| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
A suggestion was put by my noble friend Lord Kingsland that the new first clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, should be amalgamated with this. I would just like to say that I think that is a totally excellent idea. A team of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I could produce a proper agreed amendment which we could be properly beastly over on Report, if the Government do not listen to what we are saying.
I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord, and I hope that that cloud can now vanish from his face.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble Earl—at least we did not have Genghis Khan this time. The suggestion that we get together and consider whether the amendments can constructively form a new clause to put in place of the present Clause 9 is one that I shall follow.
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1114
I was reminiscing about my experiences as a recorder when the noble Earl intervened. I wanted to give noble Lords a feeling for the mindset of those who deal with offenders when they are young. The first object is to get that person to take a different course. One learns of the familial cycles—father, son, grandfather—where members of the same family constantly turn up in court. In my time, I have certainly dealt with two generations, if not three. Generally speaking, such a young person under the age of 18 has an ill developed or malformed sense of right and wrong. The Minister and others have said that most people know what is right and wrong. That is not true. In some deprived families, there is a moral climate in which dishonesty is a way of life. Getting the better of other people is what life is about, and violence is accepted. That applies not just to the members of the family itself but to the peers of the young person, the gangs that roam around and, for example, steal mobile phones.
What one finds with people under 18 is a lack of example from people who can show them that there is a better way of life. In sentencing young people, the first thought that comes into one’s mind is whether there is any way of turning this person from a life of crime. When a convicted offender comes before you, the barrister who is representing him will talk about what a terrible time he had as a child and will go into all those issues. By the time that person is 19, 20 or 21 and has been through all the processes—probation, what used to be borstal, youth offending or whatever—you have to say, “Tough. Society cannot deal with you in any other way except to lock you up, if the offence is serious enough, for its own protection. You have had your chances; you have not changed your ways; all sorts of interventions have been tried in an attempt to deal with you. We are sorry that you had a bad time as a child, but you have to take responsibility and face up to the consequences and disagreeable sanctions”. I think that that was the definition of punishment for which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was striving.
However, there is a stage before that. In dealing with someone who is under 18, we are hoping that we can reform and rehabilitate them and set the boundaries to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred. It is not punishment that will set boundaries for young people; it is encouragement, the teaching of values, the providing of leadership and of role models, so that the young person appreciates that they do not have to engage in crime. They do not have to follow their family or their peers.
For those reasons, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he poses the question to which we have really had no answer: how do the purposes set out in Clause 9 differ from the way in which the purposes of sentencing are applied to adults? There should be a difference. There is a possibility of reform and rehabilitation. It is not enough to say that everybody understands punishment and that society wreaks vengeance on those who offend against its tenets. The public have to be protected, but we know that, for young people, detention and prison are failing; punishment in that sense is not working. It is not working because detention and imprisonment—we
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1115
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that we have to have punishment because people understand the concept. What I am always looking for from a Government of any hue is leadership to educate the public that there is a better way of dealing with young people than locking them up. We should not be paying heed to the cries of the popular press; we should be educating, not following, public opinion in this most important area.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Does the noble Lord accept that this is not about locking people up? Although we have moved on to Part 2, most of our debate has been about Part 1 and youth rehabilitation orders, which are designed to reinforce the point that custody is a last resort and that we need to put much greater emphasis on—dare I say it?—rigorous community sentences.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that I indicated to the noble Lord yesterday that the phrase “last resort” had been used over the past 15 years, during which period the number of children in custody has doubled. It does not seem in any way to restrict custody. However, I take the noble Lord’s point.
7.30 pm
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord speaks about the past 15 years. The figures between 1997 and now have been pretty stable.
Baroness Butler-Sloss: The word “punishment” is being treated by the noble Lord, as it has been treated by others, as the equivalent of custody. But punishment is equally community service; it is equally anything else. It is clear that the noble Lord has focused on punishment as custody. When I spoke of punishment, I really meant the whole, broad spectrum. I was not thinking about custody in particular.
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1116
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that intervention. As my noble friend Lady Linklater asked, what does “punishment” mean in these circumstances? We have not come in our debate today, wide-ranging as it has been, to a common view of what it means.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from his experience, gave us an international perspective. We have been discussing the conventions that set down international standards. The clause does not meet those standards; the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made that clear. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that he will consider the clause in response to pressure from noble Lords around the Committee. I shall be interested to see whether he feels, in the light of the criticisms that have been made, that the current clause should be amended.
I still commend the amendment that we tabled. There may be criticisms that can be made of it, which we can consider in the light of today’s speeches before Report.
Lord Judd: The noble Lord has as usual made a powerful contribution, but there are two questions that I hope that he will answer in his final remarks. He seemed to indicate earlier that, when he had been a recorder, he had struggled with the issue of how you rescued somebody from a life of crime and said that, when you had tried this and tried that, you came to a point at which you had to say, “Well, sorry, you may have had a hell of an upbringing, a hell of an experience, but nothing’s worked, and the only possibility is to put you away”. Does the noble Lord not really believe that he should say, “The point has been reached at which we have to try a more disciplined approach to your rehabilitation than has perhaps been possible by all the other means, and, therefore, we are taking you into custody to have an intensive course”? That is what we should strive at.
The other element of what the noble Lord said raises a wider and more contentious debate, but it underlies a lot of our position. I remember listening to a very senior policeman of a very enlightened hue, who said, “The trouble is that, if you live in a society in which the social mores of the successful are greed, short cuts, getting what you can without being too squeamish about how you’ve done it, where is your moral authority to appeal to those at the bottom of the pile? Where is your credibility when you start talking about the threat to society and saying that we must therefore lock someone up?”. I do not say it lightly, and I am sure that the concept of hypocrisy means little to many of the youngsters with whom we are concerned, but we are often seen as a pretty hypocritical society.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The second point of the noble Lord was so wide that I was looking for assistance to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark as to how completely to revamp the morals of our society. I shall not do that with the amendment that I have suggested to the Committee. However, I largely share his views about the lapse in
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1117
In response to his first question, I say that I share the noble Lord’ concern that, when we lock people up, we are not doing anything positive with them. Adults are outside the terms of reference of the amendment, but I share the noble Lord’s concern that we do not simply throw away the key when they are locked up, when all the other ways in which we have attempted to deal with the person’s problems have failed. We must still try; we must still have the resources available to put on the courses to which the noble Lord referred.
I have already wearied the Committee for long enough. I will accept the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to discuss further—I hope with the Minister and certainly with other participants in the debate—ways in which we can positively take the issue forward. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
“(2) The court must have regard primarily to the welfare of the offender, in accordance with section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
The noble Earl said: One must thank everybody for taking part in that debate. The cliché “wide-ranging” immediately springs to my lips. There is still confusion of purpose at the heart of the Bill. The clause is not well enough written. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland suggested, we must try to put together this purpose and the original purpose of punishment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I accept, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, that there must be an element of punishment, but we do not always know what punishment means. These questions become deeper and more complicated the more one thinks of them. We can but struggle. I give the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, credit for trying to get their heads around the matter and to do something about it. It is horribly complicated and difficult, and the crimes will be here generation after generation. I hope that I will get together with other noble Lords.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee not begin again before 8.39 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1118
Zimbabwe
7.39 pm
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the prospects for a resolution of the political, economic and human problems in Zimbabwe.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we can see now why Robert Mugabe’s representatives at the series of talks arranged by President Mbeki following the SADC meeting in March 2007 were so often late in arriving or said that they were unable to attend at all. It has been Mugabe’s objective right through the nine months of the infrequent talks to make the proceedings last as long as possible so that the new constitution which was eventually agreed would not come into force before the elections. That has now been achieved by Mugabe. The elections will take place at three levels and will now be held on 29 March this year.
The registration of candidates was originally to be completed this week; now it has been extended to next week. The new constitution has been initialled but not signed. ZANU-PF has clearly not been taken by surprise. It has been accumulating supplies of food, which Mugabe has for a long time been using for political purposes and which are said to be intended to amount to a few trillions of Zimbabwe dollars. ZANU-PF has, of course, had warning of the impending elections. In a cynical ploy to buy votes the regime has announced that it will over coming weeks open people's shops across the country to provide the basic commodities that are generally unavailable in Zimbabwe.
Developments as recently as today show that Mugabe's control of events is faltering. The postponement of the nomination day for a week seems to have been taken more in panic in ZANU-PF than with a sudden concern for the democratic process. The emergence yesterday of Simba Makoni from within ZANU-PF as a challenger for the presidency shows Mugabe's increasing isolation. This suggests that the political landscape of Zimbabwe could alter dramatically with new alliances and formations. Mugabe's fightback could be vicious. Makoni is reckoned by many to have prevaricated and supped with the devil for too long. Both he and Arthur Mutambara are widely claimed to lack grassroots support, while Morgan Tsvangirai has courageously led the mainstream MDC since its foundation and has won both scars and voter recognition for his efforts.
The rising anger against Mugabe was expressed recently by the president of ZINASU—the Zimbabwe National Students Union. In a letter to Mugabe he writes:
“ZINASU is disappointed by your conduct, lack of seriousness and urgency in the purported on-going SADC mediation process meant to resolve the current multi-faceted crisis our country finds itself in. Your attitude towards the initiative facilitated by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, leaves a lot to be desired, especially considering the fact that you proceeded to announce the election dates before the conclusion of the mediation process.
We further put to you that the students of Zimbabwe will not accept an election outcome from a flawed election process. We strongly and unequivocally warn you and your cronies that the country will be ungovernable if you steal the people's vote”.
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1119
Mugabe clearly fears that the students mean business and are capable of becoming a focus for dissent. He has ordered all state-run universities and colleges to stay closed until after elections on 29 March.
The Zimbabwean economy is in a state of collapse. The shops, including food shops, have bare shelves because of Mugabe’s decree that all shops must reduce the price of goods by 50 per cent. The first people to get to the shops after that decree, before the shelves were empty, were the police and the military. Other people have had to scavenge for food in waste bins.
What can be done? The mandate given to President Mbeki last March, at the urgently called conference of SADC heads of government in Tanzania, following a brutally disrupted prayer meeting, was simply to facilitate negotiation between ZANU-PF and the MDC. Before negotiations began instructions were given to the MDC by the police to avoid violence, even though the MDC is entirely peaceful. No such instructions were given to ZANU-PF.
One of the most urgent things which must be done is to renew the European Union-targeted measures against 131 of Mugabe's cronies limiting their travel, which expire this month. I would be grateful for the Minister's assurance that they will be renewed on time. Last year there were signs of backsliding by some EU members, which were halted by urgent action. These travel restrictions have been exaggerated by Mugabe's constantly describing them as savage economic sanctions, when of course they are nothing of the kind. African Union and SADC leaders peddle the same line. It is not known from what source these falsehoods come—possibly somewhere not far removed from SADC headquarters—but they seem to be given credence by a number of the SADC leaders. I should be glad to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to refute these lies. Mugabe is a formidable practitioner of spin, but we may now have an opportunity to take our revenge against him.
Zimbabwe, like other SADC countries, is a signatory of the treaties for the African Union, SADC and NePAD. Those contain undertakings to observe human rights, good governance and the rule of law and to accept peer review. If Zimbabwe has not yet agreed to this last point it should be pressed by other SADC countries to do so. The promise was that these treaties were to be adhered to as part of a bargain with the developed world, which was the subject of a passionate speech by Tony Blair in 2001. The promise by the developed world was to increase the amount of aid, which has largely been done. I shall be glad to know also whether Her Majesty's Government have given thought to the implications of the substantial aid which is given to the SADC countries by the EU and by this country in particular. According to a Written Answer given to me on 10 October 2007, in col. WA 17, aid given by the United Kingdom in 2005 to the Southern African Development Community as a whole and to its member nations plus the UK's imputed share of multilateral aid to SADC member nations was over £750 million. That is a formidable figure.
6 Feb 2008 : Column 1120
The issue of Zimbabwe was discussed in Addis Ababa at the meeting of SADC countries a few days ago, on the sidelines of the African Union summit. President Mbeki reported that Mugabe's intransigence, and his reneging on agreements made early in the talks, had moved the mediation process to deadlock and failure. Eight nations supported President Mbeki's call for censure but three—Swaziland, Namibia and Angola—backed Mugabe and, surprisingly to me, that was deemed an insufficient basis for a consensual decision. Will Her Majesty's Government reconsider grants of development aid to these three countries to bring home to them the implications for our aid budget of their policy of supporting Mugabe? The Department for International Development will undoubtedly wish to consider aid holistically to SADC. By prolonging the crisis in Zimbabwe, these countries are adding to the massive sums that will be required for reconstruction when ZANU-PF eventually goes and undermining the development of the region as a whole.
7.47 pm
Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for his tenacity and determination in ensuring that the plight and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe continue to command the attention of your Lordships' House. We need an election in Zimbabwe but we do not need Mugabe as a candidate. Zimbabwe has gone through a number of stages; it has gone from bad to worse and now to disaster. It is no wonder that thousands have left the country. For the unfortunate ones who have stayed, the rewards are quite clear: the abuse of their human rights, the destruction of their democratic rights and processes, and, of course, the suppression of their liberties.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |