Queen’s Speech debates and faith restored
Last week you would have been forgiven for thinking I had rather lost faith in Parliament as I showed my disappointment with the latest raft of legislation proposed to separate vulnerable individuals who end up in prison from the rest of society.
However throughout this week’s parliamentary debates on the Queen’s Speech my faith has been rather restored by some excellent speeches from members of all parties of both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Linklater got the ball rolling with an indictment of the use of prison; she also specifically mentioned the Howard League’s work on community programmes:
“Who are these people causing the prisons to burst at the seams? Can they all really be so violent, dangerous and prolific as policy states they should be? Of course not. In 2008, nearly 29,000 people were serving only three months or less, and still more were sent to prison for six or 12 months. These are not dangerous and violent offenders from whom we should be protected, but in large part they reflect the dozens of Bills and thousands of offences which have been created over the life of this Government.â€
Baroness Hamwee attacked the Government’s proposed Crime and Security Bill stating:
“I am considerably less enthusiastic about the Crime and Security Bill’s provisions about anti-social behaviour and parenting orders. The Government have such a tendency to criminalise. There is parenting support, yes, but not left until crisis point. My first question is what evidence the Government have on which to base the provision. For instance, to take a similar existing provision, what is the effect of the possibility of imprisonment of the parent of a truanting child? Is the breach rate for ASBOs accelerating children into custody? An ASBO is a civil matter; breaching it is criminal. There is a tendency to criminalise and to blur the lines between the civil and the criminal.â€
I think, however, that the speech of the day award went to Charles Walker MP in the House of Commons, whose address was excellent from start to finish and ended noting:
“I know that time is short, so I shall conclude. We have to be brave in promoting prison reform. There are not a lot of votes in it for any of us, but it is the right thing to do, because we want to make the communities that we represent safer places. When we keep turning back out into these communities criminals who are unreformed, who remain violent, who remain ill, who remain addicted, they are just as dangerous or even more dangerous than before we sent them to prison. So I hope all Members will approach prison reform with open-mindedness and courage. If we get it right in the long term, there will be a consequential saving to taxpayers, and our communities will be safer places in which to live.â€
The truth is that in spite of the Government having introduced 3,700 new criminal offences since 1997, in spite of its continued insistence upon criminalising the most marginalised in our society the debate of both chambers nearly always holds such actions to account. While the Howard League’s attempts in Parliament to make Britain safer and fairer may not always succeed it is good to see that our petitions for fairness will not fall on deaf ears. At the end of the week, it’s nice to have your faith in the system partially restored.
Related posts:
- Another Queen’s Speech another criminal justice bill For one fi
- Crime and security bill Two things
- Some good news For once t
- Crime free zone The lack o
- A new face at the top Phil Wheat
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
November 27, 2009
Tags: Conservatives, politics, Prisons Posted in: Government policy, Prisons
Twitter
One Response
Congratulations to the Howard League for helping to put prison reform on Parliament’s agenda.
I hope that the Howard League’s Community Programmes Awards 2010 receive the attention they are due and highlight some viable alternatives – if not improvements – to custodial sentences.
Leave a Reply