§ 3.32 p.m.
§ Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to expropriate any proceeds of a crime and any monies derived from the commission of crime.The purpose of the Bill is to give a discretionary power to the Lord Advocate in Scotland and to the Attorney-General in England to expropriate in appropriate cases, in the hands of the receiver or of the giver or of any intermediate handler, any sums paid to persons who have committed crimes and who have obtained benefit by describing, writing or illustrating the commission of those crimes.I hope that the Bill will have the universal approval of the House. It has been prompted by the formation by some of the great train robbers of a company to make profits out of securing film and book rights in respect of the description of their crime. I believe that this callous proposal has shocked the honest and moral feelings of the country. Here we have a situation in which honest profits are constantly being removed from diligent, industrious and upright people but in which a band of men who obtained £2½ million or thereabouts from a deliberate and calculated crime, of which sum practically nothing has been recovered, propose to obtain further massive benefits from the society whom they wronged for their own interest. I believe that it is an affront to the morality of the ordinary citizen, and certainly of affront to the silent tomb of Driver Mills whose health, if not whose life, was part of the price paid for the benefit so cynically and ruthlessly taken by the band in question.
The difficulty arises that the cheek of the offence, or indeed of any offence, may be so appealing that people forget that the activity was in itself appalling. I 457 fear that there is a tendency for people to glamorise the efficient, daring or frightful execution of crime.
One of the great and indeed amazing difficulties of the media is that they have to give equal regard to the good and to the bad, to the worthy and to the unworthy. They give equal coverage and glamour to both, and make no moral judgment on the activities which they report. I make no criticism necessarily about that matter, but society must have a defence to demonstrate that it does not look with equal regard on the immoral, unfair and dishonest act and on the moral, fair and honest and industrious act of the citizen.
In these days we see those who are willing to prosecute alleged private offences by those in public life but who nevertheless exalt criminal activities of people who commit brutal offences. There is a feeling, and indeed a fear, that because the media fictionalise reality, sin is in some way excellent and represents an accolade to those who have committed it. Crime must never be justified for its own glamour and must never be seen to benefit those who choose to take the risk of committing crime and to obtain benefit for themselves—a benefit which they have not won and do not deserve—at the expense of those from whom they take it or as a result of whose lives or suffering they enjoy it.
It is the neutrality of the media which creates a new moral dilemma in society and which it is the duty of this House to correct. It is for that reason that this House should support the Bill to ensure that dishonesty, at whatever point, cannot be seen to be a road to its own benefit.
In the present state of society and violence in the world, in view of our difficulties which have been created in this country, one can get the horrific, but not unlikely, picture that those who have committed the most obscene offences against our society are able to get the largest benefits by writing about them, or indeed by making a film about them. What could make a better epic than the Balcombe Street siege in London and the consequent details of the plot? It is the human tendency to be excited by violence, daring, risk and all that is involved in adventure and which, rightly or wrongly, provides its own selling point.
458 One factor which demonstrates this point is that the films which have lasted the longest and which are the most popular are those detailing the exploits in the war—exploits which are as near to criminal activity as the exploits of man may ever reach. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] I say that with no disrespect to those patriotic people who are involved in saving their country, but I repeat that that activity is as near to daring crime as human conduct ever comes. It is the appeal of the daring nature of the offence against which we must take measures to protect our society.
Some may say that a released criminal has already served his sentence and has come out into the fresh air—that is, if he has not already escaped to South America in order not to serve a sentence. But let us be clear where we stand. That person can never entirely atone and it is wrong to say, by use of a mathematical formula, that one is entitled to commit a crime, to pay for it in eight years, and then benefit from it not simply once but a second time. I believe that it would be the wish of the people of this country of all parties, all sections and all outlooks, that people should not be entitled cynically to benefit by brushing aside all moral scruples—and to benefit again from a dishonesty from which they have already benefited a first time. Virtue may be its own reward, but I am sure that vice must never be seen or allowed to be a source of it.
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Mr. SpeakerIs the hon. Member seeking to oppose the motion?
§ Mr. GrocottYes. I wish to oppose the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). In doing so I must inevitably preface my remarks, as anyone in my position would want to do, by saying that I am in no way applauding the activities to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. I dislike crime—the sort of criminality which he has described —in the same way as does the hon. and learned Gentleman. The reason why I believe the House should reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion is that in my view the Bill is based on a bad principle.
459 Any superficial examination of that principle will show that it is unworkable in practice. The criminal law in this country by and large rests on the assumption that if someone is found guilty of an offence he is found guilty in open court, the sentence is determined in open court and the criminal knows exactly what price he has to pay to expunge his debt to society—if that is the way to describe it. The criminal knows that on completion of his period of imprisonment or on payment of his fine, or whatever, his debt is paid. There then comes into operation the cardinal principle that that person is thereafter in exactly the same position as anyone else. His rights as a citizen are fundamentally the same as the rights of the rest of us.
We all know that in practice this does not work. We all know that for many people the penalties of crime are not ended when imprisonment is over. We know that for many the penalty continues, perhaps because they are not able to find employment or perhaps because of the social breakdown that results from long periods of imprisonment. We all recognise that, but it does not detract from the fundamentally desirable principle that on completion of the sentence that should be the end of the matter and there should not be a situation in which for months or years afterwards a different kind of law operates for that person.
