HL Deb 23 April 1986 vol 473 cc1158-69

3.5 p.m.

Baroness Faithfull rose to call attention to the serious increase in violent crime and the need for measures to protect innocent persons; and to move for Papers.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Throughout many parts of the world there is an escalation of violent crime, bringing unhappiness to both victims and their families. Today, however, I shall confine my speech to the domestic scene in our country. It is hoped that by debating this Motion today we will on all sides of your Lordships' House, in some measure, influence the climate of opinion that acknowledges that crime, and particularly violent crime, is a way of life that is unacceptable in this country.

Furthermore, I hope that innocent persons who suffer as a result of violent crime will be encouraged to know that in your Lordships' House sympathy is shown for their plight. My noble friend the Minister will, I know, be dealing with measures to protect innocent persons.

It needs to be said—and it seems an extraordinary thing to have to say—that crime is wrong. There may be extenuating circumstances such as unemployment, poverty or poor housing; and it is acknowledged that we should work towards the eradication of those social problems. However, we diminish the dignity of our people if we excuse crime for whatever reason, except perhaps that of a mental state of illness. Excuse is one thing: forgiveness and compassion is quite another.

Crime, and particularly violent crime, contravenes the beliefs of the Christian religion and, indeed, of other religions. It is encouraging that two books have just been published on the subject. One of them, Breaking Out, is a Christian critique of criminal justice. The second, entitled Social Work—A Christian Perspective, was written by 13 social workers.

The principles underlying this speech are the qualities of responsibility, involvement and partnership. I propose to give a kaleidoscopic picture of practical suggestions that encompass the different aspects of this debate, which will be taken up in detail by other Members of your Lordships' House.

I will touch on the responsibility of the community overall. We congratulate Her Majesty's Government that, at a national level, a ministerial group has been set up consisting of Ministers and officials from 12 departments to deal with crime prevention. That group is based on the Home Office. I suggest that the remit of that group should be widened to form a joint framework for social policies, of which crime prevention should be one. That would provide for an effective mechanism for determining coherent and consistent policies in the whole field of social policy, including crime prevention. That view is based on a paper that was first brought out in July 1973, but never implemented.

Ministries tend to work in isolation. However, it is often the case that where there is a joint policy between ministries money spent in one department can save money on social matters in another department. At a local level, a corresponding structure ought to be set up in each district. I know that a statutory duty has been imposed on all police forces to set up proper consultative arrangements with local communities, but it is well known that there are some local authorities who have not implemented such schemes. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he does not agree that a more comprehensive method would lie at local level, with a council for order and justice allowing for the responsibility and involvement of the whole community. Serving on such a council would be, I suggest, representatives of the many excellent schemes already in existence throughout the country but which are unevenly developed; such schemes as the neighbourhood crime prevention projects and victim support schemes. I suggest also that on such a council there should serve representatives of the churches, voluntary agencies, the local authority—particularly the education department—the health authority, police, magistrates and, indeed, members of the public who are willing and who are chosen to serve. Moreover, the council would be non-political. The remit of such a council would be to monitor and promote schemes to prevent crime.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will speak on one such innovative scheme and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes will speak on preventive measures. These councils would link with the ministerial group. I believe that such local councils could work. Perhaps there could be some local experiments in the first instance. Such a council for order and justice could spread the responsibility for local consultation and action—and again I say that it would be non-political.

One cannot consider violent crime without considering drugs. The Drug Trafficking Offences Bill which is passing through your Lordships' House deals with those who are responsible for the trafficking of drugs. Should we not think of the drug takers, the glue sniffers and particularly young people? As a social worker I have dealt with drug addicts. They can become violent when wanting money to purchase drugs. Only a proportion of them seek help at the splendid centres where treatment is given. The most that one can hope for is that they will commit an offence of the type which will warrant a custodial sentence, thus distancing them from the supply of drugs.

Drug abuse among young people is increasing rapidly. Has the time not come for positive help to be given to young drug addicts and glue sniffers who will not voluntarily seek treatment? Would it not be possible for a court to issue a care and treatment order, whereby they are treated in accommodation which temporarily contains them, where they are treated with care and skill and released only when they no longer wish to have drugs?

Other noble Lords will be speaking on police recruitment and training. Her Majesty's Government have increased the manpower of the police by 14,000 since 1979. The present shortfall is 2,000. But with a £50 million grant from the Government—£28 million from the Home Office and £22 million from the Department of the Environment—the police authorities will have the resources to recruit the 2,000 personnel required, which will include trainees from the ethnic groups. The police belong to the people and it is surely the responsibility of every individual in this country to develop a sense of partnership with them and to seek to help them in their task as we look to them to help us.

I now turn to prisons. Successive governments have neglected expenditure on prisons. Since 1979–80 there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in the prison service. There has been an increase of 18 per cent. in prison staff. It is recognised that the prison population has risen by 10 per cent. Other noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Mersey, will be speaking on prisons. I therefore confine myself to three unusual questions.

May I ask my noble friend the Minister why more use is not made of volunteers? I know that unions are suspicious of volunteers, but they can enrich an establishment and, dare I say it, prove invaluable in, for example, the workshops, in the field of art and in games both inside and outside the prison. I am sure that the volunteer centre under the chairmanship of Lady Wagner would co-operate with the Prison Officers' Association. I am not suggesting that volunteers should in any way take on the role of prison officers, but they should be an adjunct to the service, thus enriching it.

Secondly, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister whether the time has not come for a time and motion study to be done on the waste of prison officers' time in relation to the courts. Is he assured that the management of the courts is run as efficiently as is practicable? I am told that this is open to question in some areas, particularly where there are local prisons.

Thirdly, the rise in crime is a trend common to the rest of the Western world. Why do we in the United Kingdom hold more men and women and young people in custody than does any other country in the EC? Many of your Lordships will take up this point recommending, I am sure, greater use of community service orders, day care and help in the community, such as is given by the diversionary scheme in Northamptonshire and the minders scheme for young offenders in Leeds.

Non-custodial care is cost effective. The building of many new prisons is expensive, both in capital and revenue consequences. If it were ever decided to set up local councils for order and justice, I am sure that it would be part of their remit to help discharged prisoners or those who are not sent to prison but given a community service order.

It is perhaps inevitable that my final and perhaps most significant point should concern children and young persons, their families, their education and the personal responsibility of their neighbours. In a remarkable lecture to the local authorities and chiefs of police associations the late Dr. Kellmer Pringle spoke of the "roots of violence and vandalism" in children. She maintained that violence and vandalism were symptoms. I believe that in our children and young persons they are the consequence of a failure to meet the spiritual, emotional and physical needs basic to the mature development of a child or young person. By the time a young person is apprehended the damage is done. The answer to crime by young people must be sought at a much earlier age.

It may seem strange to your Lordships that I start with the young baby and children under five. It is during these formative years that a child learns to establish relationships. It has been said that the seeds of violence and vandalism are linked, not wholly but to some extent, to the most basic emotional needs and the extent to which they are met or remain unfulfilled. We face a dilemma in that more women are going out to work and there are more single-parent families. Many women do not have the energy to be aware of the emotional needs of their child; nor do they have the time to respond sensitively and in a way that is satisfying to the child.

Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on financing a unit to be set up in the National Children's Bureau to look into and advise on the needs of children under five and their families and to consider how, in modern times and under modern conditions, a scheme can be worked out which will give equal opportunities to women, men and children.

As I said earlier, this country had more children and young persons in custodial care than had any other country in the European community. It is good to know that the figure has dropped this year. Throughout the country in different ways efforts are being made to prevent children from appearing before the courts; and either before or after a court appearance the Government, local authorities and voluntary organisations are financing intermediate treatment projects to help young persons in the community. Both the party opposite and the present Government—as is well known to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—have supported these community projects which are run by local authorities and voluntary organisations. We recognise that for a proportion of children and young offenders there must be custodial care, but we maintain that it is a last resort.

Both research and experience indicate that family discord and separation are often crucial factors in vandalism and delinquency among children and young persons. For this reason I support the work of the conciliation service, which gives help to both parents and children at the time of a marriage breakdown. I also support family courts. It may be asked: what does supporting family courts have to do with crimes of violence? I would say in reply that "the child is father to the man".

