---

Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. I have not spoken against the Crime (Sentences) Bill because there are many noble and learned Lords who have much greater knowledge than I do and I respect their views very much indeed, not least those of the noble Lord the Lord Chief Justice, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and many others. Therefore, I have not spoken on the Bill.

However, I understand that there may have been a deal to agree some form of Bill and I should be extremely concerned if that were the case. Whatever deal may or may not have been struck, I hope that noble Lords will ignore any such deal and vote today in the way that they think right. That may mean that the Bill could not go through in the present Parliament. I do not believe that that would be any kind of disaster. I hope that there may be a better Bill in the next Parliament on the same subject, whichever party is in government. I say nothing about that at the moment.

But I am very concerned that your Lordships should not feel bound to agree to the Crime (Sentences) Bill without the amendments which this House wishes to carry. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will ignore any deals, formal or informal, which may have been made.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I rise to support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Barnett. Whatever may be one's views of the merits of the Bill, I hope that we all agree that it is a Bill of extreme importance, and it is also a controversial Bill. It is important because it changes in major ways the sentencing policy which has been used in the courts of this country for many years. It introduces principles which have not been part of our criminal law in the past--whether it is in the extension of the number of mandatory life sentences or in bringing in mandatory sentences for other types of offences.

Part II changes completely the proposals for early release which were introduced in this country as recently as 1991 and which are now proposed to be changed totally by the Bill.

18 Mar 1997 : Column 772

One reason that the Bill is controversial is that, in those aspects which I have mentioned, it is in total contradiction to the expressed views of this Government a few years ago in the White Paper and the legislation which they then passed.

Secondly, it is controversial not only because of differences within the party's approach but it is controversial in that it is opposed almost unanimously by those who are required to conduct business in the courts on our behalf. We have heard the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and many other senior judges. But I believe also that the vast majority of the judiciary as a whole, who will be required to implement it, opposes its principles.

That being so, if ever there was a Bill which required careful and sensible debate and consideration by this House, it is this Bill. I happen to believe that sentencing policy should not be a matter for party political debate. Where possible, it should be a matter for consensus between the parties and, even more so, a policy acceptable to those who are required to impose it. Therefore, it is vital that any such alteration to policy should be considered away from the fevered atmosphere of electioneering and should be given the full and detailed consideration that this House can give to such a Bill. We should take account of the views expressed in this House by senior members of the judiciary who are Members of this House.

What is the position? We have now had four days in Committee. We now start Report stage with 148 amendments on 23 pages, many of which are brought in by the Government themselves. None of those matters has yet been debated. Where we had debates, we made important changes to Clauses 2 and 3. But the whole issue of Part II was taken away to consider what amendments the Government should make. Those amendments were tabled last Thursday. They require greater consideration than can be given to them by taking all stages of the Bill today.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, there is absolutely no emergency or hurry with this Bill. It is accepted by the Government that the implementation of the Bill will depend on resources, and particularly resources within the Prison Service. It is accepted today that those resources of the Prison Service are stretched to a degree and it is not proposed by the Government, in their own White Paper and in the statements made in this House, that the main controversial issues in the Bill--that is, mandatory sentences for burglary and a change of rules regarding early release--should come into force before, at the earliest, October 1999.

In those circumstances, there can be no urgency at all with this Bill and I ask the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal to reconsider the matter and to give this House adequate time to take into account the concerns which have been expressed by all those involved in the day-to-day working of our courts and the prison governors who are responsible for the organisation of the new proposals for early release. I see no urgency. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I believe that this Bill could come back to the House after the general election without any difficulty and loss following further consideration--and in a better form than its present one.

18 Mar 1997 : Column 773

3.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Motion before the House is not about the Crime (Sentences) Bill but about the business of the House between now and Prorogation and Dissolution. Such a Motion is far from unprecedented. I understand that, if not universal, it is the normal procedure of the House when Dissolution has been announced. However, I well understand the position of those noble Lords who feel strongly that a Business Motion of this kind should not apply to the Crime (Sentences) Bill. They will know that I have felt sufficiently strongly in opposition to the Bill to move amendments, a few of which have achieved the assent of your Lordships but many of which have not.

In these circumstances, it seems to me that there are three possible options for the future of the Crime (Sentences) Bill. One is that it should complete its proper parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. For that to happen the House would have to sit next week and probably after Easter because the time available for it did not allow for Report stage to be completed before 27th March. That would have meant that Third Reading and Commons consideration of Lords amendments would have had to take place after Easter. It is a fact, which we do not have to applaud or disapprove of, that that option is not open to us.

The second option, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is that the Bill should be subject to what he called "compromise"; in other words, its formal proceedings should be abandoned and agreement should be reached between the usual channels--of course, he would argue that for these purposes the usual channels should be extended--as to which parts of the Bill were generally acceptable and which parts were not.

There is a great deal to be said for that point of view, but the Government have it in their power to reject it and have rejected it. If this Business Motion is carried, the Government have it in their power to complete the stages of the Bill today: to have the Lords amendments considered by another place on Thursday and to have the Bill passed and receive Royal Assent by the end of this week. Many of your Lordships may feel that either of those two options would be better than the option that has been taken. Although I sympathise with that view, those options are simply not available to noble Lords. We must be realistic and accept that the Government have it within their power to complete the business but have not done so. They have it within their power to truncate the business and intend to do so.

Having said that, one is left with a third, inferior option. All I say about it is that, as your Lordships have been forcefully reminded, your Lordships have taken a view in opposition to the major plank of Part I of the Bill. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place will vigorously support your Lordships' decision on mandatory minimum sentences when the Bill goes back to another place on Thursday, if the business proceeds as is now proposed. Noble Lords have our assurance that every step will be resisted which seeks to overturn that important amendment, even if the Home Secretary were to say that it was a wrecking amendment. I do not believe that it is a

18 Mar 1997 : Column 774

wrecking amendment, and I said so at the time. We will certainly support the amendments that your Lordships have passed.

I am a realist and I believe in accepting and working with reality. I also believe in looking forward to the future rather than complaining about the past. In looking forward to the future, I refer to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In speaking about the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, he said:

"None of the provisions of the Bill would be brought into effect until the Government were satisfied that there were sufficient prison resources to cope with any increased prisoner population that might result".--[Official Report, 10/3/97; col. 95.]

I believe that those are wise words that apply equally to the Crime (Sentences) Bill as to the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.

In those circumstances, I believe that it is force majeure. We have no alternative but to accept the Business Motion that the Government have put forward. That has been agreed, and we shall support it. It is necessary for the proper conduct of the great range of business that must be completed by agreement before the end of this Parliament. It is unfortunate that it includes business over which there is no agreement. But that is a fact of life and of politics and we had better face it. Although we on these Benches will support the Business Motion I shall have no appetite for shadow boxing later today. I shall not be moving the amendments tabled in my name on the Crime (Sentences) Bill.

---