| Criminal Justice Bill
|
|
Simon Hughes: This is a very important clause. I would normally vote against it, because it does not contain the safeguards that we have touched on. It does not resolve the issue of who should be consulted about changes and does not address the matter of parliamentary scrutiny of fundamental changes in the arrangements governing procedure between the citizen and the police. I appreciate that the explanatory notes are for guidance and do not have any statutory force, but the description of clause 7 says:
They are indeed fundamental, and we must not delude ourselves. The next issue that I want to raise has not been touched on before. I understand that under the proposed procedure there will not have to be drafts. It will be possible for a new change or changes to be laid and to come into operation. It strikes me that, not only for the reason given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, there has to be a process by which Column Number: 124 the Government can show what they are thinking of doing. There might be a big issue that will exercise a lot of people. The Government do not always recognise the importance of an issue—the small print often reveals matters that were not initially considered significant but are important for a particular group or person. Holding on to the view that we ought to have proper parliamentary scrutiny, but accepting that we shall come back to whether we can achieve consensus about how to do it effectively, I consider the existing affirmative procedure to be the best option, unless we can find an equally good one.I take the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: a Committee comprises people with an interest who meet for a few hours at most. We make recommendations to the House and decide what is controversial. It is voted on later. If there is a very big issue, we spot it and it is debated in the House. We judge the importance of things and matters can be processed in 10 minutes—five at each end of the building—if there is no controversy. There is also a question of management. A discipline is placed on the Government, the police and everyone else: they cannot keep knocking on the door saying that they want to make yet more changes. They know that if they have a slot only once a year, or every two, three or five years, they will have to marshal their thoughts. Unless something hugely important comes up, or unless a great lacuna in the system is suddenly revealed by a court ruling, experience should tell them that in five years' time they will need to do something. I accept that things sometimes need to be brought up to date. However, if we do not force a Division it will not be because we are happy with the clause—we are not—but because of the good will and the spirit of the Minister's response to the previous two points. Might the Government table an amendment, or will they consider a proposal for considering draft codes, as stage one of a process, before changes are made—whether big or small?
5.15 pmMr. Grieve: I, too, hope that I have not been excessively sweet-talked by the Minister into not opposing the clause. My reservations have been well identified. I fully accept that there may be a problem distinguishing between important and minor changes, but the House has a role to play in that. I return to the matter of affirmative resolution, because it is important. It is useful, because it allows Members of Parliament and others to ask the wonderful question, why. We have already heard of an example: the Minister will remember that, before Christmas, an amendment was made to legislation that had not yet been brought into force, but no explanation was given at the outset of exactly why that had happened. It simply emerged. I fear that the moment that it becomes easy to amend existing legislation, amendments will start to cascade every time a police officer come across a minor hiccup that he does not like. After all, the police are the ones with the easiest access to the Home Office: they can put pen to paper to say that they would like a change, rapid Column Number: 125 consultation is available and they are automatically within the loop provided under clause 7; and if a Government wish to, they can present a fait accompli to the public with absolutely no discussion—although I fully accept that that is not the Minister's intention.The problem with scrutinising the Government's actions is that a Minister's intention expressed in Committee and what happens when bureaucrats, who are feeling a bit harassed on a Friday afternoon, see the opportunity to have the whole thing done and dusted by the following Tuesday morning are two entirely different things—I have been a Member of the House long enough to realise that, without ministerial intention, it happens quite frequently. Placing orders before Ministers to be signed without scrutiny is one of the easiest things to do. I sat on the Statutory Instruments Committee in the last Parliament, and every week I saw poorly drafted legislation—much of it unintelligible gobbledegook—but the Committee could not question its background. The PACE code is important; it has worked and it must continue to work. I am mindful of what the Minister is trying to achieve, but the Bill as it stands does not reassure me that that will continue. Can he please come up with something better on Report? Vera Baird: I have some concerns. I echo what has been said about codes of practice being critical as a protection for many of those who become involved with the police—those in police custody or being investigated by the police. I am grateful for the Minister's saying that he will try to think of a formula. I invite him to take into account—I think that we should all do the same—what primarily worried me about the clause: the notion of taking the power, fairly easily, to change the codes of practice when we are in the middle of a major review of those PACE codes. I think that the review was reported to the House in November. Many of the recommendations were not put in the Bill or in the Police Reform Bill. Some of them will inevitably be in a future code of practice. I understand that the intention behind the review is for those changes to be implemented by 2004. I imagine that the changes will cover, among other things, the way in which appropriate adults are appointed and deployed, and the question of intimate searches. The review raised such issues, on which change is needed, but for which a slot in legislation has not yet been found. They are very important issues. I invite the Minister to ensure that any formula takes into account those major revisions of PACE. I appreciate that as legislation goes through a quick procedure is necessary, so that there is a catch-up of the codes of practice. However, it is slightly presumptuous to take a power that is designed for dealing with that when we are in the middle of a major review of the PACE codes. I hope that any formula agreed can allow for the current review to be completed before any of the changes are implemented. I ask him to link that to the formula that he is searching for, and to try to match those two up. Hilary Benn: There is a lot of common ground among us on the problem that we are trying to Column Number: 126 address. My hon. and learned Friend was right to draw attention to one of the causes of the pressure, which is the legislation passed in the House. That is why the discipline of being allowed to revise the codes only once every two years would not work. The practitioners on the streets want guidance that reflects the legislation that we pass. It would not be sensible then to impose a rule that says, ''I'm sorry, but you're going to have to wait another two years before we can update the code you have to work with''. There has been criticism of the rate at which the Home Office legislates, but that is how things go.The hon. Member for Beaconsfield raised a point about a draft. He is correct in that the current wording mentions the publication of a draft. However, on the basis of subsection (4), that would be a bit hard if one were to issue a code. Under the clause, there is for the first time a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult. I find it hard to conceive that a Secretary of State would write a letter saying, ''Dear So-and-so, I am thinking of publishing a new code. What do you think? Let me have your views. Yours sincerely.'' I think that common sense dictates that one would invite people to comment and be consulted on a draft. Although I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the wording, I think that the spirit of subsection (4) is clear. After all, what is the point of consultation if there is nothing specific to consult on? It would not make sense to write a letter such as the one that I caricatured a moment ago. It would make a lot of sense to consult people on such proposals, for precisely the reasons that my hon. and learned Friend outlined. Such detailed provisions as those under discussion are in some cases sensitive and important. If the consultation is to be meaningful, people must have a chance to look at a draft and to comment on it. I hope that that is helpful, and that the Committee will accept the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 7 January 2003 |
