| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move an amendment to the Motion, at the end to insert,
- "except in its application to the Crime (Sentences) Bill".
I suggest the amendment for these reasons: the key proposals in the Bill are threefold--the imposition of automatic life sentences on anyone convicted for a second time of a serious or violent sexual offence; the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on repeat burglars and drug dealers; and the abolition of parole for prisoners serving determinate sentences, together with the shortening of remission.
In his speech in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of the Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said:
- "it is necessary to test each of the proposals by asking four questions. Will it be just? Will it serve to reduce levels of crime or increase the protection of society? Will it be cost effective? Will it work in practice?
The Lord Chief Justice then said:
- "I feel bound to tell your Lordships that in my judgment these measures conspicuously fail to pass all four of those tests".--[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 984.]
In the same debate, the Master of the Rolls said:
- "If this Bill is implemented, it is my fear that it will prove to be an extremely expensive way of making the criminal justice system worse".--[Official Report, 27/1/97; cols. 996-70.]
In the other place the Home Secretary said that he was introducing the Bill essentially to improve the protection of the public against serious, dangerous and persistent offenders, and to increase public confidence in the sentencing process. In the course of the Committee stage, numerous speakers have said that the Bill will have the reverse effect. It will deprive the public of protection and in many ways it will make the system a mockery.
Finally, in support of my amendment, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that considerable research, considerable consultation and considerable discussion resulted in the 1990 White Paper which was the basis of the legislation in 1991. The proposals in this Bill are diametrically opposed to what was suggested in that White Paper and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said in a recent debate:
- "the Government are overturning--there is no other way to describe it--the proposals, principles and philosophies which were put forward as recently as 1990 and embodied in the ... 1991 Act".
- "I do not believe that in respect of such a vital matter the Government can just go into reverse into this way without explaining more deeply and clearly to us in Parliament and to the public as a whole why six years ago they were wrong--not just a little wrong but fundamentally wrong--and are now fundamentally right".--[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1051.]
They have not provided that information to date, hence my tabling of this amendment to the Motion.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord resumes his seat--
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the original Motion was as set out on the Order Paper, since when an amendment has been moved thereto, at the end to insert,
- "except in its application to the Crime (Sentences) Bill".
The Question before the House, therefore, is, That the amendment to the original Motion be agreed to:
Lord Hughes: My Lords, all that I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was whether his amendment should not include also a reference to the equally controversial Scottish Bill because, as things stand, that Bill would go through along with the rest.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am afraid that under pressure of events, I had time only to think of England. However, if the noble Lord wants me to continue speaking while he writes out an amendment, I have plenty of material that I could read out.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am sorry, but the noble and learned Lord is asking me to do something which I am not capable of doing at the moment. I am quite
sure, however, that if the noble and learned Lord gave a little thought to it, he could make a damn sight better job of it than I would.
Noble Lords: The Leader of the House!
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say just a few words before the Lord Privy Seal rises to his feet. We would not be in a position to support the amendment just moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner--
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear the cries from my right and from opposite--
Lord Richard: and from behind--but I thought that it was sensible for me to set out the Labour Party's position on this issue.
The original Motion is clearly necessary at the end of a Parliament. The timing of the end of this Parliament is not a matter for the Opposition. It is right, however, that an opposition should co-operate with the Government in trying to succeed in providing a sensible ending to the Government's legislative programme. That we have done--not only in relation to the Bills which are before the House today but in relation also to the Bills which will come before the House tomorrow and on Thursday. I do not think that it is possible to unravel the package that has been agreed--
Lord Richard: My Lords, I know that various noble Lords do not like the agreement, but, with great respect, that is not the point. They may disagree and they may say that they are not party to the agreement, but I say only that the Labour Party has entered into an agreement and that we propose to stick by it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the Lord Privy Seal responds to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, perhaps I may make a few additional comments from these Benches. The agreement that has been reached in another place is in no way binding on this House, which did not reach that agreement itself. As I understand it, the purpose of this debate is precisely to determine whether it is the wish of this House to accede to that agreement which was made without discussion or deliberation with other Members of this House, including representatives of the Cross Benches and of some Opposition parties.
There can be almost no example more harsh of the power of the Executive than an agreement made between the two Front Benches without adequate consideration of the much wider considerations which cover this Bill. From all Benches in this Chamber in the
past few minutes we have heard very powerful arguments as to why the Bill should not be allowed to go ahead without due further deliberation. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, put forward what I regarded as a totally unacceptable argument. It went along the lines that if there is not the political will from the Front Benches, it is only realistic to say that there is no way in which their agreement can be overturned. I cannot accept that argument. It is a dangerous argument with the widest possible repercussions for a parliamentary democracy.Perhaps I may make one further point on the substance of the matter. We know, because we have had evidence directly from the prison governors, that our prison system is in a state of advanced crisis. It may be the case that literally within the next few weeks or months the prison system will be unable to cope with the demands made upon it. We have heard from the Lord Chief Justice that those noble Lords who know most about the criminal justice system are extremely worried about the implications of the Bill. We know from my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that there are the strongest reasons why the Bill should be deliberated at much greater length, in much greater detail and with much greater consideration as regards our own responsibility for those who work in the Prison Service, in the criminal justice system, in the police force and, for that matter, for offenders.
It has been said that this is a revising Chamber if it is anything. However, I also understood that it was a deliberative Chamber if it was anything: a Chamber charged with deliberating about the pressures that are brought to bear on Ministers and Members of another place. All of us know the pressures that are currently bearing upon Ministers and their shadows as a result of trying to show who can be tougher on crime; but it is the job of this House to resist sudden pressures, often driven by the popular media, to consider the long-term consequences of what is done and to consider the effects of the law.
I plead that we give serious consideration to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because, as I understand it, it is an amendment in the true spirit of this House and its responsibility for the constitution of the United Kingdom.
4 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I shall be just two minutes or less. The cat is now out of the bag. I am the political innocent who had not seen it all along. The cat is that there has been a satanic pact between the two main political parties to see that this ill-considered legislation is forced through without proper examination by this House, because neither is prepared to forgo the hope of outbidding the other for the populist vote in the law and order debate leading up to the election. That is the truth of the matter and, to my mind, it is a deplorably cynical attitude to the administration of justice.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |