| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. I made no point about anyone receiving an apology. I said that there was a question on the Order Paper, which I assumed would lead to a correction, and that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) might receive a letter from the Prime Minister. I do not know the contents of that letter: they are between a Minister and an hon. Member, and are nothing to do with me.
Mr. Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Several weeks ago, I raised the question of the roadworks in Parliament square and the obstruction to hon. Members who are trying to reach the House. A trench has been progressing down Millbank from Lambeth bridge over the past couple of weeks and is now approaching Chancellor's Gate.
It appears to me that, within the next day or two, that trench will prevent Members from turning right from Millbank through Chancellor's Gate. Many Members use that route during Divisions when arriving by motor car. Have the Officers of the House had any further discussions with Westminster city council? If not, would you ask them, as a matter of urgency, to do so?
Madam Speaker:
I remember the hon. Gentleman's point of order and it was a very sensible one, too. It resulted in our having closer relationships on such matters with Westminster city council. I am not aware of the matter of which he speaks, but he can be sure that I shall make inquiries and do what I can to be helpful.
Local Government (Access to Information)
3.35 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision in respect of local government in England and Wales, for disclosure of information to the public and for convening meetings in public; and for connected purposes.
Many Members will accept the need to move towards new political structures--whether mayors or cabinet-style executives--with clearer and more transparent lines of accountability. However, there is increasing concern that the new structures of local government should be both open and accountable and seen to be open and accountable. The general public and, indeed, non-executive council members must have ample opportunity to discuss and influence important decisions--on education, social services, planning or, as in my own constituency recently, the sale of council land that had been used as playing fields for many years--before they are made.
The role of the overview and scrutiny committees will therefore be crucial, as will the requirement that decisions be recorded with the reasons for them and the advice given by officers. It is essential that local government retains the trust and confidence of the community that it serves. The Bill's purpose is to ensure that that trust is retained because, once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to regain.
The Bill would extend to the new structures of local government the existing requirements on openness and access to information in part V of the Local Government Act 1972. Meetings have to be open to the public and the media, although exempt information can be discussed and decided on in private. If the meetings are open, agendas, officers' reports and background papers must be publicly available three days in advance.
As the Local Government Bill stands, there is no requirement that cabinets should meet in public or disclose their agendas in advance, but it is vital that decisions that could affect a community greatly should not be made in private. That perception has to be removed. My Bill would require such bodies to meet in public unless particular types of exempt information were involved, which would maintain the current openness and transparency.
In respect of decisions not involving meetings--those taken by elected mayors or individual members of an executive cabinet--my Bill would give the public equivalent rights to see papers before they were taken. In addition, it would require a short delay before executive decisions could be implemented and provide powers for non-executive councillors and scrutiny committees to call in and review such decisions. My Bill is based on the premise that open decision making is better decision making.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mrs. Betty Williams, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Mark Fisher, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. Huw Edwards and Mr. John Smith.
Mr. Gareth Thomas accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision in respect of local government in England and Wales, for disclosure of information to the public and for convening meetings in public; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 99].
Order for Second Reading read.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is an important step in our drive for a more effective and targeted criminal justice system that works better to reduce crime and so protect the public. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) No.2 Bill--recently before the House--have all been introduced to that end. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill is a further step to the achievement of our goals.
The Bill will restructure the probation service, so that it is more effective and focuses on its key tasks of enforcement and public protection, with a separate service for children and family courts. It will give the police, courts and others the additional tools that they need to tackle crime through drug testing, electronic monitoring and police access to driver information, as well as dealing more effectively with truancy. It will provide particular safeguards for the most vulnerable people through measures to prevent unsuitable people from working with children.
As I told the House on 13 March, amendments will be tabled to the Bill to bring the sentencing and release of those detained at Her Majesty's pleasure into line with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thompson and Venables.
The probation service does a vital job. Its officers work in a difficult environment, sometimes with dangerous offenders. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to their professionalism, yet there is a need for greater efficiency and focus in the service. Enforcement rates against offenders who break probation conditions are simply not good enough. A survey by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation in September last year found that only 44 per cent. of those who broke probation were actually breached--that is, sent back to court for re-sentencing--and then only for a third or subsequent failure. That has led to probation being seen by too many offenders as a soft option.
Moreover, the service is fragmented into 54 autonomous units, with only limited accountability to central Government. That fragmentation is well illustrated in turn by huge variations in performance on almost any measure one can choose. The rates of breach--bearing in mind that it is at the third or subsequent failure to observe an attendance requirement of a probation order--can range from 89 per cent. in respect of the best county, Cornwall, to 8 per cent. for Essex. Nine out of 10 offenders who breach national standards and who have failed to turn up on three or more occasions in Essex are not subject to any further action.
Jackie Ballard (Taunton):
Will the Home Secretary give way?
We have watched some services give enhanced early retirement deals to senior staff who have failed to perform to the standard required. Until now, no Home Secretary has had the power to prevent them from spending taxpayers' money in that way.
We have to build on the best of past experience and on current practice to deliver a probation service that concentrates on its core aim: enforcement of sentences and public protection. The service is a law enforcement agency, and must act as such.
In our judgment, that efficiency and effectiveness can best be achieved by a unified service--renamed in the Bill as the National Probation Service for England and Wales--with stronger national leadership. As hon. Members will have noticed, clause 2(2) provides clear statutory aims for everyone working within the service--that the persons concerned must have regard to
3.41 pm
(a) the protection of the public,
The Bill will establish a unified and centrally co-ordinated service, with 42 local areas matching police authority boundaries. The new service will work more closely with police and other agencies and with local crime and disorder partnerships. Local probation boards will work to deliver their services in a way which serves their locality better. Each board will be responsible for developing its own work plan within an overall national strategy, and the boards will be more representative of the local population.
(b) the reduction of re-offending,
(c) the proper punishment of offenders.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |