| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.43 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures in the Bill, although we have reservations about it and shall seek to have our questions answered. I agree with a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Peterborough, who warned of the danger of false expectations. In his case, that should be a warning born of experience.
Mrs. Helen Brinton (Peterborough): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: No, I have only just started my speech. I am sorry; I should have referred to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). His warning should be born of experience of annual criminal justice Bills, all of which disappointed the expectations that they created.
When the Home Secretary said that 10 Labour party pledges would be delivered by the Bill, he walked straight into that trap. Legislation does not deliver the outcomes that make a difference. Many of the pledges are valuable, and we want them to be implemented, but they will be implemented only when resources have been made available and the work has been done.
There is no better example of that than the pledge to halve the time that young offenders spend between arrest and sentencing, which I raised with the Home Secretary. Even though it was an early pledge, it will almost certainly not be delivered for several years. We should avoid the temptation of believing that it is legislation, rather than work and the commitment of resources, that gets things done.
I want to make a point of principle about the Bill's construction. We object to significant changes to Scottish law being tacked on to English Bills. Scotland is a nation with its own criminal justice system and judiciary, and the clauses that the Government believe to be urgent should have been dealt with in a separate Bill, which would have allowed Scottish Members to debate them properly. Clauses that are not urgent should have been dealt with by the Scottish Parliament, which will have responsibility for the criminal law in Scotland.
The problem with the way in which the House is dealing with the Bill was shown when my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine(Sir R. Smith) intervened on the Home Secretary, who could not answer his point. The right hon. Gentleman said that a Scottish Minister was on the Front Bench, but he is unable to speak in the debate and he is not here now. There will be no interchange on Second Reading between Scottish Members and the Ministers who are responsible for the criminal law in Scotland. That is not a reasonable way to proceed with major Scottish legislation.
Mr. Michael:
Three or four Ministers, or three or four shadow Ministers, frequently have a contribution to make in a debate, but we cannot get a quart into a pint pot. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am working closely with the Minister for Home Affairs and
Mr. Beith:
That will be for the convenience of the Committee, but it will not be for the convenience of Scottish Members who are not members of it. Relatively few Scottish Members will be on the Committee. If the Bill was considered by a Scottish Standing Committee, which would consist largely, if not entirely, of Scottish Members, a wider range of Scottish opinion would be brought to bear on it. The Government are proceeding in the wrong way.
A constructive approach to problems of crime and disorder is long overdue. We had hoped that the Bill might be the start. Crime figures remain far too high, despite the welcome decline in recorded crime, which was reported in the past week. Too many young people are failing to develop constructive lives, and we welcome the Government's recognition in the Bill that more must be done to reduce youth crime. Almost 70 per cent. of people who offend over the age of 21 were first convicted when they were under 21. It is pressing that we tackle youth crime, and challenge and get to the roots of offending behaviour.
Contrary to what Conservative Members have said, the law and order agenda of the previous Government was a pretty miserable affair: it was a mixture of failed promises and measures that did not happen or did not work. They neglected the youth justice system to such an extent that the Audit Commission said in 1996 that more was being done 10 years previously than at that time to deal constructively with young offenders. They presented themselves as the champion of the police, and made pledges in the last Parliament to increase police numbers, but the number of police officers in England and Wales fell by more than 500 between 1992 and 1997. The number has fallen by another 300 since the start of April 1997.
We do not share the former Home Secretary's conviction that the principal solution to crime is to lock more people up for longer. He did little to deal with the falling conviction rates. It is not the case that more and more criminals were being caught, but more, including women and young people, were being locked up for longer. Some had committed offences for which imprisonment was inappropriate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also did little to increase the number of crime prevention initiatives. His mantra was "Prison works", although, for many people, prison does not work. Yet, while he was repeating that mantra, the very facilities that can help prison to work--education, seconded probation officers working in prisons and specialised programmes to deal with sex offenders--were being cut. I fear that they will continue to be cut, because the resources demanded for security by a rising prison population pre-empt such vital work.
Anyone who thinks that my criticisms are partisan, because they are criticisms of Conservatives by a Liberal Democrat, should read the report of a debate in another place, when three former Conservative Home Secretaries
attacked the notion that prison works. Lord Hurd of Westwell said that it could not be right to define the success of our criminal justice system by the number of our fellow citizens being put behind bars. Lord Baker was similarly critical of the superficial and spurious logic of the idea that "prison works". Those views were widely shared, and were espoused even by experienced members of the Conservative party.
Sir Nicholas Lyell:
I entirely follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he not agree that it needs to be qualified to some extent? Those who burgle repeatedly ought to receive a substantial prison sentence. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sentence of three years for a several-times burglar recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the former Home Secretary, was identical to the sentence recommended by the Court of Appeal in a case involving a similar period of offending? That was substantially longer than the 19-month sentence that currently applied.
Mr. Beith:
First, I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the principle of mandatory sentencing. Once they are applied, sentences for related offences are ratcheted up, and the prison population is increased with no regard to the circumstances of the case involved.
I also disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about what should be done with a "repeat burglar". What should be done is whatever is likely to bring home to him the gravity of his offences and have a punitive effect, while also making it probable that, when he is eventually released, he will not continue to be a repeat burglar. Those are the two issues which are most in people's minds. If prison is the most expensive and least effective way of securing such a result, we had better look for another way.
Mr. Hawkins:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith:
No. I have just given way, and I want to make some progress.
In certain circumstances, we should consider what other forms of sentence combine punitive elements with some prospect of ensuring that the prisoner leads a useful life when he leaves prison. It is no good if all we have done, as taxpayers, is fork out a great deal of money for someone to be fed, clothed and kept in prison, if, at the end of the day, that person comes out of prison and continues to offend.
Mr. Hawkins:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith:
I have just given way; I want to make some progress.
In a New Statesman interview published last week, the present Home Secretary sounded entirely unapologetic for the continuing rise in the prison population. He said:
"If crime is rising, the prison population is bound to rise."
In simple terms, that seems obvious; but, as I have said, the rise in the prison population is not a result of more people being caught, but a result of the increasing tendency to use prison where alternatives were used before.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |