Oral Answers to Questions Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Oral Answers to Questions

David Amess Excerpts
Tuesday 18th December 2012

(12 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Amess Portrait Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

19. If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

Jeremy Wright Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There is settled policy in England and Wales that some offences are so grave that they are deserving of imprisonment for the rest of the offender’s life for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. The Secretary of State and I take the view that whole-life tariffs should remain an option for sentences in appropriate cases.

--- Later in debate ---
Jeremy Wright Portrait Jeremy Wright
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The good news for my hon. Friend is that on this issue at least we are in agreement with the European Court of Human Rights, because it has upheld our view that whole-life tariffs are an appropriate disposal in the right cases. Let me make it clear to him—I think that I also speak for the Secretary of State—that for as long as we are Ministers in the Department, its policy will remain that whole-life tariffs should be available.

David Amess Portrait Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
- Hansard - -

In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, will he reassure me and the British public that under this Government the criminal justice system will treat convicted criminals in a firm but fair way?

Jeremy Wright Portrait Jeremy Wright
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are doing two important things in that regard: first, toughening up the sentencing regime so that the right people go to prison for the right length of time; and secondly, ensuring that there is more emphasis on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. That is the way to avoid the misery that communities incur as a result of reoffending, to avoid making more victims and to avoid extra cost to the taxpayer.