Police and Justice Bill

I am grateful to have caught your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Bill is extensive and covers several important subjects, as is outlined in its long title. I want to address some of my comments to those subjects. Attendance in the House is thin tonight, and I believe that that reflects the cosy consensus between the Front Benches of the Government, the so-called Opposition and the Liberal party. That consensus is giving a bye to important legislation whose broad thrust might not be controversial but whose details certainly call for considerable improvement in Committee or on Report, or require us to caution the Government to reflect and think again. I notice that the long title of the Bill contains the words:"““to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder””." I speak as someone who is on the left of politics, but I nevertheless believe that the sentences that our courts dispense—at the behest of Parliament; obviously guidance on these matters comes from us—are wholly inadequate in relation to violent crime, particularly against the person and against small retail outlets whose livelihoods are threatened by theft accompanied by violence. The way in which the long title of the Bill is drawn leads me to believe that the Bill is amendable in this regard. We need to pass stronger sentences against the increasing amount of violence that is being perpetrated, regrettably, among young people. Last Friday, I visited my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Daly, whose son Ryan was murdered on his 18th birthday. The Crown Prosecution Service subsequently accepted a plea of manslaughter, and the sentence passed on the person who killed Ryan Daly was in my view derisory. That is also the view in my constituency, where feelings are running high about the inadequacy of a criminal justice system that allowed a wholly inadequate sentence passed on the person who killed that delightful boy on his 18th birthday. I shall reflect on that during the passage of the Bill, because I want to make it clear that we need much stronger, longer prison sentences for such crimes. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but the subject of police powers has exercised me since I was elected in 1992. I have raised the matter on a number of occasions under Home Secretaries Howard, Straw and Clarke, but I have done so in vain. The Bill gives me the opportunity to rehearse some of the points that the Government should consider, and which I believe they will ultimately implement. The problem under our parliamentary system is that, all too often, Back Benchers counsel the Government as to the prudent course of action, only to have their advice dismissed by Ministers because it has come from a Back Bencher, and because the Ministers take their narrow advice from people in the Home Office without listening to elected politicians, often those on their own side. I want to address the question of police powers and the various police agencies. I hope that I shall be able to table amendments to the Bill to give effect to my proposals. First, however, I want to deal with the question of police force mergers. I suspect that many hon. Members think that the Bill deals only with mergers. It is an important issue. I recognise that we need police forces that maximise scarce resources, particularly in regard to new technologies. They also need to be highly mobile and fully kitted out. However, since about 1973, we have had an obsession with reorganisation in every part of the public service, and the end product has not necessarily been a better service. I notice the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) nodding. I think that his father was the first Minister to carry out some of those reorganisations, along with Sir Keith Joseph. There was nothing wrong with doing that in the public sector, but we have since had an obsession with reorganisation, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, and I question whether this painting of the Forth bridge has really created better public services. I want to caution the Government that the mergers of the police authorities might be for their own sake, rather than being driven by common sense, and that the desired effect could be achieved under existing powers.