Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Harris:
I understand that the only discussion took place between the Government Whip and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. The Government Whipthe hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe)confirmed that. I alerted him to the fact that I would raise the matter and he admitted that he had not approached the Liberal Democrat party or any Back Bencher. I ask the Government whether the Leader of the Houses commitment was made in good faith. If so, who is responsible for its not being delivered? Can the Government answer that question or will they
undertake to come back and let us know the reason? What is the point of debating such matters at business questions, and of the Leader of the House making a commitment, if her side cannot deliver it? We are currently holding debates about whether the Executive are treating the House fairly; I believe that they are not.
Let us consider what will not be covered because of the insertion of knives: six Government amendments on police reform and accountability; eight Government amendments on extradition; 51 Government amendments on the proceeds of crime, and seven Government amendments in the last group. [Interruption.] It is not acceptable for hon. Members to say that if I speak on the important matter of the Governments failure to allow adequate time for debate, I am taking time from the deliberations. Whether we have 45 or 35 minutes on DNA, it is not enough.
When will the Government give the House the time it needs to debate even the Government amendmentsintroduced at the last minutelet alone the rest of the Bill? When will the House assert itself and vote against such programme motions? I invite the Conservative party and Government Back Benchers to assert the Houses supremacy. Until that happens, we will have poor scrutiny.
A provision on extradition goes to the heart of human rights issues, but we will clearly not reach it, regardless of how long we spend debating the programme motion. That provision is relegated to a debate of about two and a half hours at the most and is down for consideration after prostitution, lap dancing and police reform. It simply will not be reached.
There are 51 Government amendments on the proceeds of crime. Why do the Government bring Bills to the House, just one part of which requires 51 Government amendments, and then deny the House the time to scrutinise those amendments? That is not acceptable either.
The Prime Ministers record on delivering his pledge to provide for proper parliamentary scrutiny of Government business will be shown to be hollow every time the Government table a programme motion such as this one, with knives in place to deliver, on just one day and after the required votes, half an hour or 45 minutes of debate on DNA and half an hour of debate or less on gang-related violence.
That is not good enough and Parliament should not stand for it. That is why I urge all hon. Members, including the official Opposition, if they are indeed doing their job of scrutiny, to vote against Government programme motions such as this one. I appeal to the House, when it is in a reforming mode, to find ways of ensuring that it is the House that determines its own business, not the Government. The Government are given their allocation of time, but they are not allowed to force through legislation without scrutiny in the disgraceful way that they are today.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab):
I simply want to place on record my extreme concern that, yet again, our debate on a piece of criminal justice legislation is being curtailed and guillotined in the way that it is today. I appreciate the need for the efficient management of the business of the House and for
programming and guillotining at certain stages, but the Bill is a piece of legislation that, if enacted, will deprive a number of our citizens of their liberty. On that basis, debate should not be curtailed in this way.
May I suggest a way forward? We have a convention in the House that although Finance Bills are programmed to a certain extent, when issues are identified for debate, they are not subject to a guillotine. Indeed, we have gone late into the night on particularly important subjects. Debate on criminal justice Bills that, when enacted, will in effect deprive a number of our citizens of their liberty should be protected in that way. That would protect the rights of Back Benchers such as me, who, for some strange reason, do not serve on Public Bill Committees, and would give us the opportunity to engage in the debate and involve ourselves fully in the legislative process.
In the current discussions on somehow rehabilitating the name of this House in the eyes of the general public, we need to demonstrate that we are doing our proper job, which is scrutinising legislation, and particularly significant legislation that could result in a number of people losing their liberty. On that basis, the House needs to consider whether criminal justice legislation should be at least partially exempted from the kind of severe guillotining that is taking place today.
Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): If there is something rotten with the body politic in this country as far as expenses are concernedand there is, and I do not exclude myself from thatit is right that there should be media and public attention on the work that we do. Equally, attention should be paid to the rotten way in which we conduct our business. Today is a supreme example of that.
I agree with every word that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) said. It is not as though there is pressure on Government time. For weeks now, we have had days of general debates, and when we get back after the Whitsun break, there will be at least two days of general debates. There is time. The Government could, if they so chose, give time to important legislation such as the Bill that we are considering today. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reconsider and will be voting against the programme motion, as I have on several occasions in the past.
Mr. Coaker: I have heard what hon. Members have said, and all that I would say is that this is a matter for the usual channels. No doubt there will be discussions on the points that have been made. I am grateful for the comments about the constructive way in which the debate in Committee was conducted. Indeed, we had an additional sitting of the Bill Committee. From memory, I think that we had 16 sittings, including four public sittings, in which many of the issues were debated. We have tabled a number of amendments as a direct result of what was said in Committee, and we have tried to address some of the concerns that were raised. We have also tried to allocate time today in a way that will allow debate on some of the main topics, including DNA, gangs and sex-related offences.
[Relevant Documents: The Tenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill, HC 395, and the Fifteenth Report from the Committee, Legislative Scrutiny: Policing and Crime Bill (gangs injunctions), HC 441, and the Governments reply.]
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
(1) Section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is repealed.
(2) Sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are repealed.
(3) After Section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) insert
64B Destruction of fingerprints and samples etc
(1) After a person is released without charge or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or samples being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample must be held for a period of three years, after which it must be destroyed.
(3) This section applies to the following material
(a) photographs falling within a description specified in the regulations,
(b) fingerprints taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence,
(c) impressions of footwear so taken from a person,
(d) DNA and other samples so taken from a person,
(e) information derived from DNA samples so taken from a person.
(4) For the purposes of this section
(a) photograph includes a moving image, and
(b) the reference to a DNA sample is a reference to any material that has come from a human body and consists of or includes human cells.. (Chris Huhne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2 Destruction of samples etc: service offences
(1) Section 113 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (application to armed forces) is amended as follows
(2) After subsection (1) insert
(1A) After a person is released without charge or acquitted of the offence for which a sample has been taken that sample shall be destroyed within one month of the fingerprints or sample being taken or the person being acquitted, unless the offence was of a violent or sexual nature.
(2) If the offence was of a violent or sexual nature that sample must be held for a period of three years, after which it must be destroyed..
Next Section | Index | Home Page |