HL Deb 10 December 1908 vol 198 cc681-9

[SECOND READING].

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, your Lordships have already given a warm welcome to two measures promoted by His Majesty's Government dealing with criminals—one, the Probation of Offenders Act, passed last session, and the other the Children Bill of this session, many of the clauses of which dealt with children who were criminals. To-day His Majesty's Government ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Prevention of Crime Bill, the last, so to speak, of the series, which deals with offenders older than those embraced in either of the other Bills to which I have referred.

This Bill is divided into three parts. Part I. has reference to the reformation of young offenders, and the eight clauses in that Part deal chiefly with the question of the establishment of Borstal institutions in various places up and down the country. I think it would be useful in this connection to give your Lordships some figures with regard to the number of young offenders. Statistics were taken out some years ago to show the age at which criminals first fell into crime. The result was that out of 1,181 convicts, no fewer than 704 had fallen into crime before they were twenty-one years of age. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very remarkable proportion. We have on similar occasions agreed that prevention is better than cure, and it is the object of these Borstal institutions, if possible, to prevent these lads from returning to a life of crime.

I would draw your Lordships special attention to Clauses 5 and 6. There special provision is given enabling the Secretary of State to release on licence. That is really the essence of the Bill, certainly of this part of the Bill, the idea being that these young men should be released on licence, and watched while out on licence; if they work well, there is every reason why they should be allowed to remain out on licence, but if at any time they show signs of falling back into criminal practices, they will be forthwith put into prison again. In order to carry out this system of licences, it is also important that the Courts should have the power of passing longer sentences, because there must be a power given to the authorities to bring the lads back again, if they do not take proper advantage of the licence given to them.

Clause 6 provides that where a person detained in a Borstal institution is reported to the Secretary of State by the visiting committee of such institution to be incorrigible, or to be exercising a bad influence on the other inmates of the institution, the Secretary of State may commute the unexpired residue of the term of detention to such term of imprisonment, with or without hard labour, as the Secretary of State may determine, but in no case exceeding such unexpired residue. The Bill provides also for Treasury contributions being given for assisting and supervising persons on licence. I would ask your Lordships to notice the classes of offenders who will be sent to these Borstal institutions. In the first place, first offenders ought not to be sent, for it is thought they would suffer by association with the habitual criminals for whom these institutions are really intended. Neither should lads who have been in reformatory schools, and failed to profit by them, be sent; they have had their chance, and, if they have not taken it, it is usually thought hopeless to attempt to reform them. Next, only lads physically fit should be sent, the idea being that when they come out of the Borstal institution they will be able, by their own energy, to earn an honest living.

Part II. of the Bill deals rather with the opposite end of the scale—namely, with those who have persisted in criminal courses and who are the most hopeless class of criminals of all. The first clause in Part II.—Clause 9—gives power to the Court to pass sentence of preventive detention in addition to penal servitude. The idea is that when a prisoner has been convicted and has also been found to be in the meaning of this Bill, a habitual criminal, he may, under certain circumstances, be sentenced to a period of detention not exceeding ten nor less than five years. We wish to detain those criminals who, as soon as they are out of prison, immediately begin to plan a further crime. In the year 1900, out of a male convict population of 2,624, no fewer than 1,476 had been convicted five times or more. On March 31st this year, the total was 2,897, of whom 2,376, or over 82 per cent., had been previously convicted, while 1,073 had actually undergone previous sentences of penal servitude. The unfortunate thing is that with every conviction the probability of return seems to increase; that is to say, convicts once started have entered upon a very slippery slope. Of the men in prison for the first time, 30 per cent. returned; of those who came in a second time, 48 per cent. returned; of those who came in a third time, 64 per cent. returned; of those who came in a fourth time, 71 per cent. returned; and of those who came in a fifth time, 79 per cent. returned. The figures seem to show that this constant returning to prison is rather on the increase than on the decrease. The object of the Bill is to provide a form of detention under easier conditions than at present exist, when prisoners are sentenced to a long term of penal servitude. It is quite true that in most of the cases coming within this part of the Bill the Courts have already power to pass very long terms of penal servitude; but that is a severe form of punishment and Judges are very often unwilling to commit offenders for a long time, however certain it is that on their release they will return to a career of crime.

