who are convicted not once, twice but three times, and possibly on the back of many multiple burglaries, should receive a sentence of not less than three years?
I believe that these proposals are supported by the public. This Bill arrived in this House with a majority of 200 from another place. Should the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seek the opinion of the House, on behalf of those who suffer daily from the activities of
violent offenders and persistent burglars and drug dealers I invite the Committee to join me in the Division Lobby to vote against the amendment.
Lord Hacking: I intervene with great reluctance from these Benches after the Minister has sat down. I do so with great reluctance because I am concerned about the penal policy of this Government, my Government. On a number of occasions during this debate, Members of the Committee on these Benches referred to these amendments as wrecking amendments. But I am concerned that this Bill is wrecking the established penal policy of this Government.
My noble friends sitting beside me clearly are not aware of the Government's penal policy and have not read the Government White Papers on penal policy. It was clearly established in the 1990 White Paper. As with the latest White Paper, there was a concern about crime and a concern about the need for tougher sentences. It is all in that document. It is all in that White Paper. I have it with me. I shall read from it again, especially for the benefit of my noble friends on this side of the Committee. They should remind themselves of it. I quote from paragraph 2.16 of Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public:
- "The legislation will be in general terms. It is not the Government's intention that Parliament should bind the courts with strict legislative guidelines. The courts will properly continue to have the wide discretion they need if they are to deal justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them. The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework ... or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional circumstances".
That is why I have a continuing concern. I hope that more of my noble friends on this side of the Committee will share that concern and that they will remind themselves of the established penal policy of this Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Members of the Committee will be grateful for the passionate intervention of the noble Lord. I believe that we would do ourselves credit if we ignored phrases like, "Burglars and drug dealers will rejoice on behalf of those who suffer daily", "Tell that to the victims" or "Speaking on behalf of the man on the top of the bus". Let us remind ourselves of what we have agreed upon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, reminded us, we agree that it is right and proper that Parliament should tell the judges what to do. But, having said that, it is also right and proper that Parliament should be circumspect and wise in what it tells the judges to do.
We are not discussing an issue of longer sentences. If we were, then the Government would be accepting our amendments about the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against the leniency of sentences. No one is saying that there should not be maximum sentences for hardened drug dealers or hardened burglars; indeed, we have all made it clear that we agree with the Home Secretary about the penalties which should be imposed upon professional burglars and drug dealers.
As I said, we are not discussing the issue of longer sentences; we are discussing the mandatory minimum sentence. The amendments say that that mandatory minimum sentence should be tempered where appropriate in the interests of justice by a measure of judicial discretion. It is no good saying again and again that these are wrecking amendments. They are--again these are not my words but the words of the independent body, Justice--an attempt to ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences. I recommend that view and these amendments to the Committee.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 180; Not-Contents, 172.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page