| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Angola
21. Mr. Robert Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest assessment of progress in the peace process in Angola. [22634]
Mr. Hanley: President Dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi reached agreement on 1 March on several important points, including the formation of a Government of unity and national reconciliation by June and/or July. We look to the Government of Angola and UNITA to honour their commitments and implement the provisions of the Lusaka protocol without further delay.
Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister heard the recent warnings given by the UN Secretary-General that time is running out for UNITA to comply fully with its responsibilities for quartering and the delivery of weapons, and for it to demonstrate its good faith? Are not those warnings compounded by recent belligerent speeches from Dr. Jonas Savimbi, who said that he was prepared to fight on? Given that, at one stage, the civil war cost 1,000 lives a day, will the Government act with some urgency to prevent the circumstances in which Angola would slide back into civil war?
Mr. Hanley: I believe that the prospects for peace are brighter now than at any time since the elections in 1992. The United Nations Angola verification mission--UNAVEM III--is now fully deployed and is providing the conditions necessary to maintain the ceasefire, to undergo the quartering to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to demobilise the UNITA troops. Seven quartering areas are now open to receive troops, but it is disappointing that the rate of quartering has not been quicker. We are also concerned by reports that most of those being quartered are not front-line troops. We hope that progress will be made and we are keeping tabs on it. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development visited the area recently and talked to Dr. Savimbi, from whom she received some assurances.
Sentencing
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about crime and sentencing. I am today publishing a White Paper entitled "Protecting the Public", which sets out the Government's comprehensive strategy to tackle crime. That strategy is designed to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent crime; the police have the powers and resources that they need to catch criminals; the innocent are acquitted but the guilty convicted; and criminals are properly punished.
There is clear evidence that that strategy is working. Last week, I announced that recorded crime has fallen for the past three years in succession. That has happened only twice before this century. In 1995, there were 468,000 fewer crimes committed than in 1992--the largest ever continuous fall in the number of annually recorded crimes.
I pay tribute to the police--and all the local communities with which they work in partnership--for that achievement. But crime is still far too high and there is more to be done. That is why I announced a series of radical new sentencing proposals last October in Blackpool, which have one simple aim: to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals.
The first proposal relates to honesty in sentencing. At present, offenders sentenced to less than four years in prison can expect to be released after serving just half their sentence. Those sentenced to four years or more can expect to be released after serving between half and two thirds of their sentence. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. I therefore propose to abolish it.
Under our proposals, there would be no more automatic early release. Prisoners who co-operated and behaved well would be able to earn up to 20 per cent. off their sentence. That will ensure that sentences actually served are much more closely matched to those handed out by the courts. In addition, it will give prisoners a strong incentive to behave properly in prison. On release, all prisoners serving 12 months or more would be supervised by the Probation Service for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of their original prison sentence. The courts would be expected to take full account of those changes in the sentences that they pass.
Secondly, I refer to persistent serious sexual and violent offenders. The maximum penalty for crimes such as rape and attempted murder is life imprisonment. The advantage of the life sentence is that the offender will be released if and only if the Parole Board is satisfied that it is safe to do so. But serious sexual or violent offenders rarely get life--even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious violent or sexual offence. All could have received a life sentence--but only 10 did.
Offenders who do not receive a life sentence have to be released from prison after serving two thirds of their sentence, even if everyone working with them knows that they are likely to commit another serious crime on some innocent member of the public. The sad reality is that many of them do.
In 1994, around 40 serious violent or sexual crimes were committed by offenders who had already been convicted of a second such offence. I believe that that is indefensible. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time should be sentenced to life imprisonment.
In these indeterminate life sentence cases, the trial judge, not Ministers, would set the tariff--the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once the tariff had been served, the Parole Board would decide whether it was safe to release the offenders or not. If the Parole Board decided that they still posed a danger to the public, they would remain in prison. Those considered safe would be released on life licence and subject to recall to prison at any time during the rest of their lives.
Thirdly, I refer to drug dealers. Drug dealers are a scourge on society. They prey on the young and the innocent and wreck people's lives and, because addicts often resort to crime to finance their habits, they wreck the livelihoods of others. Dealers in hard drugs such as heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine usually receive prison sentences but, in many cases, those prison sentences are not long enough for those who persistently commit that very serious crime.
A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction of dealing in hard drugs was just over four years, and those offenders are automatically released after serving only two and a half years. We need to send a strong and clear signal that persistent dealing in hard drugs is not something we are prepared to tolerate. I therefore propose that anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted on three separate occasions of dealing in class A drugs should receive a minimum sentence of seven years in prison.
Next is burglary. All burglary is disruptive and costly, but domestic burglary is particularly distressing for victims who lose their treasured personal possessions and feel that the sanctity of their home has been violated. I believe that persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences, yet they rarely get them.
A sample of domestic burglars convicted in the Crown courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. Even after three or more convictions it was only 18.9 months, and after seven or more convictions it was barely higher, at 19.4 months--and offenders actually serve just over half that. Indeed, 28 per cent. of offenders with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary in the Crown courts were not sent to prison at all. In the magistrates courts, that figure was even higher, at 61 per cent.
I simply do not believe that that gives the public the protection they deserve. Those sentences do not deter career burglars for whom the occasional short stretch in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard. That is why I propose a minimum sentence of three years for anyone aged 18 or over convicted of domestic burglary for a third time.
In addition, I hope that the courts will use to the full their new powers to seize burglars' assets. The prospect of long prison sentences, coupled with loss of their possessions, will, I have no doubt, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred, but at least communities will get a lengthy break from their criminal activities.
Five thousand more policemen to help catch burglars; new vigorous police tactics designed to take the offensive to the burglar; long sentences for persistent burglars; and the prospect of their own property being seized--those are my proposals to take on the burglar as has never been done before. I have no doubt that they will be warmly supported by the public.
I accept that there may very occasionally be cases where it would not be reasonable for the court to impose the minimum sentence. I therefore propose that the courts should have the discretion not to impose it in genuinely exceptional circumstances.
Let me summarise my proposals. Automatic early release from prison will be ended; anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime will receive a life sentence; and persistent domestic burglars will receive mandatory minimum prison sentences of three years, and those dealing in hard drugs seven years. Those are deliberately tough sentences, designed to deal with serious, persistent and wholly unacceptable offending by individual criminals. I accept that they are likely to lead to an increase in the prison population: the necessary prison places will need to be built, and that will require extra resources. I believe, however, that we simply cannot afford not to take such action.
I intend to phase in the measures. The provision to deal with second-time serious sexual and violent offenders and drug dealers will be implemented as soon as possible after Royal Assent to the Bill. I intend to implement the provisions to deal with persistent burglars and honesty in sentencing two years later, as new prison places become available. I also intend to consult fully on the proposals contained in the White Paper, and I shall carefully consider the points that are made. Having done that, I propose to introduce a Bill giving effect to my proposals in the next Session of Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |