| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Prime Minister: There was a strong declaration in favour of encouraging inward investment and for developed countries to do everything they could to assist it. It is important to recognise that the developing countries themselves must welcome that inward investment, and the terms upon which it is made are obviously extremely important.
One of the best aspects of the economic declaration was--for the first time--the welcome in principle by Commonwealth countries for more private sector investment in their economies. That is a big move forward, which we should welcome. Of course, the south Asia regional fund--the $200 million facility for encouraging greater inward investment in south Asia--is an example of the type of practical arrangement that we can put together on the back of that general principle.
It is immensely important that we keep the concept of the family of Commonwealth nations. Many other things happened during the conference. For example, children from each of the Commonwealth countries spent a week together. In a sense, they were symbols of the fact that the Commonwealth is and must be more than a trade and investment gathering; it is also a body of nations with a strong common heritage, a common language, shared values and--if we use the next period of time imaginatively--the possibility to be a bridge between the developed and developing countries.
One of the good things about the Commonwealth meeting last weekend was that, partly because we have got over all the problems in South Africa, which meant
that sanctions were the only issue that was talked about, Britain is now in a position to play a far more constructive role in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester):
Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's condemnation of human rights abuses in Nigeria, will he give an assurance that there will be no more deportations to Nigeria of people who currently reside in this country?
The Prime Minister:
That is a matter for the courts and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide in accordance with the normal rules. Those rules will be applied properly.
Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Alistair Darling, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to make provision about the constitution, regulation, financial arrangements and functions of the Bankof England, including provision for the transfer of supervisory functions; to amend the Banking Act 1987 in relation to the provision and disclosure of information; to make provision relating to appointments to the governing body of a designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986; to amend Schedule 5 to that Act; to make provision relating to the registration of Government stocks and bonds; to make provision about the application of section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 to bearer securities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 62].
Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Ms Glenda Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Greater London Authority and for expenditure on preparation for such an Authority; and to confer additional functions on the Local Government Commission for England in connection with the establishment of such an Authority: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 61].
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware from this morning's press of an incomprehensible decision to fund the fourth year of higher education in Scotland only for Scots and for non-British European Union nationals. That means that British taxpayers' money would be used to subsidise French, Italian or Greek students attending university in Scotland, but not those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Has either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Education and Employment attempted to make a statement on the issue, which involves repellant bigotry, appalling politics and dubious legality?
Madam Speaker:
I have not been told that any statement of that nature is to be made. Hon. Members of course keep an eye on the annunciator. Statements are always announced well in advance--well before lunchtime--so that we are aware of anything that might be taking place.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
I beg to move,
Such a provision could usefully be introduced into English law to expedite the process of youth justice. Will the Government consider incorporating into English law the 110-day rule, which is highly regarded as one of the cornerstones of the criminal procedure and justice system in Scotland, and which recognises protection for the accused by providing that he may not be detained for a total period of more than 110 days?
Under common law, there is no time limit for commencing an action brought by the Crown. A prosecution may therefore be commenced at any time after the alleged offence. The prerogative writ of habeas corpus, which is enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 and 1816, is a means of securing the release of a person unlawfully detained, but it is a prerogative writ and not a statutory requirement.
The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides for a regime of statutory time limits for the prosecution of criminal cases, but it has yet to be implemented. As there are no mandatory time limits set for the detention of prisoners on remand in England and Wales, the length of imprisonment does not constitute unlawful detention. At any given time, 20 per cent. of the prison populationare prisoners on remand. At the end of August, 12,000 prisoners were on remand in England and Wales.
Under Scots law, the 110-day rule prevents people from being detained without trial for more than 110 days. After that period, they must be released. The introduction of a time limit for detention on remand in England and Wales would help to speed up the operation of the judicial system and would avoid people being detained in custody indefinitely. Allowing trials to be brought at an early date would assist witnesses in presenting their evidence before diminishing memory weakened the case against the accused. The Bill would assist both the defence and the prosecution in any trial.
The new legislation is needed to protect the civil liberties of those detained by the police. If the Government are serious about legal reform--as they claim to be--and earnest in their desire to modernise the English legal system, they should consider introducing the 110-day rule in England to improve the rapid delivery of justice and to protect the rights of the accused.
The 110-day rule exists under Scots law and could usefully be applied in England. The rule simply states that if a person is taken into custody, his trial must commence
within 110 days. If it does not, that person must be released. As a Scottish advocate, I can vouch for the benefits of such a system. The reform would avoid the problem of people languishing in custody indefinitely, which is unacceptable when people are later acquitted at trial. We have a duty in England and Wales to process people's cases as quickly as we can. Going to court can be the most stressful and disruptive occasion in many people's lives and to keep them waiting in custody, without a definite 110-day limit, is unacceptable both to the prosecution and defence.
Allowing trials to be brought at an early date assists witnesses in presenting their evidence. While I concede that exceptions will have to be made to the rule, especially if the defence has not had time to prepare its case, we should offer a minimum guarantee to protect people's civil liberties. The 110-day rule is seen as a peculiarly Scottish concept, but it is a vital safeguard which protects the civil liberties of those detained by the state.
How does the rule work? If the trial has not started by the time the accused has spent 110 days in custody, he must be liberated forthwith unless the period is extended. A trial starts when a jury is sworn to try the accused. Once an accused person is liberated under the provision, he cannot be pursued for that offence and he shall be for ever free from all question of process for it. An extension of the 110-day rule may be granted by a single judge of the High Court if the delay in beginning the trial is due to the illness of the accused or a judge, the absence or illness of any necessary witness, or a sufficient cause not attributable to any fault on the part of the prosecutor. The defence or the Crown may appeal against the granting or refusal of the extension to the Court of Appeal.
There is sufficient evidence for the Government to be interested in applying the rule in England. Today, I obtained copies of two consultation papers from the Library. The first dealt with reducing remand delays. The Government remind us of their manifesto commitment to reduce remand delays to national targets, but it has taken longer for cases to be completed in recent years, despite significant reductions in the number of cases coming to the criminal courts. In far too many custody cases, statutory custody time limits are not being met, and urgent changes are needed to improve current performance. I remind all those who are interested in the subject that we have until 14 November to submit responses to the consultation paper.
In a third consultation paper, which sets out the Government's proposals for reforming the youth justice scheme and tackling delays, the Government remind us that one of their top priorities is faster, more efficient youth offender proceedings. They specify that a key target--indeed, one of the Government's five election pledges--is to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
We are told that it is currently taking an unacceptable average of four and a half months for a young person who commits an offence to be sentenced. In the worst cases, the offenders are not dealt with until a year or more after the offence is committed. Such delays anger and distress the victims and do not help the young offender, as the link between the offence and society's response to it is broken. The new system would enable the youth justice system to operate more effectively.
On the question of people being allowed out on bail, I remind the House that in the tragic case in which the woman police officer was murdered at the weekend, the accused had been released on bail. That is another argument for the Government adopting the measure. I think that I have given sufficient reasons for the 110-day rule to be introduced into English and Welsh law. I urge the Government to support my proposal.
4.14 pm
4.15 pm
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of not more than 110 days; and for connected purposes.
The Government say that they are committed to speeding up the justice process, bringing people to trial sooner. They have suggested that they want to halve the time that it takes for youth offenders to be brought to trial. I believe that the introduction of a statutory time limit would help, in particular, to ease the overcrowding in prisons and prevent people from being allowed out on bail. Such a time limit would also comply with the Government's promise to bring young offenders before the courts earlier and prevent them from reoffending while awaiting trial.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |