| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2 Apr 2003 : Column 926—continued
12.51 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The official Opposition are not fond of programme motions on Report. We are worried about whether we shall have sufficient time for proper scrutiny of the Bill. However, it would be utterly churlish not to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). As Government Whip in charge of the Bill in Committee, he showed enormous flexibility. Although we experienced difficulties, and it was unfortunate that we did not succeed in scrutinising every aspect of the measure, it was not his fault but that of the person above him, who had set such a tight time schedule. The hon. Member for Nottingham, East did everything in his power to ensure that the Bill went through Committee properly scrutinised and in a spirit of co-operation that I had not previously experienced. I am immensely
grateful to him for that and because I believe that he played some part in ensuring that we have three days in which to consider the measure on Report.I make one plea to the Under-Secretary. We do not know how many Government amendments will be tabled. I am comfortable with the prospect of full scrutiny in three days of the amendments that have already been tabled, but if the Government intend to table many more, perhaps the Under-Secretary would be so good as to consider whether three days will do justice to the Bill. We are close to reaching the end of consideration with the Opposition being broadly satisfied—perhaps I should not say that—that adequate time has been given for scrutiny. It would be a great pity if too many fresh amendments spoiled that. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, who has done the House a signal service.
12.53 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I have no idea what damage we are doing to the career of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), but I associate myself with the words of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I cannot recall such sensible co-operation in Committee and in organising the business on Report. It is helpful for the Opposition parties to know that we will have the opportunity to raise the issues that we believe to be most important. Thank goodness I made the request—never believing that it would be granted—for a third day on Report. Even with it, the schedule is tight for considering important matters of justice, about which we must take great care. I put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East and of the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Let us now get on with the debate.
12.54 pm
Lady Hermon (North Down): I am convinced that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) will have remembered the Ulster Unionist party. My colleagues are with me in spirit if not in body. We are a little troubled, to put it mildly. In Committee on 16 January—the hon. Gentleman appears perplexed, but I shall refresh his memory—the Under-Secretary said at column 390:
- "I confirm . . . that Northern Ireland Ministers intend that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland, but incorrectly informed the Committee that it would be done by order. In fact, we intend to do so in the Bill, and will table amendments on Report to that effect."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 January 2003; c. 390.]
12.55 pm
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): The last thing I want to do is to rain on the parade of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). I want to make one point and one plea. My point is that we did not discuss large chunks of the Bill in Committee, especially the material about charging and the important transfer of responsibility for charging from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Perhaps my plea should have been made as a point of order. It is on behalf of the hard-pressed little people—Back Benchers. We get your marshalled selection of amendments, Mr. Speaker, relatively late. That has always been the case, but the new sitting hours make it even more difficult for Back Benchers to plan when to try to contribute to the debate. We have so many wretched programme motions, and getting the Speaker's selection of amendments a little earlier in the day, and perhaps a couple of days before Report, would help us to plan our lives, now that we have to be in five places at once.
12.56 pm
Hilary Benn: The response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is yes. I hope that that satisfies her. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about programming, because I believe that it helps hon. Members to debate the subjects that they want to discuss. If it is operated with flexibility and sensitivity, as shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), it rightly gives the Opposition the power and opportunity to discuss matters about which they are concerned. However, I acknowledge that, as our understanding of the operation of programming develops, we must ensure that it assists hon. Members. It is a matter for others to reflect upon, but I am committed to that. I hope that all hon. Members will come to love programming in due course.
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): I too pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for the good-humoured way in which he got Government Back-Bench Members involved. Having held his job in a previous incarnation, I appreciate that that must have been stressful. However, many Government Back-Bench Members made a positive contribution in Committee. I had never experienced that, and it is a tribute to my hon. Friend.
Hilary Benn: I concur with that. I do not know whether the experience was stressful for my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, but it was sometimes stressful for the Under-Secretary. However, I am grateful for the contributions in Committee from Members of all parties.
Orders of the DayCriminal Justice Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
12.58 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 4, line 30, leave out Clause 5.
Clause 5 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in an important way by increasing from 24 to 36 hours the period for which a person may be detained without charge at a police station while a case against him is investigated in the case of any arrestable offence. That is a very substantial change to current practice proposed by the Government.
In proposing an Opposition amendment to delete the provision, I hope that the House will bear with me while I examine the history of this matter and current practice, before assessing the impact of the change. As matters stand now, the 24-hour rule exists for the protection of the individual who has been arrested. It is undesirable per se for any person to be detained without charge at a police station for any excessive length of time, except for the time reasonably required to investigate the offence for which the person has been brought in. Twenty-four hours has long been considered an appropriate period for such detention.
That said, there have already been, and remain, exceptions to that existing rule. In the case of a serious arrestable offence, the period may be increased by the police superintendent to 36 hours. That covers a substantial number of offences that most people would accept warranted a long period of investigation: including treason, murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, incest with a girl under the age of 13, indecent assault, offences under the Customs and Excise Management Acts, causing explosions, intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, possession of firearms with intent to injure, use of firearms and imitation firearms to resist arrest, carrying firearms with criminal intent, hostage taking, hijacking, torture, causing death by dangerous or careless driving, endangering the safety of aerodromes, hijacking of ships, seizing or exercising control of fixed platforms, hijacking of channel tunnel trains, seizing or exercising control of the tunnel system, taking indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children and the publication of obscene material.
That is a long list, tailored to make specific exceptions to the 24-hour rule in circumstances that Parliament has considered in the past justify making such exceptions. The question arises as to the basis for changing to a far more general rule, which would allow detention of up to 36 hours for all arrestable offences. In the run-up to the Bill's introduction, the background intention for the change was discussed. The Home Affairs Committee considered the matter in its pre-scrutiny report, albeit a report that it acknowledged was rather hurried in respect of the time allowed for consideration. The Association of Chief Police Officers told the Committee that the initial detention period of 24 hours could provide insufficient time in which to conclude the investigative process and charge a detained person because of delays elsewhere in the custody process—for
example, in obtaining the services of an appropriate adult, police surgeon or interpreter, or when a suspect is initially unfit for interview because of alcohol or drugs. It felt that delays linked to the provision of legal advice could also put pressure on the custody clock.Another argument was that some offences did not fall into the category of serious arrestable offences, but many people nevertheless regarded them as being serious—burglary and robbery, for example. However, there is already a saving clause in that such offences may become serious if their intrinsic nature—the amounts of money obtained or the specific circumstances—justifies it, in which case a police superintendent can deem that they fall into that category, though it can be challenged in court. However, I am not aware of any successful challenges to such procedures.
That provides the background, and I assume from what was said in Committee that it was the reasoning behind the Government's view that the Bill should amend certain provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The problem is that a moment's scrutiny of the consequences conclusively reveals that some of the offences to be included in the highly serious category will surprise many people. Trespassing on an aerodrome, for example, would fall within the category that allows detention for 36 hours. The House therefore needs to ask whether the blanket change is justified in preference to inserting further exceptions in PACE.
The Minister will recollect that we abstained on this matter in Committee in order better to reflect on what he had to say. Our approach is pragmatic. However, the more we reflect on it, the more unconvinced we become of the merit of the proposal. The case was powerfully made in Committee that the extended powers to detain up to 36 hours are rarely used. Indeed, a Home Office report surveying how many times individual police forces detained up to 36 hours in a 12-month period revealed that the Avon and Somerset constabulary, Cumbria, Dorset, Durham, Humberside, Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Dyfed Powys—I remind the Minister that that force has the highest clear-up rate of any force in England and Wales—and the North Wales police had never used it. The Metropolitan police, who one might think likely to use the power frequently because of the level of serious crime in the capital, had used it only seven times.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) pointed out in Committee, one police force, Gwent, seemed to have a particular predilection for using this method of detention up to 36 hours, having used it 192 times in a 12-month period.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |