§ Ms Roseanna CunninghamI beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 65, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 66.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 104 and 105.
§ Ms CunninghamThe Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled amendment No. 149, as I have previously flagged up the issue of removing the limits on extended sentences. He will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for more than a few minutes—both he and I have pressing engagements elsewhere—and that I shall not press the amendment to a Division.
Clause 84 introduces the concept of extended sentences for sexual and violent offenders, which I believe will become a useful adjunct to the sentencing options that are currently available to Scottish courts. The concept is welcome, but I do not see why there should be a limit on the extended sentence, particularly on sentences that are given in the High Court. People in the profession have queried why High Court judges should have a capping limit of 10 years when, under common law, a life sentence is available. It is understandable that some limits should apply in the sheriff courts for summary and solemn cases, but High Court cases involve only offenders who have committed the most serious offences.
I am sure that the Minister will not deny that an individual such as Cronin—about whom there has been a great deal of public disquiet both in Scotland and in Ireland—who seems utterly unwilling or unable to change his behaviour, needs to be watched for the rest of his life, whether he is in prison or out of prison. I doubt whether many people would fall into that category—at least, I certainly hope not. The fact that there are only a few, however, is no reason for the Government to set their face against the concept of an extension for life.
I expect that, like an ordinary sentence, the extensions would be subject to appeal. Perhaps I have overlooked the part of the Bill where that is specified, so I hope that the Minister can confirm it for the record. I hope that he will also say what provisions there will be to review extended sentences to take account of any changed circumstances that may arise.
§ Mr. McLeishI rise to respond at a gloomy moment in the fixture between Scotland and Morocco—my pager 922 reliably informs me that, after 18 minutes, we were one-nil down. However, we are an aspirational country, so I await with interest a further message on my pager—[Interruption.] I do not want to be sidestepped into talking about last night's match, but, if pushed, I will.
I shall respond briefly on amendment No. 149 and speak to the Government amendments. First, I share the concern of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) to ensure that the courts have adequate powers to impose sentences that will protect the public from serious criminals. As the provisions stand—taken together with existing legislation—they will achieve that objective.
The provisions in the clause will allow the court to impose an additional period of supervision of up to 10 years in the case of a sex offender. That is on top of any determinate custodial element to the sentence, which may in itself be very lengthy. The maximum is longer for sex offenders than for violent offenders because all the evidence shows that the behaviour of sex offenders is more deeply entrenched. The maximum extension period for violent offenders is therefore less—five years, rather than 10, where a determinate custodial sentence of four years or more is imposed. A five-year extension period could be imposed on a violent offender who would have received a custodial sentence of 10 years, but whom the court considered still to be likely to pose a risk of serious harm to the public when he ceased to be on licence. Therefore, he would either be in custody or on licence and subject to recall to custody for 15 years—well past the point at which most violent offenders, unlike sex offenders, have ceased to be a risk to the public. Should the court decide it necessary, it can impose a discretionary life sentence, which is close to what the hon. Member for Perth appears to want to achieve through the amendment; that power already exists.
The clause contains an additional power. I mentioned the difference between the maximum for sexual offences and for violent offences. If it becomes clear with the operation of the legislation that a longer additional period is desirable in the case of violent offenders, the maximum may be increased up to the same level as for sex offenders by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution. The Government will have no hesitation in seeking Parliament's approval for that change if it should prove necessary.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the clause will provide the courts with adequate powers. Like all legislation, we will keep it under close scrutiny so that we can review what is happening. Our objectives are, I think, the same, but we are content with the current provisions of the clause.
On appeals, an extended sentence is a sentence and, therefore, appealable like any other sentence. I pointed out earlier that conditions can be removed by the Secretary of State if they are no longer appropriate—for example, on residential changes. There will be monitoring and review, and I think that the point about appeals has been tidied up. Given those comments, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Government amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 109 are consequential on the introduction of clause 109 and are intended to ensure that sentence calculation rules apply similarly to extended sentences as to other custodial sentences.
§ Ms Roseanna CunninghamI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.