Family law issues are now dealt with in the juvenile court, the magistrates' domestic court, the county court and the Family Division of the High Court. The result is that many cases are inappropriately brought up in a jurisdiction which may be inadequate to deal with the particular matter in dispute and require to be transferred between jurisdictions. The result of this is confusion for children and their families at what is bound to be a time of great emotional stress; it creates a difficult situation in their lives.

The variety of jurisdictions can be a procedural nightmare. For instance, in family proceedings there are no less than 20 ways in which a child can be made the subject of a care order under a local authority, with different considerations and a different legal effect in each, and it may be mere chance that determines the route along which a child is directed.

Society has had to come to terms with rapid increases in the divorce rate and in family breakdown. It may be unrealistic to suppose that a unified jurisdiction could alter these trends, but we believe that a more rational and easily understood system would make family disputes less traumatic and the effect of family breakdown less severe for the children. A new system such as we propose would be part of society's investment in the overall stability of family life.

We have heard of distressing cases of child abuse, battering and sexual abuse. Case histories show that in a proportion of cases those found guilty have themselves experienced emotional and physical deprivation and often cruelty in their childhood. I believe that family courts and a change in the juvenile justice system, such as to that which is practised in Scotland, would lead to greater parental involvement and responsibility and provide a more effective mechanism for help.

Turning to education—and this is not my subject; my noble friend Lady Cox regrets that she is unable to be present today—suffice it to say that research has shown that delinquency, vandalism, and indeed acts of violence are considerably lower in schools where the interest of the children has been captured by good teaching, where there is enjoyment in learning, where each child experiences a sense of personal achievement and where a sense of responsibility is developed.

Children pattern themselves on their families, on their parents and on the staff of their schools. I believe that a better relationship needs to be developed between education, health and social services, in particular where delinquent children are concerned.

This "grasshopper" speech has touched somewhat inadequately on a wide number of aspects of crime and violence. It was stated in an article in The Times of 21st April that Mr. Gerald Kaufman the Shadow Home Secretary in another place, was making a dramatic bid to wrest the law and order initiative from the Conservatives and promote Labour as the party to beat crime". We all know Mr. Kaufman to be a man of considerable ability. In the article in The Times allusion is made to the probable policies of Mr. Kaufman. On the 10th April I was present at a lecture arranged by the Prison Reform Trust given by the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. He gave a penetrating, impressive and thoughtful paper which indicated his quiet and purposeful resolve to deal constructively and effectively with the law and order issue. What is interesting and perhaps encouraging is that the apparent policies of both our parties do not differ widely. The difference is perhaps one of emphasis.

I believe that the basic problem is a moral one and that it must be dealt with by the influence, attitude of mind and sense of responsibility and service of every individual in this land. I believe, too, that on all sides of the House we must pursue the means of dealing with crime both humanely and effectively—I repeat effectively—remembering that "no man is an island unto himself. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.28 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)

My Lords, my noble friend has just made a wide-ranging, constructive and very interesting speech, to which I think my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be replying at the end of the debate. I am speaking with a slightly different purpose, which is to analyse and expose some of the more direct matters concerned with crimes of violence. It is nearly two years since this House had an opportunity for a full debate on the subject. Perhaps I may say at once that the Government welcome this Motion and the opportunity for an examination of the issues.

No doubt during the course of the debate others will explore many aspects of the subject. Partly because I expressed myself rather fully on the previous occasion, to which I have referred, and partly because on this occasion I am opening, I believe that the best service that I can render to the House is to analyse the size and nature of the problems that we shall be examining and expose the questions involved in violent criminality so that we are reminded of the characteristics of this social evil and the main ways in which the Government's policy is striving to combat it.

The Motion refers to the serious rise in violent crime. In the fairly near future I intend to make a speech of my own elsewhere on the subject of terrorism. In the meantime, I should like to make plain at the outset that I do not intend on this occasion to explore that subject at all and that I shall be speaking about crimes of violence other than terrorism.

