Clause 5 - Limits on period of detention without charge
Criminal Justice Bill
10:15 am
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
This has been an interesting debate. There are different opinions as to the merits of the clause, and I shall mention two that are at opposite ends of the scale.
The Law Society opposes the clause. I will not set out its arguments, because they have been rehearsed to some extent in the debate. The Metropolitan police service, in its submission, is strongly in favour of the clause, because it will broaden the scope for authorising extensions of up to 36 hours. It says that that will facilitate the effective investigation of more complex offences.
One of our difficulties in Committee is that we do not have before us the sort of first-hand evidence that we would like to hear from those who have to apply the provisions about what the clause would mean to them, and whether it is a good idea. That is why I have always been in favour of a system in which a Committee could be part Select Committee and part Standing Committee, or in which a Standing Committee could take evidence.
I referred for guidance to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which was able, through questions and answers and the evidence that it heard, to examine many aspects of the Bill carefully, albeit somewhat hurriedly. Members of this Committee will know that the Home Affairs Committee had serious reservations about the clause. That Committee was not dominated by any Opposition party—quite the reverse. Of about 11 members, two thirds were from the governing party, yet they produced a unanimous report. There was not a single vote from any Labour Member on that Committee against the proposition being advanced.
The Committee looked carefully at the clause in relation to detention time limits. It called evidence and practitioners appeared before it. I was not present then, although I spent a long time on the Home Affairs Committee, but undoubtedly there were informal internal discussions. The proposal was considered in depth but the Committee was not persuaded. There are many on the Government Benches today who, having heard the arguments, are not yet persuaded of the need to extend the power so widely.
The Select Committee concluded:
''We do not think that the Home Office has made out a convincing case for extending the detention time limit to 36 hours for non-serious arrestable offences. In our view there are alternative—
and more appropriate—measures in the Bill . . . which will help to alleviate any problems with the existing time constraints. For these reasons we recommend that clause 5 be deleted from the Bill.''
A Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee said that we should delete the clause. Does not that mean that many on the Government Benches have serious reservations about it? The precedent of a free vote, which was so helpfully established—