Cremation of Infants (England)

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

That is absolutely correct.

I welcome the written ministerial statement that was published this morning. It suggests that the Government are looking at the recommendations from the Shrewsbury inquiry, and I hope that they will be able to act sooner rather than later. I also hope that the Minister might be able to give us some idea today of how long it will be before we have a final announcement from the Government on their intentions.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I will start calling Front Benchers from about 5.10 pm. If the two Members who still wish to speak could be mindful of that time scale, I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing this important debate on behalf of his constituents, many of whom have campaigned so hard on this matter.

We have had a good debate and have heard some powerful contributions. Some important issues have been raised. This is the least appropriate time for any kind of political knockabout. I welcome our having this discussion here in Westminster Hall. I wholeheartedly support the Minister in her endeavours to move this issue forward. I know that she will approach this in the right way. She has the complete support of both sides of the House, and I am sure she knows that.

We have had good contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). I particularly welcome the contribution of our colleague from Scotland, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley); I thank her for offering valuable insights and for the tone in which she offered them. That is very much appreciated.

I formally welcome the Minister to her post for the first time. I informally welcomed her to her post in the House of Commons hairdresser’s, but as exchanges in the hairdresser’s are not yet in Hansard—thank goodness! —I thought I should put that on the record.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that is too much information.

[Jenny Chapman]

It is good to see a woman back on the Ministry of Justice team; it has been a while.

It brings me no joy to respond on behalf of the Opposition, because as hon. Members have said this is a deeply troubling topic. It is good, though, that light is finally being shed on this issue. It seems that, as the hon. Member for Banbury said, attitudes are changing to neonatal death and stillbirth, and to miscarriage. That is a good thing. It is now being recognised as grief: it is grief. However, sometimes it has been dealt with in a slightly different way. It is good that attitudes are finally beginning to change.

The availability of ashes after the cremation of an infant appears to have been dependent, at least in part, on the equipment and cremation technique used, and on how the relevant authority defined “ashes”. Neither the Cremation Act 1902 nor regulations made under it since provide a good definition. That is one of the problems that have emerged as we have discussed the issue today.

As we have heard and know from subsequent media reports, in some cases parents were told that no ashes would be recovered when in fact there had been ashes. I find this particularly shocking; those ashes were disposed of without the parents’ knowledge or consent. That is clearly wrong. It should never have happened, it must stop and I have confidence that the Minister will approach the issue and get it to stop. I am sure that all Members will share my sympathy and join me in extending our total support to bereaved parents who found themselves in that deeply unsettling position.

Members have gone through the recommendations of the various reports, so I will not repeat them, but I make it clear that Labour agrees with the Emstrey report. The Government should take steps to ensure a single and authoritative code of practice for baby and infant cremations. The Secretary of State should exercise his powers under the cremation regulations to appoint an independent inspector with powers comparable to those outlined in recommendation 63 of the Bonomy report. It is notable that that has already happened in Scotland. The inspector’s responsibilities should include the promotion of a single national code of practice on cremator technology and techniques for infant cremations so as to maximise the chances of the preservation of ashes that could be returned to the family. The cremation regulations should be amended in England, as they have been in Scotland, to give effect to the Bonomy commission’s definition of ashes. This is a bald, uncomfortable thing to say, but there is no point trying to sweeten it: the definition is

“all that is left in the cremator at the end of the cremation process and following the removal of any metal”.

The minimum standards of professional training and for continuing professional development should be introduced for crematorium supervisory and operating staff. A single official, reporting to a single Minister, should be given responsibility for co-ordinating the Government’s approach to cremation law and practice and for drawing together into a coherent whole the policies—including environmental policies—of different Departments on the subject. Arrangements should be made within Government for the Bonomy commission’s recommendations to be considered more widely for their applicability to infant cremation law and practice.

I know the Minister has studied the recommendations, and I welcome her timely statement issued today, but will she update us on what the Department is doing to implement the findings of the Shropshire report? It is important that we have something to go and tell parents following the debate.

Speaking before the election in response to the report, the right hon. Simon Hughes, the former Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and the Minister’s predecessor in her post, said:

“It is clear we need to have a much more consistent practice of burial and cremation across the country…We need to make sure we have absolutely the best standards in every part of the country and anything the inquiry recommends to me by the way of improved practice not just in Shropshire, but elsewhere, I would intend to follow.”

I have never agreed with anything he has said so much as I agree with that, and I hope the Minister agrees, too. Simon Hughes also indicated that changes would be made by the end of the year. Does the Minister’s Department still stand by that timetable? We know that a consultation has been proposed and could start very soon. Will she outline further details of the terms of that consultation? Which recommendations of the Shropshire report is she comfortable with going ahead on, possibly immediately?

