Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

I start by saying a couple of things about the general tenor of the debate. I welcome very much the thoughtful and passionate contributions that hon. Members have made. I thank the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), for Taunton (Mr. Browne), the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has apologised for having to leave early, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) for their contributions to the debate. If I do not answer all their questions in my remarks, I hope that we will, as they have suggested, return to many of them in Committee. I accept absolutely that all Members on both sides of the House are determined in their efforts to tackle serious crime. I say that because it is an important point to make. There may well be differences, debates and arguments about some of the proposals before us, but I do not ignore the fact that all Members are dedicated to working towards the same aim. I have listened with interest to the debate and some hon. Members have referred to centuries of tradition. The hon. Member for Taunton said that I had answered a parliamentary question today, which I have, about mandatory minimum sentences of five years for the possession of a handgun. He pointed out that although Parliament had passed the provision, the judiciary, in determining the appropriate sentence, had not in all cases given the five-year sentence. That is because the legislation gives the judiciary the opportunity to take account of exceptional or extenuating circumstances—I cannot remember the exact phrase in the law. The hon. Gentleman cannot castigate me for being responsible for legislation that does not result in the judiciary automatically giving a five-year sentence and then, two minutes later, castigate me, my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police and the Government for undermining centuries of tradition if we are not able to dictate to that same judiciary that it should have no independence and that it should automatically and without any reference to extenuating circumstances apply the five-year sentence. I make that point because it is fundamental to this debate. We cannot pick and choose with respect to constitutional principles. The hon. Gentleman chose to have a go at me and the Government about the minimum five-year sentence and will no doubt suggest that the Government are failing on gun crime because it is not being applied, but he then said that the Bill was a wicked erosion—I paraphrase—of centuries of tradition in this country since the Magna Carta.