| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: The trouble with this Secretary of State is that he is not deciding; this Minister is simply going along with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plans. He challenges me on public spending, but does he not know that the changes that I made to the state earnings-related pension scheme will mean eventual public spending savings of £30 billion? I am not prepared to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman.
Let the Home Secretary stop wriggling and return to the subject of the police. Why will he not admit that his plans will entail the reduction of the police service and police forces throughout the country?
Mr. Straw:
The most lasting part of the right hon. Gentleman's epitaph will be the other thing that he did to SERPs--which was to set up portable personal pensions, by which hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country were defrauded by private insurance companies. I have spelt it out in answers to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the spending increases that we have proposed will result in a modest but real increase in spending, year on year. That is the truth. The other truth, which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) cannot gainsay, is that, were he in power, and were he following the opinion of his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, spending on the police, as on other public services, would decrease.
6. Judy Mallaber (Amber Valley):
What is the proposed timetable for consideration of the draft freedom of information Bill. [61094]
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
And now we come to freedom of information.
The Government will publish a draft freedom of information Bill early next year for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee on Public Administration, and for public consultation. Following that, the Government will introduce the Bill to Parliament as soon as the legislative programme allows.
Judy Mallaber:
Will the Secretary of State confirm that legislation on freedom of information remains an important plank of the Government's programme to modernise Britain as we move towards the millennium? Does he agree that measures on openness and accountability are a central part of that constitutional programme, which includes reform of the second Chamber, devolution of power and incorporation of human rights? Will he press for that legislation to be introduced as soon as possible after consultation on the draft Bill, and for it to be moved as high in the parliamentary timetable as possible?
Mr. Straw:
The answer to all those questions is yes. We do regard the matter as important. I hope that the whole House will recognise that, by having a draft Bill, we give the House a greater opportunity properly to scrutinise the legislation. In advance of the Bill, many Ministers, including me, have taken steps to secure greater openness.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed):
Has not the information that is emerging about the handling of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy affair demonstrated that the public and the business community urgently need freedom of information? As a previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), said in the House that the Bill was 90 per cent. drafted, does the Home Secretary acknowledge the disappointment at the fact that the process is taking so long? Will he, therefore, consider whether the process might be accelerated, and will he consider the fact that the Bill could be a candidate for the new carry-over procedures, so that, following consultation, it is introduced later this Session and carried over into the next?
Mr. Straw:
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for the work that he did on the freedom of information Bill, but, as I believe that he would acknowledge, a great deal of work remained to be done before the Bill could be put in proper draft order. That work is now being done. Early next year a draft Bill will be published, which will then go to the Select Committee on Public Administration. I dare say that it will return to the House for debate. In those circumstances, and given the fact that the present Session is shorter than usual, I think the possibility of its being introduced this Session is very limited indeed.
7. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South):
What plans he has to make community sentences more(a) rigorous and (b) effective. [61096]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth):
It is important that community penalties are seen as credible and effective by the public and the courts. The probation
Mr. Cunningham:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of a witness protection scheme would be a vigorous and effective way to make community sentences more effective? When would he like to introduce such a scheme? Will he take the opportunity to acknowledge the work done in magistrates courts in Coventry, and "Reclaiming Our Communities"--an initiative of Coventry city council?
Mr. Howarth:
As my hon. Friend knows, there are proposals in the Queen's Speech to extend witness protection, particularly into the magistrates courts. I hope that these proposals will meet my hon. Friend's concerns, which I know are shared by many in the community, especially when they feel in any way intimidated.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the key factors in making community service work is the quality of the probation service? Will he therefore give me an assurance that disparate probation services will be amalgamated not simply to make them coterminous with police authority areas, but only to make them more effective and efficient?
Mr. Howarth:
As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a Prison Service probation review is under way. I would not want to gainsay what might come out of that. Clearly there has been a commitment in the past to try to make the probation services coterminous with police boundaries, which I think makes sense. I think also that a growing number of people in the probation service are coming to understand that that will make sense.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that an extra £127 million has gone into the probation service as a result of the comprehensive spending review. I hope that that will enable the service to carry out the work that is expected of it, unreformed or otherwise, by society and by the House.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere):
Does the Minister agree that, if community sentences such as electronic tagging are to command the confidence of the public, they must be respected as being effective sentences? Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the public's confidence in community sentences such as tagging will inevitably be undermined when they discover that tagging is used to release prisoners early from their sentences, so that a sentence of six months in prison will mean only six weeks inside in practice? Will not the public think, as has been said, that the criminals are getting away with it? Does the Minister not agree that, if the Government are really to be tough on crime, as opposed to boasting about being tough on crime, community sentences and sentences of imprisonment should mean what they say?
Mr. Howarth:
The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The purpose of the curfew orders to which he refers is not to let prisoners out early to do what they want but to have a properly managed and supervised period between the completion of a sentence and the time when they are completely free of any penalty. If the hon.
The hon. Gentleman is bandying statistics that may in some instances apply, but in others will not. In so doing, he misses the point entirely. I think that most people accept that there must be some connection between the end of a prison sentence and prisoners going on to lead a respectable, law-abiding life. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, I suggest that he has a long, hard think about law and order. He clearly does not understand what is going on in this country.
8. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
If he has plans to require senior police officers to confirm whether or not they are freemasons; and if he will make a statement. [61097]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey):
All police officers, of whatever rank, will be asked to disclose whether they are freemasons as part of the Government's policy to set up voluntary registers across the criminal justice system.
Mr. McWalter:
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Indeed, I commend the work on freemasonry that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench have been carrying out. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that a society that is secret and deemed to have extensive powers is capable of precipitating real fear in society? Indeed, some Members have told me that I was courageous to table the question. In these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that a voluntary code may not be enough and that the timetable that she is suggesting may be much too lenient.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |