House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Dec 1992

Column 483

therefore very pleased to note that steps have been taken by the Department to reduce the time to around 10 months for the completion of reviews."

I was grateful for that, but 10 months, which is quite reasonable, could become a year or two years. Therefore, we believe that for the procedure to be efficient it must be effective. There is need for a time limit on the board's decisions and it should be written into the Bill. I know that the Minister agreed with the spirit of the amendment that we moved in Committee and agreed to reconsider the matter. This amendment brings the issue before the House again for further ministerial thought.

Dr. Godman : Although I support the amendment, I shall ask the Minister a few questions which have been prompted by observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who referred to the time taken to deal with cases.

7 pm

Has the Minister reached a decision about the board and its modus operandi since the Committee stage? Has he, for example, any proposals to increase the number of its members? When I can catch his ear, may I ask him whether there have been any fresh retirements from the board or appointments to it since we met in Committee? Have any existing members of the board been reappointed?

In view of the remarks made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton and the similar comments that he made in Committee, is additional assistance to be given to officials who serve the board by way of more advanced means of dealing with the vast amount of paperwork which passes through the board's hands?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I am sure that the necessary assistance will be given to officials, because I envisage that there will be more work, certainly for social workers, arising out of the Bill. I may be given further information, but I am not aware of any vacancies at the moment. The comments made in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton will be borne in mind.

I am glad to be able to say that some helpful information has now been passed to me to the effect that my right hon. Friend has recently reappointed Mrs. Megan Casserly but decided not to reappoint Mr. Denis Rice. Sir Hugh Byatt and Mrs. Morris are demitting office this year. That is the up-to-date information, and I am glad that I was able to pass that on within a few moments of admitting that I was not aware of the most recent facts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

Dr. Godman : I offer my compliments to the two members of the board who have recently retired, despite some less than helpful observations made about one of them by my hon. Friends. I believe that all the members of the parole board perform a valuable public duty, which should not be overlooked by hon. Members or by members of the public. I am delighted that Mrs. Megan Casserly, a distinguished social work manager, has been reappointed. Mr. Joe Scott is now chairman of the board. I said that he was a member of a large Lanarkshire mining family, but I believe that his family was involved in the steel industry in Lanarkshire.

Column 484

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : Having seen the parole board in operation, I am aware that it does an enormous amount of work and that its cases require a great deal of study and reading. The amendment was buried under others in Committee, so I am glad that we have been able to give it a second hearing on its own because it gives me the opportunity to explain why it is unnecessary. In Committee the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said that it was difficult to understand whether clause 20(4)(b) and the amendment meant the same thing or had different meanings. It is a question of interpretation, but it is not necessary to require the parole board to complete its consideration of a case within a period specified simply by length. The important factor is not how long the board takes to consider a case but when it completes its consideration in relation to the date on which the prisoner first becomes eligible for parole.

If a determinant sentence prisoner is eligible for parole on, say, 1 April next year, all the necessary consideration and procedures must be completed so that the prisoner can be told before 1 April whether he is to be released on parole then, later or not at all. The review process begins about five months before what is known as the prisoner's parole eligibility date. The board sets deadlines for the submission of papers to enable it to meet the automatic deadline which is established in each case for the parole eligibility date. The board usually requires that the cases of determinant sentence prisoners should be referred to it at least six weeks before the date on which the prisoner becomes eligible for parole. That gives the board sufficient time in which to make a recommendation and for a favourable recommendation to be considered by the Secretary of State and acted on if the prisoner is to be released on or shortly after the date on which he becomes eligible for parole.

The board is an extremely efficient body and, like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I pay tribute to the work of its participants. I am not aware of any criticism of its record in meeting the deadlines imposed on it in respect of determinant sentence prisoners.

Different considerations apply to life sentence prisoners. In such cases, there is no need to impose a specific time limit on the parole board, because that would not help to accelerate what is inevitably a fairly lengthy process. The board itself has previously criticised the time taken in other parts of that process--consultation with the judiciary and consideration by the Secretary of State--but strenuous efforts have been made in recent years to achieve a speedier throughput of cases, and sustained progress has been made. The maximum time for reference of life sentence cases to the parole board has been reduced to 10 months from the date of initiation of the review, and we aim to improve on that wherever possible.

In response to the hon. Member for Dumbarton, I must point out that the Bill already enables the Secretary of State to make rules requiring cases to be dealt with at prescribed times. Nothing more is required, and the amendment would not achieve any desirable result in that limits specified by length of time would not be helpful in this context. I hope that my explanation has made that clear, and that the amendment will not be pressed.

Column 485

Mr. McFall : I thank the Minister for his explanation. As he knows, the spirit of the amendment is to reduce the time taken for the reviews. I hope that the Minister will bear our comments in mind and that, in practice, the time will be reduced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

Place of confinement of prisoners

Mrs. Fyfe : I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 19, line 13, at end add--

(4) In determining which prison a prisoner should be allocated to, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to the prison by the prisoner's family.'. The Minister will remember our discussion in Committee. I thank him for the detailed response which he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) in the past few days. He kindly let us all have a copy of that reply.

In his reply he stated that he had already introduced a scheme for long- term prisoners which became operative last July. It means that "prisoners serving sentences of more than 2 years are given the opportunity to choose, subject to the availability of places, among a number of establishments offering appropriate levels of security." He also said that there were opportunities for prisoners who are not considered dangerous to be considered for home leave. However, he has so far rejected legislation to enforce what our amendment calls for.

He set out his reasons in his letter. He said that the current distribution of establishments and

"the need to hold remands, males, young offenders and females separately means that it is not a practical proposition to meet a requirement of nearness to family".

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that we are asking only that he "shall have regard" to the prisoner's home circumstances and access to his family. We are far from suggesting that that is the only criterion worth considering. We agree with the Minister that a move to medium-security or open conditions may be of great benefit to the prisoner, and that it may be the right time for a prisoner to move to a less secure establishment. That might have the effect of taking the prisoner further away from his family.

However, we also suggest that in many cases, prisoners might benefit more from a move to a more open prison if in the first place they had the encouragement and support that a family could give through being close to the prison. We recognise that the distribution of prisons is not so convenient that there could be one available in half an hour's bus ride from anywhere in Scotland, but we suggest that, given the current placing of prisons, account should be taken of that difficulty.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that, if people in prison, whether male or female, have access to those near and dear to them, whoever they may be, that can only help them to get back into society, to give up the crimes for which they have been imprisoned in the first place and to restore them to decent society. Having family back-up maintained throughout long imprisonment must surely be valuable.

We agree with the Minister that the family are not necessarily those with immediate marital or blood

Column 486

relations. The problem of definition can easily be resolved. What is wrong with asking the prisoner himself or herself to name the people with whom he or she feels there is a close relationship? The list must not, of course, be over-extensive.

Mr. Hood : My hon. Friend makes a valuable point and I am sure that all hon. Members here understand it. This weekend I was concerned with the case of George Beatty. Although innocent, he was convicted, served a prison sentence of 13 years and is now back inside. He obviously does not have a wife. He has only a mother who lives on a state pension. The Department of Social Security is refusing assistance to allow her to visit her son, who is in prison after having been wrongly convicted. Surely that supports what my hon. Friend says.

Mrs. Fyfe : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is unfortunate that many people are in prison whose home circumstances are very impoverished. Their families have little money and cannot afford long journeys to visit them. Pensioners and people living on income support are especially badly placed in that regard. That is one of the reasons why we are appealing for legislation to ensure that such circumstances are taken into account.

The actions of the Department of Social Security are not, of course, the Minister's business, but we should take account of the realities in framing legislation. It is not only the length of the journey that is a problem, but the cost of the journey can put it beyond the pockets of so many families. Whether the person involved is the prisoner's mother, wife, partner or simply close friend is irrelevant. The important point is that the person who visits is someone to whom the prisoner feels close and someone from whose close contact he or she would benefit.

We called earlier for severer sentences in some circumstances, but we should never forget that a long term in prison is a drastic thing to happen to anybody. We want to try to get people to join the community again and to give up whatever crimes have put them in prison in the first place. Keeping in contact with those whom they hold near and dear will surely only help.

Mr. Gallie : I want to rectify a great wrong. In Committee, I was the only hon. Member to speak out against the inclusion of the amendment in the Bill. At that time, the Minister appeared sympathetic to it and I was critical of him for being so. I was critical because I felt that it was unnecessary to add a factor that was already considered by the authorities when a person was convicted. It is part of the process, and a sympathetic approach is taken.

I felt at that time that to legislate would mean that there was a mandatory requirement which could cause problems, because prisoners could see such a requirement as a right and would look to it as a principal justification for going to a particular location. The real reason why individuals are in prison is the protection of the public. That must be the overriding factor.

The question of the prison to which a convicted person goes could be considered, but it should not be legislated for and it should not be a mandatory requirement. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has gone back on his original comments in Committee, and I hope that he sticks to his present view.

Column 487

7.15 pm

Dr. Godman : I part company with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to some extent. When people are in prison, an immense burden is often placed on the shoulders of their families in terms of travel to and from prison for visits.

Mr. Gallie indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman : The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Anyone visiting Shotts prison has considerable difficulty getting to it from the centre of Shotts. If the Minister is unwilling to accept the amendment, he should at least offer some solace to the families of prisoners in those circumstances. I fully accept that there are often practical difficulties that prevent the transfer of a prisoner to a prison close to his or her home.

Some time ago, I wrote to the Minister asking for a constituent, who is serving 12 years in Perth, to be transferred to Greenock. His mother, an elderly, disabled person who is living on social security, told me that she simply could not travel to and from Perth. I do not want to identify more closely where she lives in my constituency. I asked the Minister whether he would consider such a transfer on compassionate grounds, although not for the man in question, who deserves every day of the sentence imposed on him for the crime that he committed.

However, it seems that there are establishments closer to my constituency than the one in Perth. I accept that there are difficulties about Greenock because it is a prison designated for short-term prisoners, although there are two or three prisoners there who are serving immensely long sentences.

The Minister could take measures that would make life easier for the families of prisoners rather than for the prisoners themselves. I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) stressed the need to take account of the prisoners' concerns.

Not so long ago, a constituent of mine came to see me with a request that her son be transferred closer to the lower Clyde. Unwittingly, I simply accepted that that was also her son's wish. I then received an indignant letter from the laddie concerned saying that he did not want to move to Greenock, not because of its Member of Parliament, but because he wanted to keep away from his family. I had a rather difficult interview with his mother afterwards. The interests of the prisoner must have primacy. The Minister can improve matters. I have asked a number of times for the creation of a visitors' committee at Greenock. I know that I am straying out of line, and I shall not expand the point further. However, in terms of controlling the inevitable tensions and turbulences in our prisons, the Government must show some concern for the issues arising directly from the amendment.

Mr. Gallie : The hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was trying to make. The system already allows people such as him to write or make representations to the Minister on behalf of a prisoner. The system tends to treat applicants sympathetically and, where possible, meet their demands. I am sugesting that that is already happening and should not be a mandatory requirement.

Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically courteous intervention. I have,

Column 488

perhaps, more experience of such matters than some hon. Members, as it appears that a depressingly large number of my constituents are at present incarcerated in prison.

Mr. Gallie : It might affect the hon. Gentleman's majority.

Dr. Godman : There are not enough of them to affect my majority at the next election. If they were all released tomorrow and there was an election a month later--for which I devoutly pray--it would not affect my not insubstantial majority.

It is a serious matter, particularly for elderly women who exist on social security, and who find it enormously difficult to travel to, for example, that appallingly grim place at Peterhead--all prisons are grim, but that must be the grimmest of the lot in Scotland--or to Saughton in Edinburgh. They have to suffer the indignity of appealing for funds from the local benefits agency, as we are now supposed to call it. I believe that, in many cases, the families of prisoners would benefit enormously if the prisoners were not held so far from home.

I think that Greenock prison is for short-term prisoners--those serving up to and including 18 months. There are a handful of long-term prisoners in the establishment whom I have met--as a visitor I hasten to add. I spent an afternoon there, although I know that the hon. Member for Ayr would like me to have stayed longer.

It is an important amendment, and even if the Minister cannot see fit to accept it because of the reasons put forward by the hon. Member for Ayr, I hope that when requests are made for transfers, they are treated sympathetically and expeditiously. That is not always the case now.

Not everyone will visit their Member of Parliament asking for a request to be passed on to the relevant Minister for a daughter or son be placed in an establishment closer to home. Some people will be much too diffident to come to our surgeries with such requests. For a start, they will feel it shameful to have a son or daughter in prison.

I want the Minister to treat the subject with great sympathy, and not merely in relation to transfers within Scotland. Those of us with constituents in prisons south of the border--in my case just a handful-- would like sympathetic consideration to be given to bringing those prisoners home. By "home" I mean prisons in Scotland that are not as far away from their homes.

There is much to be done to improve visitor facilities in prisons. The state of affairs at Greenock prison is nothing short of a scandal, but I am not certain that it is much better at Shotts, Edinburgh, Perth or elsewhere. Much needs to be done for the families of prisoners.

Mr. McFall : I have been provoked into speaking by the comments of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), although he does not normally provoke me to do so. If I thought for a minute that the Minister was agreeing with the sentiments originally expressed by the hon. Member for Ayr, I would force a Division. However, I was gratified to read in his letter to me of 14 December 1992 that he took our concerns seriously. I am delighted to note that he has had discussions with the chief executive of the prison service on the matter.

The issue of prisoners and their families is extremely important. If we wish to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners and reintroduce them into society, we must

Column 489

consider their family context. In many cases, women will be left on their own to bring up children, and support and encourage their husbands in prison. If we wish to reduce the prison population it is extremely important that we consider the position of the families. Therefore, I am glad that the Minister has recognised our considerations and stated that the spirit of his letter will be maintained. That being the case, I see no reason for us to press the amendment to a Division.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I shall reply only briefly as I have already written to hon. Members. We had full discussions on the matter and wanted, if we could, to provide the House with a suitable amendment. We concluded that it would be impractical for several reasons. Cornton Vale is the only women's prison and could not meet the requirement were it to be written into statute. There is a protection unit at Peterhead for prisoners who are liable to be attacked by other prisoners so they could not take advantage of the terms proposed. Similarly, those who are to be held in open conditions can go to Penninghame or Noranside, and we would not want to deprive them of that opportunity.

Prisoners serving more than two years are now entitled to choose from among a range of long-term establishment subject only to the availability of place. The Scottish prison service is working to improve visiting facilities where possible and is also reviewing arrangements for home leave to see whether more prisoners can benefit from home leave without compromising public safety. Those actions are being taken, and will continue to be taken. The proximity of prisoners' families will be taken into account. Where there is overcrowding in prisons, we felt that it would be undesirable to present prisoners with what might have been a right of judicial review, when it would be impractical always to give effect to it. However, as a matter of good practice, the prison service will certainly try to implement the facilities where possible.

Mrs. Fyfe : I thank the Minister for his reassurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

Prints, samples etc. in criminal investigations

Mr. McFall : I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 22, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert--

(4A) A police surgeon may, with the authority of an officer of a rank no lower than Inspector, take from the person from an external part of the body by means of swabbing or rubbing a sample of blood or other body fluid or of body tissue or of other material.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments : No. 10, in page 22, line 21, leave out or (4)' and insert

(4) or (4A)'.

No. 13, in page 22, line 27, at end add--

(7) In this section "an external part of the body" means any part of the outside skin of the body or any hair growing on it except insofar as these are covered by clothing.'.

Mr. McFall : This group of amendments relates to clause 28, which was debated intensely and in a lively fashion in Committee. The Opposition have tried to be helpful to the Minister by giving a definition of what constitutes an external part of the body. I think that the

Column 490

Minister defined an external part of the body--to put it succinctly--as one that was not an internal part of the body. There is a searing logic to that definition, which I am sure will make much money for many solicitors and QCs.

Today, I have spoken to the Law Society, to which the Minister sent a helpful letter. The Law Commission's committee has studied the Minister's letter carefully and Michael Clancy told me today that the commission is reassured on many aspects of the matter. I am happy to go along with that : if the Law Society is happy, that is fine. I know that the Scottish Police Federation and serving police officers are still nervous about the position and have not been reassured by the Minister. That is why I referred just now to the House of Lords judgment of 26 November 1992 in the case of Pepper v. Hart. The Minister will know that that historic judgment stated that, as an aid to construing legislation that was ambiguous or obscure-- and which of us knows of legislation that is not unambiguous or obscure--or the literal meaning of which led to absurdity, the courts could refer to reports of debates or proceedings in Parliament.

7.30 pm

With that judgment in mind, I ask the Minister to respond, so that at some stage--perhaps in the next century, in 50 years' time when the Minister and I will not be around--the Minister's name can be invoked regularly in the Scottish courts. It is important that the Minister should make the point here to reassure both the Law Society and serving police officers on that aspect of clause 28.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The amendments raise issues that were debated in some detail in Committee. It may help the House if I explain briefly the main purpose of clause 28.

The provisions in that clause are intended to clarify the powers of the police to take samples and fingerprints of both detained and arrested persons without the need for a warrant. Where a warrant is required or considered necessary, the police will continue as at present to apply through the fiscal to a sheriff for a warrant. The Bill does not seek to determine the use to which any sample is put, whether it is obtained under warrant or not. If the police or a prosecutor considers that, for the purposes of their investigations, any sample should be subject to the DNA test, then that will be done.

It should be noted, however, that a DNA test will in most cases be of assistance only in determining the suspect's DNA profile in order to compare that profile with any determined from blood, bodily tissue or fluid found on the victim or at the scene of the crime. In such cases, a DNA test will have to be run on a sample clearly taken from an internal part of the body of that suspect--from a hair root plucked from the victim, or from a proper full sample of blood. In both such instances, the sample involved will be invasive. It could not, therefore, be taken by a constable under the provisions of the clause. If the suspect is willing to have such samples taken, it would be possible to proceed without a warrant, but it is normal in such circumstances for a warrant to be obtained in any event. The types of sample covered by clause 28(4) are all non-invasive. The opinion of the Scottish Law Commission, which I share, is that they are of a kind for which neither a warrant nor the assistance of a doctor

Column 491

should be required. Some form of authorisation should, however, be involved--hence the reference to an officer of a rank no lower than inspector.

The amendments require a police surgeon, rather than a police officer, to take swabs or rubbings. I fail to see the grounds for such a change. Clearly, there is no medical reason for requiring a police surgeon to take the samples because, as I have stressed, they are non-invasive. There is no evidential reason. The police, unlike doctors, are trained in how to take samples from a variety of locations, and procedures exist to ensure the correct packaging and labelling of such samples to maintain their evidential worth. The services of a police surgeon would not, therefore, add to the evidential value.

Dr. Godman : I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy.

Am I right in thinking that a DNA testing unit is to be created in Glasgow? If so, when will it be operational? And was any consideration given to siting it in Greenock--perhaps in the enterprise zone, where it might have created some employment?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : There is, indeed, to be a DNA unit. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether Greenock was considered as a prime site, but I can tell him that Strathclyde and Tayside forensic science laboratories are the only laboratories providing DNA facilities in Scotland at present. Forces which do not have DNA facilities available submit items for DNA examination to Cellmark Diagnostics. Such facilities exist, and I am sure that Greenock will be borne in mind for the future.

I come now to the definition of "external". In Committe we had an interesting debate on what constituted external or internal. I fear that amendment No. 13 does not take us much further, as essentially it merely seeks to substitute "external" with

"the outside skin of the body".

In any event, as I made clear previously, if the police have any doubt about the area from which a sample is to be taken, they can apply for a warrant.

Amendment No. 13 goes on to require that, where any outside skin of the body is covered by clothing, the police cannot exercise their powers unless under the authority of a warrant.

I recognise hon. Members' intentions in tabling the amendment, but I do not consider that the proposed changes would improve the clause. It could result in warrants being required not to take samples but to remove a piece of clothing--for example, a glove--to enable the sample to be taken. Nor do the amendments help to clarify what would happen, for example, if the clothing were torn, or if there were a sample of material at the back of a suspect's neck and he was wearing an open-necked shirt. I believe that the amendment would give considerable scope for confusion.

In the light of my comments, I ask the Opposition not to press the amendment.

Mr. McFall : I am happy to accept the Minister's comments on the matter.

Column 492

Dr. Godman : Will my hon. Friend confirm that considerable reservations were expressed by representatives of our police forces about the powers to be given to them under this part of the Bill, and that those reservations have largely been ignored by Ministers ?

Mr. McFall : I feel that that is so. In my discussions with them, the police told me that they felt that the power were being foisted on them with no consultation whatever. They had a suspicion--shared, I believe, by Opposition Members--that the clause represented a cost-cutting exercise on the part of the Government and that the police were being asked to do what police surgeons had done previously. As my hon. Friend says, the fears of the police force have certainly not been allayed, and I urge the Government to enter into discussions with the police so that they may be reassured on these matters.

Given that the Law Society is reassured, and that the Pepper v. Hart case will mean that comments made here can be referred to at a later date, as well as the Minister's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 32

Evidence from abroad through television links in solemn proceedings

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang) : I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5). When I introduced the Bill on Second Reading, I gave the House an undertaking that I would bring forward on Report an amendment that would remove subsection (5) from the new section which is to be inserted by clause 32 into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. I recognise the importance that many hon. Members attach to the matter, and the need to ensure that there is an opportunity for all who wish to do so to take part in the debate. I am glad to be able to discharge that undertaking this evening, and I am grateful to those hon. Members who served on the First Scottish Standing Committee for their self-restraint in allowing the matter to stand over until this stage.

As the House knows, the provisions of clause 32 will enable the evidence of witnesses outside the United Kingdom to be given to a Scottish court by way of a live television link. The new provisions will bring the law of Scotland in that respect into line with the law of England and Wales, where such a facility has been available to both the prosecution and the defence for over two years--that is, since the coming into force of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in November 1990 in respect of certain prescribed crimes. Were subsection (5) to remain in the Bill, its effect would be to disallow the use of modern technology in respect of one class of serious crime only, and purely on the basis that such crimes would be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act 1991. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord-Advocate pointed out when this matter was debated in another place, it would be wrong in principle to set up a special and different system for trying persons accused of war crimes. The procedures which this clause will introduce will be available to protect the rights of an

Column 493

accused person, just as they will enable the prosecution to bring evidence which might not otherwise come before the court. Concerns were expressed in another place that the television link would be used to enable witnesses to identify accused persons in circumstances that would be unfair to the accused. I stress that the provisions are framed in such a way that the principle of fairness to the accused is paramount. The court must be satisfied, before granting an application by the prosecution to have evidence given by television link, not only that the interests of justice will be served but also that the granting of such an application would not be unfair to the accused.

I have every confidence that the Scottish courts, in applying the principle of fairness to the accused which is so important to our system of criminal justice in Scotland, will ensure that, in every case in which an application for the giving of evidence by television link is granted, the right of the accused to a fair trial will not be imperilled. Given the safeguards built into the provisions, we consider it to be unnecessary and inappropriate that there should be any exclusions.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : I believe that I am the only Member present to have voted consistently against the War Crimes Act 1991. I voted against the initial motion, when the temperature of the House was taken, and at every stage of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, I believe that the amendment, which the Secretary of State introduced so reasonably, ought to be supported. It seems to fly in the face of principle to exclude the use of modern technology for evidential purposes for one crime or set of crimes.

I have taken the opportunity to read the debate in another place which was the progenitor of subsection (5), to which the amendment is directed. I mean no disrespect to their Lordships, but after reading the debate carefully, it is clear to me that in large measure their interest in the matter was influenced by their antagonism to the notion of war crimes legislation--an antagonism that is widespread in the House. That is understandable, but one must accept that the Bill has become law. The Houses of Parliament have passed a measure that I would have preferred not to be passed and to which I am still opposed. However, to seek to exclude the application of modern technology to one part of the criminal system because people feel that it is repugnant for it to be a part of the system cannot be justified on principle.

While I wish that the War Crimes Act had never been passed, I am certain that we should be embarking upon a most dangerous precedent if we were to say that the nature of evidence will depend on the nature of the crime. That seems to open up a range of opportunities. In due course a system would emerge in which principle had disappeared and all crimes would be determined on a virtually ad hoc basis. For that reason, I am more than content that the amendment should be passed. It is right in principle.

7.45 pm

Next Section

Home Page