---

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. If he thought that is what I meant, he was quite wrong. Of course, I welcomed the contributions to the debate today from the Law Lords. But what I said was that I felt that it was not helpful to the respect for the judiciary that so many members of the judiciary today seem to have followed the example of Mr. Justice Pickles and found themselves unable to resist getting on the radio and in the tabloid press with their comments about these matters, which I thought were much better discussed in this forum.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot recall any judge other than Judge Pickles taking to the television, radio or the popular press to describe why he passed a specific sentence. I have no recollection of that. If the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has, no doubt he will tell me about it later.

I was even more surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the inadequate Court of Appeal guidelines and enormous differences in sentencing and from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the differences between the tough and the more liberal judges--he was referring to his experiences of some 25 years ago. The fact of the matter is that over the past 10 or 20 years considerable efforts have been put into

27 Jan 1997 : Column 1058

judicial training to ensure consistency of sentencing and that the right sentences are passed throughout the country.

The attack upon the judiciary made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, reminded me of what I hope may be my family motto: "Who can we blame?" It is easy to attack the judges in order to draw attention away from what we on these Benches consider to be the failure of government policy in this field over many years--varying policy at that. But perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, can confirm that at a sentencing conference some five or more years ago we were addressed by a senior judge who told us, in a typical fashion, "Now listen, boys"--of course there were no female judges present on that occasion--"you have heard that the Home Office wants to send people to prison for shorter periods because they have not got the prison space. Do not pay any heed to that. If you think they should go to prison, you send them to prison and let the Home Office find places for them". That was not a long time ago, and that was the attitude we were told by the Home Office to adopt towards sentencing in those days. Now we are told something completely different.

It was fairly typical that the Minister referred to persistent offenders and to percentages and statistics in relation to offenders; but never to people, never to persons, never to those who actually become involved in crime. It is rather like a bad speech in mitigation when one wraps the person up as though he were a parcel and presents him to the judge for posting to whatever prison he thinks is right. Effective mitigation in a criminal case is to present the offender as a living and breathing person with problems that need to be addressed. The deeply mistaken and alarming attitude of this Government is to treat people convicted of crime as though they were a separate species of being in some way apart from the human race in general and the citizens of this country in particular.

The causes of crime are complex but those causes are part and parcel of the society in which we live; a society fashioned and moulded by government. Poor education, bad housing and unemployment produce inadequate and damaged people. Their problems are compounded by a selfish and acquisitive culture to the creation of which we are all party. Policies which fracture and fissure that society and deny the existence of a community inevitably lead to crime.

The first responsibility of government is to protect the public. In dealing with young offenders every effort is made to help them with non-custodial sentences, probation orders and support of all kinds. All of us who are involved in the sentencing process try to give young offenders the benefit of a chance in life. But there comes a point when a judge has to say to young people, "Well, it is tough. Whatever your background, whatever the reason for your offending, society cannot function if you attack it in this way". Prison follows. But the responsibility of government does not end with the clang of the prison door. Government must recognise not only their responsibilities to the victims of crime and to the

27 Jan 1997 : Column 1059

potential victims of crime, but also to the convicted criminal. He does not forfeit his citizenship by being convicted of crime.

Two public interests strongly complement each other: first, the interest of the public in the rehabilitation of the prisoner to prevent reoffending; and, secondly, the interest of the prisoner himself in receiving the support and training which will enable him to cope with the problems of living outside prison and of playing a useful part in society. The greatest assistance to stability, we find from experience, and to good citizenship are a home, a family and a job.

Those who spend their lives in the processes of criminal justice, whether as lawyers or judges, understand these responsibilities and the balancing process between competing public interests. Daily contact with the detailed circumstances of the crimes that come for punishment provides a wealth of experience in assessing the seriousness of the particular crime--assessing its aggravating features and giving weight to mitigating circumstances--and from that a balanced judgment can be formed. I have taken some time to try to set out the basis of the independence of the judiciary and why it is charged in our constitution with this task of balancing competing interests. That responsibility and position is attacked by the Bill before the House.

Perhaps I may say a few words about various aspects of the Bill. There will necessarily be times when a mandatory life sentence is unjust. A judge will pass a sentence which he knows is wrong. It is quite interesting that in the course of the debate certain of the speakers from the Government side clearly have not understood the provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that the Bill is not designed for simple burglaries and that it is aimed at much more serious crime. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that the drug provisions of the Bill were not intended to catch the young offender who sells a small amount of Ecstasy or a small amount of a Class A drug. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, thought that because the goods taken in a burglary might be so insignificant that would be an exceptional circumstance which would mean that a mandatory sentence was not required. However, that is not what the Bill says. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, should realise that it is not two rapes that are concerned; two serious criminal convictions will bring the mandatory life sentence into effect.

Baroness Young: My Lords, as my remarks have been questioned, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that while I do not pretend to be a lawyer I find it difficult to believe that, in the case that has been quoted on several occasions of someone stealing a pint of milk off the doorstep, the police would bring a prosecution, let alone that the whole matter would come to court. If that is the case there is something seriously wrong with the criminal justice system. Constantly quoting something does not help the argument against the Bill.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness because she makes my

27 Jan 1997 : Column 1060

case for me. There are circumstances where in the interests of justice a mandatory sentence should not be passed. I have been involved in cases on indictment where a client has been convicted of the theft of a whisky glass--and an empty whisky glass at that--worth half a crown. It should not be imagined that, where burglary is involved, the criminal justice system does not prosecute simply because the material that is taken is not valuable or expensive.

We on these Benches consider that the provisions for mandatory life sentences are dangerous. They are dangerous for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. It is undoubtedly the case that a woman who is raped and who is the sole witness of the offence that has been committed on her is in danger if the mandatory life sentence were to be imposed on the offender. What possible motive can he have for allowing her to go free to identify him at a later stage? Unfortunately, we are familiar with cases of that sort taking place. These provisions are self-defeating because nobody facing a mandatory life sentence is going to plead guilty--that is to say, the whole system will be clogged up by cases of that sort. Finally, it will be expensive, for the reasons which have been urged before your Lordships such as the increase in the prison population and the diversion of resources for that purpose.

Perhaps I may say a word about the hybrid sentence as regards mentally ill offenders. The provisions contained in those clauses dealing with that aspect of the matter put the psychiatrist in an invidious position. Your Lordships will recall that the suggestion is that there should be a hospital order coupled with a sentence of imprisonment. That would leave the psychiatrist in the position of a gaoler who determines when and at what point his patient, who may have been cured of the illness from which he suffered, is sent to prison. The effect on the relationship between the psychiatrist and the person he is treating can be imagined.

It has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Hacking, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and Lord Belstead, all of whom speak from the Government Benches, that this is a bad Bill. What is the point that links the noble Lords? They understand and have hands-on experience of the criminal justice system. That is the link and that is why noble Lords on the Government side are opposed to this Bill and describe it in the terms that they do. We shall be putting down amendments. We shall fight this Bill all the way through. We shall also echo the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in asking what has the Labour Opposition been doing. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will maintain the position that he adopted in the earlier debate that we have heard about.

---