Prisoners will be allowed, while in these places of detention, to earn a small sum by way of wages, and they may spend it on newspapers, extra food, and, perhaps, on tobacco. They will be allowed to associate more than is the case in an ordinary prison, and they will be kept at labour sufficient to inculcate, if possible, habits of industry. But previous to this detention they will, of course, have to undergo a form of severe punishment; otherwise, this might become an attractive feature to some criminals. Therefore it is provided that preventive detention can only follow a period of penal servitude. It is desired to provide for the prolonged detention of persons who may be called professional criminals, and therefore prevent them roaming at large meditating and committing fresh crimes. It is not intended that anybody should be sentenced to preventive detention who has not committed a crime deserving at least three years penal servitude.

There are ample safeguards to secure that this period of detention is not inflicted upon prisoners without proper precautions. First of all, your Lordships will see that the charge of being a habitual criminal cannot be inserted in an indictment without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The second safeguard is that seven days notice has to be given. There is a third safeguard in the appeal, without leave, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Then there is the safeguard of the Judge who has to inflict the sentence, and, in addition to that, it is provided in Clause 12 that the Secretary of State shall, once at least in every three years, take into consideration the condition, history, and circumstances of the person with a view to determining whether he should be placed out on licence, and, if so, on what conditions; and then the Secretary of State has power to let the man out on licence.

I think I have now covered the whole of the important clauses of the Bill. If there is one principle underlying it, it is that there should be individual study of the character and habits of each prisoner, and the punishment in future will much more fit the individual than has been the case in the past. I hope the Bill is sufficiently uncontroversial for your Lordships not only to read it a second time but to give it an easy passage, and I feel sure that in time to come this Parliament will be celebrated for having passed three measures, if not four, of considerable importance in the reform of criminal procedure.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD ASHBOURNE

My Lords, I should be very sorry to interpose any obstacle in the way of the passing of this Bill. I think it is impossible to have listened to the very clear statement of the noble Earl in moving the Second Reading without very great sympathy. The Borstal system is one deserving of every encouragement, and I am sure the views which the noble Earl expressed commended themselves to every one anxious for reform in these matters. I do not know whether the Government have considered the number of Borstal institutions they think it will be desirable to set up or whether they regard that so much as a matter of detail that they have not yet applied themselves to it. At any rate, it will be necessary to consider that as time goes on. While regarding with considerable favour the provisions for dealing with the detention of habitual criminals I think the safeguards to which the noble Earl directed attention are wise, though I am not sure that the same consistent thought runs through the entire Bill. I am unable to find that the safeguards which are necessary for England have been given effect to in the case of Scotland and Ireland. In regard to England, a man is not allowed to plead guilty to being a habitual criminal. That is the highest form of proof that can be conceived, yet it is not apparently to be permitted. Clause 9, subsection (2), runs— A person shall not be found to be a habitual criminal unless the jury finds on evidence— and so on. There is no suggestion anywhere that the Court can take the shorter method of asking the prisoner whether he is guilty. But when I come to Scotland, I find this provision in Clause 15, subsection (5)— Where, in Scotland, the accused pleads guilty to being or admits that he is a habitual criminal, such plea or admission shall be equivalent to the finding of the jury under Section 8. This contrast may not be intended, and I draw attention to it merely that it may be considered. There is another point. The noble Earl quite rightly indicated that one of the checks against possible miscarriage was the opportunity of appeal. In Scotland three Judges may be constituted a Court of Appeal. There is no Court of Criminal Appeal in Ireland, and, so far as I can see, it is not proposed to set one up under this Bill. Reference is made to the Crown Cases Act, 1848, but I am not aware that any Act in Ireland gives power of re-measuring a sentence and calculating the discretion exercised in its award. On the whole, however, I am in favour of the Bill and upport the Second Reading.

THE EARL OF MEATH

My Lords, there are some of us who do not always welcome Bills from the Government bench, but in this case I congratulate His Majesty's Government on having brought in a most excellent measure. I quite agree with the noble Earl the Lord Steward in thinking that this Parliament will be gratefully remembered as one which has, in two Bills at least, taken great and forward steps for the prevention of crime and the proper training of the rising generation of this country. But, although I am satisfied that this is an excellent Bill, I should like to draw attention to one point in regard to which the Government may see their way to making some slight alteration in Committee. I refer to Clause 2. That clause provides that where a youthful offender, sentenced to detention in a reformatory school, is convicted under any Act before a Court of summary jurisdiction of the offence of committing a breach of the rules of the school, or of inciting to such a breach, or of escaping from such a school, and the Court might under that Act sentence the offender to imprisonment, the Court may, in lieu of sentencing him to imprisonment, sentence him to detention in a Borstal institution for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, and in such case the sentence shall supersede the sentence of detention in a reformatory school. Now, a Borstal institution is not a place of punishment, but a place for reform. I can quite understand the Government saying they do not think the reformatory system a good one and that lads of that character ought to be placed in Borstal institutions, but I cannot understand why a boy who is in a reformatory school because of his past conduct should be sent to a Borstal institution, where he will have a pleasanter time, if he is convicted of the additional offences mentioned in Clause 2. I merely draw attention to that point in order that it may receive consideration.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, I desire to draw attention to some of the provisions of Part II. of this Bill, and to ask your Lordships to consider the principles which underlie the legislation therein contained. For five or six years there has been a growing development noticeable in the tendency to introduce the indeterminate sentence, which has been so much discussed by criminologists. Personally I am in accord with the principle so far as I understand it. The principle of the indeterminate sentence, according to the writings on this subject of Sir Robert Anderson, and others, is, I think, that a person who is a nuisance and a danger to society should be removed indefinitely until he has ceased to be a source of danger. It is perfectly obvious that here the idea is that the criminal with whom you are dealing is a person who has passed all likely chance of reform, and that it is certain from your knowledge of his record that he will Commit crime again. Punishment inflicted, therefore, with the idea of reform would disappear in his case, that is to say, you are bound to admit that you Cannot hope to reform him. If, therefore, you remove him indefinitely from society, your object is not so much that of reform as of protecting society. The object, therefore, is a perfectly legitimate object; it is also, in a sense, a selfish one, for it is the protection of society, not the reclamation of the criminal. If that kind of punishment is applied to the criminal, then it seems to me his seclusion should be surrounded with as little discomfort as you can reasonably make it; he ought to be treated fairly and kindly, and almost in the same kind of way as persons are treated in asylums. But there is a defect in the logic on which the Bill is based The criminal is going to be punished first with a sentence of penal servitude, though if the object is to reform him there can be no particular reason in imposing a punitive sentence. I think the fact that the Judge has to give the prisoner three years penal servitude first may make him in some cases unwilling to impose the preventive detention which the criminal has so richly earned, and which all would feel would be the proper punishment in the interests of the protection of society. For that reason I very much regret the combination of the punitive sentence and the preventive detention. The detention, moreover, is not to be in a home but in a prison, with certain alleviations. Subsection (3) of Clause 11 provides that— Persons undergoing preventive detention shall be subjected to such disciplinary and reformative influences, and shall be employed on such work as may be best fitted to make them able and willing to earn an honest livelihood on discharge. That, of course, depends on how it is administered. The present prison system tends to deprive any one who serves a long term of imprisonment of all moral backbone or power of earning a livelihood. These people will already have suffered three terms of imprisonment, and if they are to be detained simply for the sake of the protection of the public we have no right to detain them except under conditions which involve no hardship. The noble Earl said it was undesirable that this preventive detention should be made too attractive. I am not so sure about that. I think your Lordships and everybody who has life and property to protect would be very glad to provide a permanent asylum if only all the criminals in the country would be attracted to it and remain there. As the clauses stand I think the punishment goes beyond anything we are entitled to inflict; indeed, the clauses impose a punishment for which there is no justification and in their present form I could not support them.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I should like in a few words to join in the general welcome which has been extended to this measure The study which I have given to this Bill and to the history of the experiments which led to it leads me to regard it as a measure which it is eminently desirable should be placed on the Statute-book at the earliest possible date. The main feature which I welcome in it is the increase of elasticity which will now be possible for the wise and thoughtful men who, in so marked a way, have devoted themselves to the management and personal study of the very difficult questions relating to internal prison and reformatory life. No one can compare the conditions of twenty years ago and to-day without seeing, not merely that things are much better done now, but that the elasticity which is now possible is a power exercised universally, as I believe, for good. There is no part of the field of sociology in which the value of experiments has proved so useful as in prison discipline, and the results of those experiments are often Unite different from what one would a priori expect. There are certain experiments which should have turned out almost ludicrously impossible but which have been found to work out perfectly well, while others that ought apparently to have worked well have operated in an absolutely contrary sense. With some of the criticisms in regard to this Bill I am inclined at first sight to agree, but I should like to hear the matter discussed in Committee before making quite sure that the conclusion to which one naturally jumps are the right ones. But having given some study to the subject, I believe that this Bill is likely to produce happy and useful results.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, it is only necessary for me, in thanking noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion, to say that the various points which have been brought forward shall certainly receive attention before your Lordships are asked to go into Committee on the Bill. I could, however, deal with the Irish point raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite, but I will not venture to detain your Lordships now.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.