Prime Minister's question asked in the House of Commons, by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Conservative). It was answered on Wednesday, 14 June 2006 on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Engagements

Question: The point about the 2003 Act is that it means that criminals are released halfway through their sentence. I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act— [ Interruption.] I know a thing or two about the 2003 Act because I sat on the Bill Committee. Let me tell the House something that I said at the time: ““If there is one thing that undermines people’s confidence in the criminal justice system, it is the feeling that time after time sentences are handed down but people are released halfway through them.””— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 February 2003; c. 954. ] That is why we opposed it. Can the Prime Minister confirm something else? The only reason that this case— [ Interruption.] They are shouting because they do not like it. They know that they are on the wrong side. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the only reason that this case can be sent back to the Court of Appeal for a tougher sentence to be considered is the Criminal Justice Act that we passed and that he voted against?

Answer: Again, all that we have done is to toughen the ability of the Attorney-General— [ Interruption.] Yes, we have, as a matter of fact. I want to go back to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is completely wrong. Under the 2003 Act, if someone is sentenced to more than four years in prison—in other words, if it is a serious offence—they can no longer be paroled at the two-thirds point. Since April 2005, 1,000 indeterminate sentences have been handed down and no one has been paroled because of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues support tough measures, but I have before me a press release put out just the other day by the shadow Leader of the House. We remember debating the 90 days or the 28 days for the detention of suspected terrorists. We were forced, because of the right hon. Gentleman’s votes, to have the 28 days. The shadow Leader of the House then attacked us for not introducing this measure quickly enough. The reason that we are unable to introduce it quickly is that the Conservatives insisted on a longer consultation period, which prevented us from doing that. So at every stage, whether it involves antisocial behaviour, assets recovery, the Criminal Justice Act or terrorist legislation, the right hon. Gentleman talks tough but he votes soft.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 447 c762-3
Session: 2005-06
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Administration of justice Conduct Parole Ministers Life imprisonment Sentencing Sentencing Guidelines Council
Legislation: Criminal Justice Act 2003
Link: View this Prime Minister's question on www.publications.parliament.uk