§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
8.34 pm§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)On clauses 2 and 3, many of us are deeply worried about what appear to be the over-lenient penalties imposed on people convicted in our High Court of the most serious and violent crimes against the person. I am not alone. I do not think that I am allowed to mention the name of the specific judge, but one High Court judge has been remarkably lenient in the way in which he has treated certain people convicted of horrific crimes.
Perhaps the Minister cannot do it with this Bill, but I hope that he and the Lord Advocate will issue guidelines to sheriffs and High Court judges concerning the need to inflict condign punishment, especially on those convicted of violent crimes against the person.
§ Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr)I support what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said. The feelings that he expressed are felt throughout the land. There are great anxieties about inconsistencies and perhaps there are great anxieties about those who judge the judges. Who are they? Should we perhaps consider that in future? I suggest that, given the example quoted by the hon. Gentleman, that should be the case.
§ Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton)I wish to make a few comments to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) said.
On clause 3, I wonder whether the Government have considered the issue of a sentencing commission. We have had inconsistencies in sentencing. In the summer months, one young person was sentenced to gaol for more than two years for stealing £5 from a football pools company 184 and the next day a young person was given a community service order for badly beating up a 78-year-old pensioner. That type of inconsistency cannot be allowed.
The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) wrote to me with regard to those cases, saying that he was writing to the Lord Advocate about the matter. The response that the hon. Member for Eastwood received from the Lord Advocate was insufficiently serious in view of the position. That gives the impression that, whether it be the judges or those in charge of the judges, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, a vacuum exists between them and the rest of the community.
We urge the Minister to consider that seriously. Perhaps eventually he will be really radical and decide that there should be a judicial committee to appoint judges, which would involve lay people as well, so that the committee can be seen to be acting in the interests of the entire community.
§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)First, with regard to guidelines, I will ask the Law Officer, the Lord Advocate, to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have made it clear that we want more honesty in sentencing, that we intend to consult in due course before legislation is considered and that we wish sentences to approximate more closely to what the court passes.
As hon. Members will appreciate, the judiciary is independent of the Government. Those matters will be borne in mind. As I mentioned, it is a consolidation measure.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
§ Question agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.