When we speak of a serious rise in crimes of violence of this sort we should not lose sight of the fact that the recent rises above the level in the year 1984–85, the latest for which statistics are available, of 7 per cent. in offences of violence against the person and 6 per cent. in sexual offences are not out of step with recent trends in criminal behaviour generally. For many years all crime has increased steadily and remorselessly. That is a fact to which my noble friend has already referred. Crimes of violence have increased in proportion with the general rise in criminality. All are distressing and, apart from terrorism, crimes of violence are among the most distressing of all.

Nevertheless, while it is important to consider crimes of violence as part of the wider trend, it is also essential to appreciate the characteristics peculiar to crimes of this nature that justify the claim to make them a special category. Despite the impression that we have all received from dramatic events, violently and legitimately reported, violent crime as such remains statistically relatively rare against the background of general criminality.

In 1985, nearly 165,000 offences of personal violence, including sexual assaults and robberies, were recorded by the police. That is a shocking fact. But it represents under 5 per cent. of all notifiable offences. The most serious of these offences of personal violence, namely, rape and crimes endangering life, amounted to 9,800. That is about one-third of 1 per cent. of recorded offences.

These figures compare with 800,000 burglaries and over 1,800,000 offences of theft and handling stolen goods. It is also, I believe, important to stress that one should not talk about violent crime as a single and homogenous category in any sense except one—the effect that such offences have on their victims, on the families, friends and neighbours of victims and on society at large.

Far from being a single, separate category, crimes of violence cover a wide range of different offences. Not all have the same motivation. Not all are committed by the same type of offender. Not all injure the same type of victim. We must be careful, therefore, in our search for generalisations not to overlook the specific aspects of each type or to propose simple solutions that fail to take account of the complexity of the facts involved. There is, however, one fact to which I should allude. Sometimes violence seems to be used wantonly and for its own sake. But in others it is used as an aid to some other offence: theft, sexual assault, riot, political demonstration, drug-peddling.

In the light of my noble friend's close and longstanding interest, I do not think that I should ignore some special facts relating to the young offender. Most offenders against criminal law are young, and most of them are male. The peak age for all these offences is 15 for males and 14 for females. In 1984, over 419,000 offenders under the age of 21 were cautioned or found guilty of an offence of some sort. Of males born in the year 1953, no less than one-third had one or more criminal convictions before they were 28 years of age. This is fact. But there is a widespread belief that young people are predominantly responsible for unacceptable acts of violence, in particular vicious attacks on the frail and elderly. That such offences by the young take place is true, but the generalisation is not true.

Violence is not a predominant feature of crime by young people, and violent crimes are not predominantly committed by young people. Crimes of violence form about 7 per cent. of all their offences, and there is one important difference that critics of the younger generation should remember. While adult crime has been going steadily up since 1980—that is, during the last six years—the number of young people guilty of indictable offences has remained broadly unchanged.

It is also fair to say that we cannot fairly lay at the door of the young our legitimate sense of outrage at attacks made on the most helpless victims; the old, for instance. Over half of the offenders in street attacks on the elderly were aged over 25. Characteristically, the victims of such violent attacks as are committed by young people are others of the same age group as themselves. I would not seek in any way in what I say to minimise the scale or seriousness of the problem that we are discussing. The official statistics do not tell the whole story, not by any means.

The British crime survey commissioned by the Home Secretary completed its second sweep in 1984. It has done much to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and to add a little more subtle shading to the black and white picture of the statistics. It is clear that a large number of crimes, and, in particular, a large number of crimes of violence, are never reported at all, and so they do not appear in the statistics. Recorded cases are, therefore, to use a cliché, the tip of an iceberg.

The survey estimates that less than half the serious crimes of violence and about one-third of the less serious crimes of violence are reported. It also shows that sexual offences generally and crimes of violence within the family may be reported proportionately less than others. The iceberg at this point is therefore rather more deeply under water than the rest.

No analysis of the scale and nature of this problem can be a substitute for concern and a determination to combat it. We must not blunt our personal sense of outrage and shock at violent crime. We cannot ignore the deep sense of frustration, almost rage, among the public, who feel, rightly and with passion, that every single violent attack or sexual attack is wholly unacceptable and that, to the utmost of our ability, we have to rid ourselves of this growing scourge of violence before we have lost our capacity to react to it.

My noble friend referred to the article in The Times stating that the shadow Home Secretary, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, intended, and I quote the words, to "take over" the issue of law and order from the Conservative Party. The subject is too important to become a party political football. We should all be glad to put our constructive thoughts into the pool. The problem is one that affects us all and we can all benefit from the wisdom of others.

The Motion calls for measures to protect innocent persons. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will be speaking at greater length about this. I take it that the phrase does not primarily refer to the availability of compensation orders made by the court at the time of disposal, although it has been my constant endeavour from the time when the subject was only a gleam in the then Home Secretary's eye, about 40 years ago, to the present to urge the use of compensation orders where funds are available in the perpetrator to take advantage of them. I take it of course that we are not referring to the compensation scheme brought in some years ago under the criminal injuries board.

In the seven years of our term of office we have pursued a balanced strategy to combat crime on all fronts, giving encouragement, resources and legislation as each was found to be necessary, and where appropriate a combination of all three. There are and must remain legitimate limits on the Government's power to control criminal justice, still more on our ability directly to influence the figures. Within the powers available, we have taken measures which aim to prevent crime taking place, to enhance investigation and detection, to deal effectively and justly with those convicted and to give support and assistance to the victims. My noble friend will wish to say more on this aspect in summing up.

One of the principal responsibilities of any Home Secretary must be to provide an appropriate legislative framework for dealing with offences. This is a field in which there are many views and many conflicting needs. Justice requires that sentencing should be fitted to the circumstances alike of the individual offence and of the individual offender. It should be sufficiently severe to mark the condemnation by society of the crime which has been committed.

Particularly where juveniles are concerned, sentencing should also take into account the future of the offender. It must have some different effect without confirming an incipient criminal career. It must also have regard to the needs of the victims. From all this one essential is clear. This is that we must provide the courts with a wide range of powers so that they can make appropriate disposals against the relevant criteria and the facts of each individual case. The Government have worked steadily to develop this range of disposals, and we will continue to do this. At one end of the spectrum it is essential that maximum penalties are adequate. Therefore, we have increased the maximum sentences for attempted rape, indecent assault on a woman and trafficking in class A drugs, a subject to which my noble friend made particular reference.

The White Paper on criminal justice contains proposals for increasing the maxima for carrying fire-arms in the course of crime and for certain offences of corruption. In addition, we have continued to apply restrictions on the release of certain life sentence prisoners and the restrictions on parole for some violent offenders. These changes were announced in 1983 by my right honourable friend Mr. Leon Brittan. This severity for the worst offenders is just. Law, we must remember, is normative of conduct, and a severe face against deliberate offending is socially salutary. Moreover, it is essential if we are to have public support, as we need public support, for approaching less serious crimes in a rather different way. Either excessive lenience or excessive severity can easily undermine public confidence in the system as a whole.

My noble friend referred to custodial cases. I have never taken the view that to deprive a man or woman of liberty is necessary to improve his or her character. Prison is the right place for the worst offenders, and as my noble friend has said, prisons must be provided. But, as she had also said, it is a last resort. No one should be deprived of liberty unless it is necessary, nor for a longer period than is necessary.

From the outset the development of non-custodial sentences has been a fundamental part of Government strategy. To win the confidence of the public, and perhaps more importantly of the courts, we have also had to strengthen considerably the non-custodial disposals available. Although one must provide for reformative practices within the custodial system, this provision of non-custodial sentences is an essential part of penal policy.

On the probation service expenditure has doubled since 1979. In 1979 fewer than 24,000 convicted offenders received probation. Since then the probation order has been strengthened by giving the courts power to attach specific requirements and thus making the order more demanding for offenders. Both these factors may have contributed to the greater use of probation. By 1984 probation was used in 36,000 cases—that is, in 8.5 per cent. of all disposals.

The most successful development in this field, and one to which my noble friend referred, has been the growth of the community service order. In 1979 13,500 orders were made, representing 3 per cent. of disposals. Since that time the nature of the order, which makes serious demands on the offender yet provides him with a positive task and brings him back to offer some service to society, has won the interest and confidence of the courts, employers and public. In 1984 33,000 orders were made—that is, 7.5 per cent. of all disposals. The order is available throughout England and Wales.

The Government continue to fund ways of enhancing the effectiveness of existing non-custodial sentences—for instance, fines which have declined in use—and to develop new ideas. One idea which may deserve mention because it hinges on the bringing together of the offender and the victim in the local community is that of reparation. A number of reparation schemes are now in operation. These are administered by the probation services. All have one thing in common, the voluntary agreement between the victim and the offender to a meeting at which the offender can apologise for his offence and both parties can talk it through. The experience is intended to reassure the victims and to teach the offender consideration for others.

Four of these schemes are funded by the Home Office on a two-year experimental basis to see whether they are likely to provide the basis of a new statutory order, and we recently published a discussion document which sought wider views. It is too early to say whether a statutory reparation order would be a valuable addition to the framework of penal treatment. But we shall continue to look for new alternatives to custody which are creditable and credible and satisfy the various requirements which I have said must apply to sentencing policy.

The provision of alternatives to custody is of course particularly important for juveniles. I have already mentioned community service. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 created a new structure for young offenders and placed emphasis upon avoiding custody wherever possible. This, for the first time, made the community service order available for 16 year-olds. The new power has been well received by the courts. About 2,000 community service orders a year are being made for this age group. The 1982 Act also strengthened the supervision order by giving the courts power to intervene more directly in the lives of the offenders concerned, but without the need for the extreme sanction of removing them from home. This was accompanied by the provision by central Government of £15 million of additional money to encourage the development of community-based facilities for young people under supervision orders. These changes too have been well received; but since the 1982 Act came into force experience has shown that some modification is required. Proposals for further strenghening the supervision orders are set out in the White Paper on criminal justice published earlier this year.

I turn back specifically to the subject of the Motion by my noble friend which is confined to crimes of violence. There are some offences that even when committed by young people can only be dealt with custodially. Where that is the case the 1982 Act provides a flexible range of orders enabling the punishment to be matched to the circumstances of the offence. It has been represented that the present arrangements for custodial sentencing of juveniles are not adequate and that there is a range of offences, some of which involve violence, for which stronger penalties are needed. The Government are of course concerned that those views should have been expressed, and for that reason with the White Paper we issued a discussion paper on custodial sentences with particular reference to juvenile offenders.

There is much which the Government can and should do. They should certainly be seen—and all governments should be seen—to be in the lead in this matter. There is much that we have already done, some of which has shown some good results. But as yet we have not seen the improvement in the crime figures for which we had hoped. No government can legislate for a total end to crimes of violence, and government action alone will never be sufficient to destroy it. The criminal justice system, for all its virtues and vices, is not by itself a solution but it is a necessary response. My noble friend Lady Faithfull has made a moving reference in the course of her speech to the need for involvement at grass roots level and I would endorse what she said.

I look forward to a well-informed debate. The public is deeply concerned about this, and not unnaturally feels a deep sense of outrage at the lurid, dramatic and horrific details quite properly reported in the press. But this has led to levels of fear which are not justified by the actual risks. Nevertheless, the British crime survey has shown clearly that many members of the public take a realistic view of criminal justice and a balanced and fair attitude towards punishment. It is essential that we develop ways of harnessing this degree of public concern with common sense. If we succeed, many juveniles can begin to give useful service. Much of the progress we have made has focused on this important area: the development of neighbourhood watch schemes; the provision of more and better deployed police, better policing so that officers may be brought nearer the community, education to enhance the role of the schools—another topic which my noble friend handled—in the development of young people into good citizens. However, as I hardly need say, and as my noble friend said, that is a task for all of us.

I end with a word of my own. This has a direct relevance to the way in which my noble friend closed her speech. Criminal justice is a necessary evil. It is necessary because crime exists and evil because crime is evil and punishment in itself is not good. The moral climate of a society at large is the ultimate determinant of social and anti-social behaviour. The moral climate of society depends upon the behaviour of good neighbours to one another. Criminal justice is therefore not our front line. Writing long before the birth of the Redeemer, and uninfluenced so far as we know even by Jewish scriptures, the orator, statesman and philosopher, Cicero, wrote these words with which I close. He said: We have a natural propensity to love our fellow man and that is the foundation of all law".