I also feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal is unworkable in practice. How on earth would we put this proposal into operation? How would we determine a situation if someone convicted of a criminal offence were, later in life, to write his memoirs, part of which were concerned with his criminal activities and part of which were concerned with something quite different? Such a person might have involved himself in some quite laudable activity after his criminal activities. After all, in the past Her Majesty's Government have frequently found that people whom they have imprisoned have become Prime Ministers in their own countries. It might be that people have done other things in their lives besides serve a period of imprisonment. How could we determine which part of the reward for writing 460 memoirs or an autobiography would be attributable to criminal activities? That seems to be a fundamentally unworkable principle.
It also seems that we would be quite incapable of determining how someone might benefit from criminality in ways other than writing memoirs. How could we discover whether someone had been offered a job—it happens frequently—because of some previous notoriety? I do not see how we could possibly distinguish between that kind of benefit from criminality and the kind of benefit with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is dealing. There are many other ways in which this proposal is unworkable. If details of a crime were passed on to a criminal's children, could such material then be published? There are endless ramifications.
To prevent people from writing about their deeds, criminal or otherwise, is an undesirable precedent. It is something which we should be wary of approving. There have been people convicted of the most appalling crimes. I refer to perhaps the worst of all, those who were convicted of Nazi war crimes, such as Speer, who recently published his autobiography "Spandau Diary". That man was able to write about his experience as a Nazi, of some of the most abominable crimes which he has committed and about his period of imprisonment. About the only benefit that has come from that sordid history is that some self-examination and some examination of a society that was very sick has been published. Whether the individual concerned has benefited is a side issue.
It is desirable that books such as that should be written. If leave were given to bring in this Bill and if the Bill were enacted, we would be faced with a situation in which the only people who could write about crime and criminal activities were, presumably, retired lawyers and policemen, relatives and friends of criminals, journalists and the like. We would be denied—and this is important to anyone interested in penal reform and related matters—any possibility of reading the writings of criminals about their experiences. I hope that the House will reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's 461 motion on the grounds that his proposal is wrong in principle, unworkable in practice and would lead to a great number of undesirable effects.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr.
462§ in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —
§ The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 77.
461| Division No. 131. | AYES | [3.50 p.m. |
| Adley, Robert | Goodhew, Victor | Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) |
| Bain, Mrs Margaret | Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Banks, Robert | Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) | Penhaligon, David |
| Beith, A. J. | Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) | Pym, Rt Hon Francis |
| Bell, Ronald | Gray, Hamish | Rathbone, Tim |
| Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) | Grylls, Michael | Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hall, Sir John | Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) |
| Bottomley, Peter | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) |
| Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) | Henderson, Douglas | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) | Holland, Philip | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Bradford, Rev Robert | Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) | Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) |
| Brotherton, Michael | Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) | St. John-Stevas, Norman |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Jessel, Toby | Sandelson, Neville |
| Budgen, Nick | Jones, Arthur (Daventry) | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Kershaw, Anthony | Smith, Dudley (Warwick) |
| Costain, A. P. | Knox, David | Sproat, Iain |
| Critchley, Julian | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Crouch, David | Lawrence, Ivan | Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) |
| Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) | Lawson, Nigel | Stradling Thomas, J. |
| Doig, Peter | Le Marchant, Spencer | Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) |
| Dunlop, John | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Lloyd, Ian | Thompson, George |
| Elliott, Sir William | McCusker, H. | Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) |
| English, Michael | Macfarlane, Neil | Wall, Patrick |
| Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) | Mather, Carol | Walters, Dennis |
| Eyre, Reginald | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Faulds, Andrew | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Welsh, Andrew |
| Fell, Anthony | Molyneaux, James | Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Monro, Hector | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Freud, Clement | More, Jasper (Ludlow) | Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) |
| Fry, Peter | Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral | Younger, Hon George |
| Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) | Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) | |
| Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) | Mudd, David | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Onslow, Cranley | Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and |
| Goodhart, Philip | Page, John (Harrow West) | Mr. Malcolm Rifkind. |
| NOES | ||
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) | George, Bruce | O'Halloran, Michael |
| Bean, R. E. | Graham, Ted | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur | Grocott, Bruce | Radice, Giles |
| Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) | Hardy, Peter | Richardson, Miss Jo |
| Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Canavan, Dennis | Hayman, Mrs Helene | Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) |
| Carmichael, Nell | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| Cartwright, John | Hunter, Adam | Rodgers, George (Chorley) |
| Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) | John, Brynmor | Rooker, J. W. |
| Coleman, Donald | Johnson, James (Hull West) | Roper, John |
| Colquhoun, Ms Maureen | Johnson, Walter (Derby S) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Corbett, Robin | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) |
| Cronin, John | Kelley, Richard | Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) |
| Cryer,Bob | Lamborn, Harry | Torney, Tom |
| Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) | Lomond, James | Urwin, T. W. |
| Dempsey, James | Latham, Arthur (Paddington) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Leadbitter, Ted | Walker, Terry (Kingswood) |
| Eadie, Alex | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Ward, Michael |
| Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) | Loyden, Eddie | Watkinson, John |
| Evans, loan (Aberdare) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) | White, Frank R. (Bury) |
| Ewing, Harry (Stirling) | Mackenzie, Gregor | White, James (Pollok) |
| Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. | McNamara, Kevin | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Flannery, Martin | Madden, Max | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Freeson, Reginald | Marks, Kenneth | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Garrett, John (Norwich S) | Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) | Mr. Stan Thorne and |
| Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) | Noble, Mike | Mr. Bryan Davies. |
§ Hamish Gray, Mr. Michael Mates, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Teddy Taylor, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Nicholas Winterton.