Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
when it is clear that we not only understand the implications of the legislation as it now stands but have taken part in discussions with those directly affected, in order to ensure that the implications of such a power are fully understood in public policy especially as it applies to the Prison Service and to custody in general.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 2007; Vol. 694, c. 146-49.]
That is absolutely right. That is what should happen: we should work out what the implications of the proposal are and then come forward with the date when we are going to implement it. That has not happened, but if it were to happen, we would come up with a much earlier date. I understand the position that my right hon. Friend is in, however. He cannot do that. In the seven days that we have, perhaps more work could be done on that and perhaps we could find a compromise timetablethree to five at the outside perhaps, but with the proposal being implemented much earlier, as I have suggested, for the police, for example, who do not have the problem of overcrowding in police cells. We heard about the problem of risk aversity, but there is no issue of risk aversity in some of those places. What we are looking for is the deterrent effect, which the proposal would bring into effect, to ensure that things are done properly.
I welcome my right hon. Friends undertaking that we will have regular reports on implementation, so I shall certainly be voting with the Government. There is still a little way to go, but they have moved significantly by naming the date, which was the key demand when this battle started many months ago.
Mr. Hogg: You were kind enough to call me in the first debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall be brief.
First, it would be churlish not to welcome what has been done thus far, and I think that the House would acknowledge that. Secondly, it is the view of most hon. Members participating in this debate that five to seven years is too long. To take up the point that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made, it is worth reminding ourselves that unsafe systems, which are basically what we are talking about, are wrong in principle.
I recognise that the Secretary of State is concerned about what, for brevity, I would loosely refer to as unfair prosecutions, which would come at a time that was oppressive to management. That is what is really worrying him. However, that concern is actually met to a very high degree by the requirement in the Bill that the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a necessary precondition to prosecution.
Mr. Straw: That is one anxiety and it takes some timeI hope as short as possibleto work through, but another anxiety is that which people who have not been party to these debates feel inside such complicated systems. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was all a matter of political will. If it were all a matter of political will, things would be dead easy, but there must also be judgments, which is why, if I may say so, the target on drugs in Afghanistan did not quite work out as intended, so the issue involves both. That is what we are having to manage, but we will do it as quickly as we can.
Mr. Hogg: I was coming on to my fifth and last point. I accept what the Secretary of State has said, but culture changes have to be driven from above because they will always be resisted. I recall being the Whip in the Home Office when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was introduced and there was enormous resistance from within the police to many of the changes, particularly interviewing, forced through by PACE. The Secretaries of State insisted and the management will always respond to insistence. If the Secretary of State were to put forward a 12-month or 24-month period, I suspect that that would be longer than need be, but I am sure that the House and the other place would agree to it. That is the sort of period that is requirednot five to seven years. That is all I want to say.
Mr. Redwood: I, too, believe that the Secretary of State for Justice has moved in the right direction and I thank him for that. He is one of the few Labour Ministers I would trust: I think that his word means something in this House and I am sure that he is well intentioned. He must understand, however, how difficult it is for us to accept his word when it relates to a period after the next general election. It is extremely unlikely that either he or a Labour Government would then be in office [Interruption.] Yes, I obviously hope that there will be a change of governing party to the Conservatives, but there might be no overall control in the House of Commonsand there are all sorts of possibilities that would make it very difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to honour his pledge.
In the meantime, as the Liberal Democrats so rightly pointed out on this occasion, it must be a matter of grave concern to all of us that a decent man who is Secretary of State for Justice cannot reassure the House that custody in this country is being sufficiently well managed for it to be under this legislation. He is newly in post and trying to get to grips with it. He tells us that his officials are telling him that there could be acts of gross negligence leading to death in custody, but that they do not feel that anything can yet be done about it. Surely that is a matter of grave urgency.
Mr. Straw: Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman that no official has said that to me and I do not believe that any officials have said it at any stage to any of my right hon. Friends. At no stage has that argument been advanced. None of us wants to see gross negligence or failure in systems. A huge amount has already been done in the police and prison services to ensure that such a situation does not develop.
Mr. Redwood: I am glad to hear that reassurance, but it makes it even stranger that we are dealing with a period of five to seven years. I shall therefore vote with my Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
Mr. Straw: This has been an interesting debate and I am grateful for the acknowledgement of the changes made as a result of this set of amendments. I am pleased better to have informed the right hon. and learned Member foris it still Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? [Interruption.] Well, it changes every election. [Interruption.] I had forgotten that Grantham is Labour now! It is significant that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is better informed about the amendment.
A number of slightly odd claims have been made. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about the Prison Service over the next 100 yearsa much longer time frame than I have in mind. He then said that there would always be pressure on the Prison Service. I have clocked that; we bear it mind, because at some stage over the next 100 years, there may well be a Conservative Government. I can offer the hon. Gentleman some fraternal advicenot to be too free and easy with the suggestion that if there were a Conservative Government, there would never be any problems with prisons. I do not believe that that would be the case.
The hon. Gentleman then said that implementing the law quickly could lead to some terrible problem. That is nonsense. I never said that it would lead to a terrible problem. I have been careful in what I said, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends. What I have said is that we need time to assess the situation, and we do. I apologise to the House for having to say that, but it just happens to be true.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I say that as well as undertaking to publish at least an annual report on progress, which I am happy to do, we will certainly look carefully into implementing these measures by stages. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for saying that he at least trusts mehe then made it clear that he certainly would not trust a Minister in a Conservative Government, and we have noted that too. We do intend to take such action; otherwise, we would not put such a provision in the Bill. The quicker we can make progress, the less people will have to look into a crystal ball, because they will be able to see from the action taken that we are doing it.
I urge the whole House to recognise that considerable progress has been made, and that it is now time for agreement, both on what is in the Bill, as we hope, and on what I have said.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(7) (Programme motions),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Offender Management Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 11th December 2006 and 28th February 2007 (Offender Management Bill (Programme) and Offender Management Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this days sitting.
2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 6, 22, 11, 14, 4 , 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 10, 12, 13, 15 to 21, 23 to 56.
Subsequent stages
3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Mark Tami.]
Next Section | Index | Home Page |