Criminal Justice Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Lady Hermon: I want to put on the record how much I detest the use of Orders in Council to legislate for the people of Northern Ireland. When the Assembly was suspended on 14 October 2002, 22 Bills were before it, and all but one have been pushed through the House using Orders in Council. Northern Ireland Members who take their seats in this place—it is right that they do so, and I wish that the other four would, too—can talk until they are blue in the face, but they will not make a jot of difference to those Orders in Council. Will the Minister therefore explain why the Government have made this unsatisfactory procedure for legislating for the people of Northern Ireland even more offensive by opting for the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure? He

Column Number: 1178

might make me a little happier although, at the end of the day, Orders in Council are wholly inappropriate.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady knows that I absolutely agree with her concerns, and I have expressed the same view ever since I came to the House. The matter is not entirely the responsibility of the Home Office, although the Bill is. However, it is unacceptable that citizens in one part of the United Kingdom should not have the same rights as those in other parts. Their representatives should be able to debate and amend Government proposals that affect them. Representatives of people in Northern Ireland have a chance to debate and amend Bills that relate to the United Kingdom in general. Because of the constitutional nature of the Province, however, they cannot debate and amend proposals that relate only to Northern Ireland, which is absolutely unacceptable. It may, in theory, be possible to force a debate and to defeat them, but that is not possible in practice, because the Government will get their way. That could discredit politics in Northern Ireland and make people wonder why they should involve themselves in the political process if so much central legislation cannot be amended to benefit them.

As the Minister rightly said, Bills are always improved by debate in Committee, on Report and so on. Home Officers Ministers regularly say that, and the Secretary of State and his predecessor did so, too. However, the same must apply to measures relating to Northern Ireland.

I again make a plea to the Minister, who is intelligent, sensitive and constitutionally alert to such issues. Will he pass back into the system the thought that it would hugely help the modernisation of Parliament if we changed the present arrangements once and for all? In that way, there would be equal rights for all citizens and Members of Parliament.

Hilary Benn: I hear the hon. Lady's point, which is clearly relevant to this amendment and the following one. I gladly undertake to draw the matter to my colleagues' attention. Particular issues obviously arise at present because the Assembly is suspended. In the light of that and of our debate about the principle behind the change, the Government feel that the proposals are the appropriate way forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Hilary Benn: I beg to move amendment No. 961, in

clause 269, page 149, line 5, leave out 'and (4)' and insert 'to (9)'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 962 and 963.

Hilary Benn: As I said a moment ago, the clause is concerned with the extension of certain parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Under section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Assembly must be consulted on any Orders in Council that are to be made. Amendment No. 961 would remove consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly for orders made under clause 269. As we have heard, criminal justice is a reserved matter in Northern Ireland, and in any event the Northern Ireland Assembly is currently suspended.

Column Number: 1179

Under paragraph 2 of the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000, Orders in Council made under the schedule will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments Nos. 962 and 963, like amendment No. 960, would ensure that Orders in Council made under the schedule for the purposes of clause 269 would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 962, in

clause 269, page 149, line 10, after 'Northern Ireland)', insert—

'(a)'.

No. 963, in

clause 269, page 149, line 14, at end insert

'and

(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) above to subsections (3) to (9) of that section shall be read as a reference to paragraph 2 of that Schedule.'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Lady Hermon: I was disappointed that the Minister did not address my one specific question. I asked why the Government had decided to use the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. I have grave reservations about and a bitter dislike of Orders in Council.

The Minister may be aware of proposals for criminal justice and policing to be transferred to a devolved Assembly, which we hope to have in place after the acts of completion by republican paramilitaries. It may be good for justice and policing to be devolved to the Assembly, because the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives—the 108 Assembly Members—can scrutinise criminal justice and policing legislation. Things are wholly unsatisfactory as they are.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 269, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 270

Expenses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: I am conscious that we have only half an hour left of the morning sitting, but we have come to one of the most important clauses—important because it deals with the cost of the whole enterprise. I would have preferred a proper debate on the questions that flow from it, but we are not going to get one.

The explanatory notes include a section on the financial effects of the Bill. It states that the cost of implementation in the first year will be £34 million, that it will cost £195 million next year and £301 million, £361 million, £378 million and £390 million in the following four financial years, and that there will be costs of the order of £390 million a year thereafter. Those are described as gross costs. It next states:

''There will also be significant potential savings, although these have not yet been fully quantified.''

Column Number: 1180

My first question relates to those two elements, the costs and the savings. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there has been any change in the gross costs since we started working on the Bill; and more important, has any work been done on what might be the potential savings of the changes?

My second question relates to whether further progress has been made regarding the implementation date of custody plus and custody minus. One of the bases on which the Bill was intended to proceed was that we should move to that new regime, but we have received mixed messages as to whether and when the money will be available. It is no good passing laws relating to new systems that will not be implemented for years.

My third question concerns the fact that the average cost of keeping a prisoner inside is now £36,000 a year, as confirmed by today's papers. It would be helpful for the Minister to put on record the average annual cost of dealing with a prisoner who has a non-custodial sentence—such as a suspended sentence or a community order—so that both we and the public can make a comparison.

I appreciate that, for reasons of time, the Minister might have to reply to my fourth point later. Starting on page 129 of the explanatory notes, there is a page-long list of things that are described in paragraph 640 as

''The main financial implications of the Bill for the public sector''.

Some of those items are amplified in the following notes, but others are not mentioned. That is a general concern, but I will just concentrate on two matters. Can the Minister give an indication of the cost of the move to recording witness statements on video, which is covered in clauses 121 and 122? That is not amplified elsewhere. More important is the controversial change that we have discussed:

''General limits on magistrates' court's power to impose imprisonment (clauses 137 to 139)'',

which will increase the power to change to up to 12 months. It is flagged up as having a cost but that cost is not explained, as far as I can see. In paragraph 656 there is a general description of the cost of clauses 137 to 139. Has any work been done to assess the costs that would be incurred if magistrates' powers were to be extended beyond 12 months?

Lastly, I refer to the breakdown of the cost implications of the key areas in the second half of the list on page 130, which is not set out in the paragraphs up to the end of paragraph 659. Can the Minister ensure that we have them as soon as possible?

The Bill is described by the Government as having huge financial implications. The most interesting question is how much money it is expected to save. Ministers in the Home Office and in the Lord Chancellor's Department keep talking about having a more efficient criminal justice system. I would hope that that would mean that there were some savings, not just additional costs.

Mr. Grieve: I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that a reading of the financial effects of the

Column Number: 1181

Bill, as provided for in the explanatory notes, suggests that, by the standards of the Government's expenditure, there will be an enormous financial impact. There will be an enormous financial impact, but not necessarily for the reasons set out in the notes. I am not clear about the extent to which the increase in the number of people in custody is reflected in the notes. I suspect that it is not. I hazard the suggestion that that will be the single biggest element.

If the Minister were in a position to help us, he might take us into the realms of saying that the Bill will be substantial in every sense: a financial Bill rather than a legislative Bill. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on that. Of the other costs, although they are certainly not insubstantial, £7 million or £8 million seems to be money that the Exchequer puts into petty cash these days; although those sums matter very much to the taxpayer and to those who have to scrutinise Government expenditure. I am particularly concerned about the financial effect of the rising prison population. It is a very opaque area because there is a great deal of uncertainty about the real effect of this legislation on the prison population.

11 am

 

---

Prepared 27 February 2003