| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Minister no doubt accepts that categories of murder have been tried by statute and failed. We now have an offence which covers the mercy killer right up to the terrorist. Does the noble Lord accept that the insistence on an automatic sentence has devalued the life sentence? Why can it not be discretionary so that from the outset the court can indicate what is the appropriate punishment?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, even under the mandatory system it is possible for the trial judge to offer a view. In the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, only five trial judges in more than 200 cases gave a view. Given that they are able to express a view and chose not to do so, I find that surprising. They chose to leave the matter to the present system. With all its difficulties over definitions—there cannot be good murders and bad murders—taking a person's
life is murder. Therefore, it is right to consider the circumstances in the way I set out in my first supplementary answer.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the mandatory requirement for a court to pass a sentence of life imprisonment on conviction for murder is genuinely misleading the public? Despite what he has just said, life does not mean the natural life of the offender; it means release after the expiry of a tariff date, the tariff period having been set by the Home Secretary, supported by a favourable assessment of risk by the Parole Board. In asking this question I declare an interest as having been chairman of the Parole Board for England and Wales for a number of years in the past.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord. But the fact remains that there are people who will be in prison for the rest of their natural lives as a result of the crime of murder. So it is not fair and true to say to the public that every one is let out. There is a degree of flexibility. The proof of the pudding is that there are people in prison for the rest of their natural lives who will clearly not be let out.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, if the Minister is arguing for flexibility, does he recall the report produced under the chairmanship of a former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane? He suggested that there should be a law of homicide instead of murder and manslaughter and that discretion should be left to the judiciary who actually tried the case so that everyone would know where they stood.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I must say to my noble and learned friend that I do not recall the report, although I probably saw the headline. But it clearly was not accepted.
Lord Elton: My Lords, on the threshold of the Second Reading debate, will the noble Lord take note of the deep suspicion that many of us have of entrusting the decision of whether or not to let someone out of prison solely to the hands of the political executive?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I note the distrust.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that when the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which I had the privilege to chair, reported, it stated that in 1993 it had had reported 28 cases where a family member had brought about, or was alleged to have brought about, the death of a loved one who was suffering from terminal illness? In all of those cases but one an original charge of murder was levelled. But the prosecution in all but one case changed the charge to
one of either manslaughter or attempted murder because it knew that no jury would convict. Does that not bring the law into disrepute?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it may appear like that, but there is a degree of flexibility. I do not think that there is a widespread view among the public that the system is not working. As I said in my first Answer, we have no plans to reconsider the issue. Clearly, cases will arise from time to time where judgments have to be made. In those cases if the judgment was made by the prosecuting authorities that convictions could not be secured, they were right to change the charge to something else. That is an acceptable way forward. It shows flexibility in the system.
Climate Change Levy: Engineering Industry
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What is their response to the prediction that the climate change levy will raise the costs of the engineering industry by a total of about #90 million a year at a time when the industry's contraction is predicted to reach double figures in percentage terms.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is integral to the UK's Climate Change Programme. The levy package is broadly revenue neutral for manufacturing and services. But the impact on individual firms will depend on actions taken to improve energy efficiency, including measures qualifying for levy-funded enhanced capital allowances. Firms can also gain benefit by switching to renewable energy or locally produced combined heat and power which are levy free. The Engineering Employers' Federation ignores these factors and bases its findings on a self-selecting sample of less than 10 per cent of its members who responded to a postal survey.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I consider to be a not very satisfactory Answer. I am sure that he will not be disappointed that I do not agree with him.
However, will he agree that the climate change levy falls heavily on the engineering industry, which only shares 8 per cent of the market and yet pays 17 per cent of the climate change levy? That of course is just another tax. As the engineering employment forecast suggests that next year at least 70,000 jobs will be lost—that is a 3.7 per cent swing—perhaps he will tell the House what the Government intend to do about it, rather than simply saying that he does not agree with the EEF report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy is not a tax. It is revenue neutral. Everything that is gained from the climate change levy
is returned to the manufacturing and service industries in the form of a rebate on employers' contributions. If it were neutral for every single firm, there would be no point in having it. The idea is quite specifically to push heavy energy users towards forms of energy efficiency. That applies to the engineering industry as well as to any other industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister has emphasised the revenue neutrality of the climate change levy. Would it not be better if that neutrality were achieved by recycling the whole of the proceeds from the levy for energy-saving purposes? If that were done, the objective of the levy would be much more effectively achieved.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, considerable sums have been put aside for improving energy efficiency out of the proceeds of the levy. If there is any evidence that industry is capable of using more—in other words, more could be given for that purpose rather than in the form of employers' contribution rebate—I am sure that the Government would listen sympathetically to that argument.
Lord Jones: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect the Government's very positive response to the pleas of the steel company, Corus? That positive response saved that great steel company nearly #200 million.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do indeed, my Lords. The complementary point to that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is that for very heavy energy users there are indeed 80 per cent discounts because it is recognised that some very heavy energy users would go out of business unless they were given a discount. Of course that is in return for serious efforts to achieve energy efficiency, which is the object of the exercise.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, will the Minister agree that many of the solutions to excess use of energy are engineering solutions? That in itself can actually make a contribution to employment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very constructive point. It is certainly true that there are opportunities for the engineering industry in manufacturing goods—engines, valves and so on—which contribute to energy efficiency. Indeed, a substantial sum of money from the energy levy—something like #30 million—is set aside to encourage work in that area.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does not the climate change levy show why the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was right the other day to raise again the question of the exclusion of your Lordships' House from scrutiny of money Bills? I do not know whether the Minister has had a look at the 83 pages of Schedule 6 of the Finance Act which enacted this particular levy. Perhaps he can help me with its language. Further,
does he not think that the expertise in this House may have been able to improve it? This is a provision related to electricity rebates. It states:
- X[They] are to be calculated by treatment of supply as a reduced rate supply to the extent, if any, that the exempt renewable supplies made by the supplier in the averaging period would have been reduced rate supplies if they had not been made on the basis that they were exempt".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |