| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
That this House notes that the Serious Fraud Offices (SFO) decision to discontinue its investigation into BAE Systems plc and Saudi Arabia was taken independently by the Director of the SFO on grounds of national security in the public interest and in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors; further notes that the SFO is vigorously pursuing a number of other lines of investigation in relation to BAE Systems plc; welcomes the steps being taken by the Government to tackle international corruption; and further welcomes the Governments commitment to compliance with the United Kingdoms obligation under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),
That the Merchant Shipping (Inland Waterway and Limited Coastal Operations) (Boatmasters Qualifications and Hours of Work) Regulations 2006 (S.I., 2006, No. 3223), dated 4th December 2006, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be revoked. [Mr. Burstow.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): We now come to the second debate on an Opposition motion. I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I beg to move,
That this House notes the increasing evidence of a crisis in the criminal justice system, with excessive levels of prison overcrowding, failure to tackle rising reoffending rates, unacceptable breach rates of the Governments anti-social behaviour measures, widespread public fear of crime and the judiciarys concern over Government sentencing policy; believes that a new direction in Government policy prioritising administrative competence over media-driven legislative initiatives is urgently required; calls on the Government to make prison work by tripling the numbers of prisoners doing paid work and making education and training compulsory, with contributions from earnings going towards a victim compensation fund; calls for measures to allow sentences to mean what they say; further calls for the abandonment of the expensive identity cards scheme to allow funding for a sustainable increase in police numbers; urges the Government to divert money allocated to the latest prison building programme towards the expansion of secure and semi-secure mental health treatment facilities; and further calls on the Government to increase the use of restorative community justice panels to help reduce repeat crime, increase the use of rigorous and visible non-custodial sentences as a viable alternative to short-term prison sentences and change licensing provision to give local communities greater say over the closure of pubs and clubs which contribute to alcohol-fuelled violence.
This debate is extremely timely. For 10 years the Government have presented us with an endless menu of tough rhetoric on crime and law and order and a barrage of frenzied new law-making, and now we are entitled to ask questions. By coincidence, it is 10 months almost to the day since the first revelation in a series of scandals that have rocked the Home Office. Members will recall that in April last year it was first revealed that more than 1,000 foreign offenders who had been recommended for deportation by British courts were not being deported. So it is a good time to ask what has happened in the last 10 years. What is the result of all the tough talk? Has all the legislation really made a difference? What has gone so spectacularly wrong, and why?
If we look objectively at almost any aspect of the criminal justice systemevery body, every institutionit is impossible to claim other than that almost every pillar of the system is in a state of perhaps irremediable crisis. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but it is no laughing matter. We have a prison system that is bursting at the seams, with offenders moved at dead of night from one overcrowded prison cell to another and an epidemic of violenceprisoner on prisoner, prisoner on officerwhich has risen by 500 per cent. in the last 10 years. Meanwhile, we have no space, resources or time for the rehabilitation that is necessary to deal with reoffending rates that have also gone through the roof. It is no laughing matter that our prisons are at breaking point.
Margaret Moran (Luton, South) (Lab):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal Democrat policy of ending jail sentences for drug possession would be one element of his strategy to solve the problem of
overcrowded prisons, and will he explain that policy to people in the outside world who do not think that it is a sensible proposition?
Mr. Clegg: I anticipated that that question would be asked, because I read about it in the parliamentary Labour party briefing on the Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. I note that the hon. Lady has referred closely to what is in the briefing, and if she does not have the wit or the independence of mind to ask her own question, rather than be spoon-fed by party managers, she does not deserve a response.
Reoffending rates are at an unprecedented high level: 66 per cent. of all offenders who go to prison reoffend within two years, and 92 per cent. of all male offenders who serve short-term prison sentences of three months or less reoffend. That is a system of the mad house; offenders go straight into prison and then come out and reoffend, leaving a trail of innocent victims in their wake.
Our judiciary are in near open revolt against the Government, as one Home Secretary after another has vilified and blamed judges for taking decisions that invariably faithfully follow sentencing guidelines that flow from the Governments own legislation. The probation service is on its knees; it is vilified by one Home Secretary after another, and under-resourced and overstretched.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): I am listening to the hon. Gentlemans Jeremiahs about increasing crime, but if that is the case, why did the Sheffield and Rotherham Star, which covers his constituency and mine, state in its headline of last Monday that crime in South Yorkshire has fallen?
Mr. Clegg: The right hon. Gentleman is interested in European Union affairs and, as he knows, a recent EU report revealed that non-violent crime has declined throughout the EU since about the middle of the 1990s. That has happened here as it has in other countries. The point is that in South Yorkshire and in the rest of the country [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should listen; the point is that the rate of decline in non-violent crime in South Yorkshire and the rest of the country has not been as fast as it has been in other countries. To my knowledge, Germany, France, Italy and Spain have not been indulging in a heady mix of populist rhetoric and frenzied law-making, but in those countries non-violent crime has declined more rapidly than it has in our country. Has new Labour solved the crime problem in Paris, Bremen or Madrid? I think not.
There are wider reasons why non-violentnot violentcrime has gone down. Most criminologists agree that it is because of a relatively benign economic environment, and also because of the roll-out of anti-burglary technology that protects both cars and homes.
Michael Jabez Foster (Hastings and Rye) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clegg: No, I would like to make some progress, as time is limited.
In contrast to non-violent crime, violent crime has doubled since 1998. Violent offenders are now more likely to get a caution than a conviction in court. Fewer than one in a hundred crimes is punished in court. Antisocial behaviour ordersthe great catch-all magic wand solution to everything, and the one-trick pony of the Prime Minister in dealing with antisocial behaviourare now breached more than 50 per cent. of the time. The Home Office, according to the Home Secretary himselfthere is no greater authorityis not fit for purpose. The report from the EU, which I referred to earlier, has confirmed that we are now the sick man of Europe in terms of crime. We are the most burgled country in Europe.
Michael Jabez Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clegg: I could go on. [Hon. Members: Go on.] I will go on, and then I will give way. Overall, gun crime has doubled since 1997. The Government have still not introduced the gun register promised after the Dunblane incident. Street crime and muggings are heading towards the 100,000 per year mark, following a rise of 8 per cent. last year.
Michael Jabez Foster: The hon. Gentleman says that ASBOs are only 50 per cent. successful, although that would mean that there is 50 per cent. less crime and disturbance on the streets than would otherwise be the case. If what he says is accurate, is he in favour or against ASBOs? Have the Liberal Democrats changed their minds about ASBOsare they for or against them?
Mr. Clegg: I refer the hon. Gentleman to his partys briefing. We voted in support of ASBOs in 1998, when they were first introduced. I have a note from the House of Commons Library that confirms our record. However, we have always said that they should not be overused, that they should not be overly relied upon to deal with the complex issues underlying antisocial behaviour, and that they should not be imposed in excessive numbers on young people. The record shows, in Committee and in this Chamber, that we have supported ASBOs but we have always expressed perfectly reasoned objections to them.
Even an august academic report from Kings college, released on 15 January, asserts that the Governments
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |