Police and Justice Bill

Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

Before we start the formal proceedings, let me wish everyone good morning. I am sorry that things are a little cramped, but as colleagues will know, Westminster Hall debates are currently being held in Room 10, which means that we must meet in these rather grand circumstances.

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill. Copies are available on the table in front of us, as well as behind us, for those who find that more convenient. I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman, Greg Pope, and I do not intend to call starred amendments.

Michael Fabricant (Whip, Whips; Lichfield, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. Before we begin the main debate, may I ask whether gentlemen are allowed to remove their jackets, or do you take the traditional view that we must sit here perspiring?

Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup, Conservative)

I sometimes have ambitions to be Sir Nicholas Winterton, but I try to curb them. Therefore, hon. Members may indeed remove their jackets.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Police and Justice Bill, the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 a.m. on Thursday 16th March) meet—

(a)at 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 16th March;

(b)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 21st March;

(c)at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 23rd March;

(d)at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 28th March;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway, and that of your esteemed co-Chair, Mr. Pope. I am sure that we shall have extremely constructive discussions about the Bill and I look forward to them. I welcome the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and look forward to debating with him. I also welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg)—[Hon. Members: “Cheltenham.”] I am sorry. I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) to his position as Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The motion gives us enough time to enable proper scrutiny of this important Bill, which takes forward key strands of our police reform programme and includes significant provisions to implement parts of the respect action plan. At its heart, the Bill is about building safer communities. Indeed, had matters been left to me, it might have been entitled the Safer Communities Bill. That was not to be, however, so we now have the Police and Justice Bill.

Judging from the contributions on Second Reading, we can anticipate lively discussions about the membership and functions of police authorities and the changes to the Home Secretary’s existing reserve powers to intervene in poorly performing police forces and police authorities, and hon. Members will no doubt consider those provisions against the backdrop of police restructuring. Clearly, the Bill is not primarily about police restructuring, but I anticipate that hon. Members will want to raise related issues. I hope that the Committee will be able to do justice to other provisions, particularly those that widen the number of agencies that can issue parenting contracts and those that strengthen the conditional caution scheme, which will help us to build respect.

I welcome the broad support expressed on Second Reading for the new justice, community safety and custody inspectorate, but hon. Members will want to satisfy themselves about the details of that body. The same will apply to provisions relating to the collection   of passenger data, which the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) mentioned on Second Reading.

Finally, although this issue is not touched on directly in schedule 12, which amends the Extradition Act 2003, I look forward to the opportunity to bring greater clarity to the often misinformed debate about United Kingdom and American extradition arrangements.

Nick Herbert (Shadow Minister (Police Reform), Home Affairs; Arundel and South Downs, Conservative)

It is a great pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr. Conway. Programme motions are much in the news. Personally, I dislike the idea that the scrutiny of legislation will automatically be brought to a close before we have seen how much debate is necessary. Despite the fact that we supported the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friends and I have several concerns about it, which merit full debate. The Minister alluded to some of the more contentious issues, and the Home Secretary’s powers to reshape and intervene directly in police authorities have provoked great controversy and concern, not least on the part of the Association of Police Authorities. The proposals for a joint inspectorate have also given rise to concerns, which have been expressed not only in the House, but by a number of professional bodies. In particular, anxiety was felt about the prisons inspectorate and the need to retain its special role. The extension of summary power and the exercising of such powers on the part of police officers has not been debated properly by Parliament, and that is a feature of the Bill.

The Bill’s provisions for amending the Extradition Act may not in themselves be controversial, but we will take the opportunity to examine the issues raised on Second Reading about US-UK extradition arrangements. There is plainly disagreement between the Government, my party and, I believe, the Liberal Democrats about the fairness of those arrangements. I suspect that we will find that debate is tight. Debate on part 1 will be allowed for only three and a bit sittings and the most contentious provisions—clause 2 and schedule 2—fall within that part, which suggests that we may have quite a job. Nevertheless, the programme motion is a done deal and we have to accept it. In view of the fact that I have said that we will have little time for debate, I would rather not detain the Committee any further with my protest.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey and Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham look forward to serving under your jurisdiction, Mr. Conway, and under that of Mr. Pope. The time available is severely short considering the number of issues that are likely to arise and that did arise on Second Reading. Although we, too, did not call a Division or vote against the Bill and gave our tacit support, we made it quite clear that without substantial amendment we would have trouble with a number of issues. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs has referred to most of them, but particularly concerning is the Home Secretary’s desire to intervene without a negative report in the work of both police authorities and police services.

We have concerns about the information on domestic flights, the quality issues that emerge from the joining of the inspectorates and the change of balance between the state and the individual, as well as summary justice. We, too, want to examine more closely the issue of fairness and extradition. I do not want to detain the Committee with debate at this point, but I feel obliged to say that it is a shame to close down debate on such important issues.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am delighted at the degree of consensus. I am pleased that both Opposition Members do not seek to contest the programme motion and I hope that the Committee can continue in that constructive and consensual manner. I am not entirely convinced that that will last throughout our proceedings, but I hope that we can go on as we started.