In closing, I once again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for securing this debate. As we know, the issue was sadly not limited to Shropshire; it happened in many districts across the country. I am not sure we know how many districts and how many people have been affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North has been campaigning on behalf of her constituents for many years. She mentioned one of those constituents, Mrs Tina Trowhill, who is demanding answers after she was told that there were no ashes following the funeral of her son William in 1994. I will finish on this point, because it sums it up well. Speaking to her local newspaper, Mrs Trowhill said:

“The crematorium system has changed a lot in the past few years but I don’t want it to ever slip back to how it was. There are still some changes I would like to see made”.

I pay tribute to her and all those who have been campaigning on this issue to try to ensure that no other parent suffers the misery they have gone through. I hope that the changes can be agreed and legislated for quickly.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Before the Minister begins, I should say that it would be helpful if she took into account that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) would like one minute to sum up before we conclude.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I am not sure whether I have been described before as a bored, troublesome Back Bencher, but I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Its proposals are sensible and move forward the Government’s position on criminal law reform. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his earlier presentation, which I note to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was very well received on the Government Benches.

Part 3 allows summary trials for non-imprisonable offences “on the papers” only and without the defendant being present. This is an entirely sensible proposal, but it forms just a small part of a wider debate about which case should be going to which court. Of course, all criminal cases start in magistrates courts, and the vast majority of them are disposed of there without ever going to the Crown court. This is important, first because most of us wholly support the ancient British tradition of low-level crimes being judged by magistrates, but secondly because the cases where an election can be made cost about £3,400 in a Crown court compared with the £900 they would cost in a magistrates court. There is the further question of what should be a criminal offence at all. I would be happy to debate, for instance, whether TV licence evasion is suitable for criminal rather than civil trial.

One of the main stumbling blocks to those part 3 proposals in the past has been disagreement between Government Departments, and I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on knocking the right heads together. The other problem has been the magistrates, who have been unwilling to lessen their work load, give that that has already reduced by more than one third during the last five years or so. Furthermore, the moving of traffic cases to a single traffic court in each police force area, which I think is being proposed, will leave some magistrates courts light-handed and more open to a merger proposal with another local court. There is significant volume here. For instance, speeding alone accounts for some 10% of all convictions. So the issues here are slightly more complicated and need to be placed into context.

Magistrates have also felt a bit under attack in recent years owing to the efficiency changes that really had to be made, and my concern here is that we could be reducing their work load further, without giving them the extra quality work that they deserve. Not only do justices of the peace cost less, but cases go through much faster. Sentencing is not for longer periods if a case goes to the Crown court, juries are more likely to acquit than magistrates, and the Crown procedural delays often mean that witnesses are not available. There are three interconnected issues. The first concerns bulk non-serious cases, which is handled in the Bill. Secondly, there are the magistrates courts that these cases are being dealt in, and, thirdly, as we reduce magistrates input into these bulk areas, there is the question of how to increase their involvement in other areas.

On the first bulk issue, I agree that it is ridiculous that three JPs need to hear a small traffic case in open court with prosecutors involved in reading out case details. I appreciate and agree that defendants should retain the right to a full hearing in open court should they so require, but let us also appreciate that around half of traffic proceedings have no plea entered at all, a point that came up earlier.

On the second issue of magistrates courts being used, will the Minister please confirm that traffic work will be moved to a single court per police area? This is sensible, and I hope that a thorough review of procedure will be undertaken at the same time. I am sure that significant savings and a better service could be provided through better IT and procedures, but this could go yet further and be put into the context of a wider review. Of course, I would maintain that the closure of around 140 courts by the Government was correct, not least because as a result cases are proceeding quicker and at a lower cost. One of the keys to effective court procedure is to have larger court centres where listing and delays can be better managed. If we add to this continued use of technology and more virtual courtrooms in police stations, there is much more we could do. The bulk processing of non-imprisonable cases is part of this, but it would be better placed in the context of the wider whole.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that he does about minor traffic offences, but along with many others no doubt, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the boundary between a traffic offence that could be dealt with in the way he describes, and where it spills over into what is, in effect, a criminal offence. Does he agree that if the approach he advocates is adopted, great care needs to be taken to set the boundary?

[Mr Djanogly]

I certainly agree with that. The Minister may wish to come back to this, but I think that that would be done in discussion with prosecutors, and there would be the ability for someone to request three magistrates if they so wished.

The main possible gap that I see here is on the third issue of wider JP powers, and we should be reviewing part 3 in the context of new summary only offences and an increase of maximum JP sentences to 12 months, not least to give a clear indication to the magistracy of our support. I had heard of some limited Government proposals to make shoplifting a summary only offence where the stolen goods are valued at £200 or less. Perhaps the Minister will advise the House on his proposals in this regard. The Magistrates Association has been advocating new summary only offences for some drugs possession, making off without payment, going equipped for theft, small benefit fraud, some affray and driving offences, some assault charges and failure to surrender to bail. I appreciate that this could result in a rise in the prison population, which the Magistrates Association considers to be about 1,000 people, but on the other side there would be court savings of £30 million to £40 million. Again, I would appreciate the Minister commenting on these proposals.

My second point relates to raising the upper age limit for jury service from 70 to 75. That sounds sensible given the upward age of people in the UK, but will the Minister say a little more about the research that has been done to confirm this? Will the change have any negative implications for younger people not being called? The problem that I found here was the reluctance by the judiciary to allow research to be carried out on jurors. My instinct is that fewer people are now willing to be called than was the case in the past. I would be concerned if the Bill exacerbated that, on the basis that it could allow working people to be let off more easily. My suspicions here are not reduced by a Government note that I saw, mentioning that they expect some savings to result from a reduction in the number of jurors in employment. I do not see that as a good objective for our democratic system.

When I did jury service, on the first day a man rushed in shouting at the court staff that he had 2,500 chickens being delivered that day and who would look after them. He was let off service on the spot, despite presumably having had long notice of his jury date, although perhaps not of his chicken delivery. The point I am making is that jury service is an important part of citizenship; so much so that I think we should be putting as much effort into educating the young in school about its benefits to society, and ensuring that people serve when called, as we are into pushing up the service age. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

My third issue relates to the new contempt of court provisions on jury misconduct. That is important not only for ensuring a fair trial and saving costs, but for retaining confidence in the jury system. If a whole trail needs to be started again because of, say, internet research carried out by one juror, that is hugely frustrating for the other jurors on the case, who could be put off doing service again. My wider point is that access to technology is having such a huge effect on so many areas of our lives, and across all Departments, that perhaps we need a cross-departmental review of its impact on existing legislation.

Clauses 29 to 31 relate to criminals paying their own court costs, as was mentioned earlier. That sounds sensible, and it is something I support, but I note that the payment is made by the criminal after money penalties, after compensation to victims, after the victim surcharge and after prosecution costs. I would not confuse that with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on prior debts, but will the Minister please provide more information on what proportion of those costs are likely to be recovered and whether administration recovery charges make the proposal cost-effective?

Finally, on judicial review, I recall that as a young law student in the 1980s we had to learn about administrative law, but the striking thing then was how rarely it was used, and then only for very serious abuses of power. We have since seen a huge growth industry in which a willing judiciary has now opened up three or four courts across the country to hear those applications, which increasingly resemble appeals, rather than judicial review, or cheaper alternatives to proper cases, often funded by third-party organisations, some of which stay anonymous. That must change, and I am pleased, without addressing the detail, to see those provisions in part 4 of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to encourage the good work that is already being done by a large number of voluntary and community sector organisations to provide the expertise that all hon. Members want incorporated into the rehabilitation revolution. Yes, we want to see more of that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State seemed to confirm a moment ago in a reply to the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) that the legal aid bill for Abu Qatada came to half a million pounds, as has been reported in the newspapers. Will he therefore explain why he refused to provide that figure in a written answer to me last week?

[Chris Grayling]

I will have to look into that. I am not aware that I have refused to provide anything. The figure has been made publicly available.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the Church of England Synod vote on women bishops.

I am delighted to see so many hon. and right hon. Members in their places. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to schedule the debate and my colleagues on both sides of the House for supporting it. I was encouraged to apply for the debate by the huge level of interest from Members on both sides when, in a move that I think was unprecedented, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) came to answer an urgent question after the General Synod rejected the Women Bishops Measure.

Some people think that we should not be discussing this matter at all and that it is no business of Parliament to involve ourselves in the affairs of the Church, but that is to fail to understand our constitution. The Church of England is not like any other faith group—it is the established Church, answerable to Parliament. We can have a debate about whether or not that is a good thing, and I am sure hon. Members will do so.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, but does he agree that in a multi-faith society there is no longer any place for an established Church?

[Mr Bradshaw]

No, I am afraid I do not agree. For the record, I support establishment, because it provides for what I call a servant Church—a Church that is there for anyone. Many of us will have had experience of that in our constituencies at times of great civic celebration or mourning or simply in the lives of our constituents who may not feel themselves to be particularly religious but find the Church of England is there for them when they need it when they wish to baptise, marry or bury a loved one.

With establishment comes privileges, such as the presence of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords for example, but with those privileges come duties, one of which is the legal requirement for Church of England legislation to be approved by Parliament. To those who say we should not be talking about this, I say not only that we should be but that we do not have a choice. If Synod had passed the Women Bishops Measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I and a number of other hon. Members and Members of the other place sit, would have had to consider and approve it in the coming months. There would then have had to be debates and votes on the Floors of both Houses.

What has been forgotten in the debate since the Synod vote is that it is perfectly possible that we in Parliament might have rejected the Measure. It is interesting reading the proceedings of this House on women’s ordination more than 20 years ago. Then, Parliament acted as a brake on progress. I remember Members such as John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and Patrick Cormack, who ensured that extra safeguards for the opponents of women’s ordination were written into the legislation.

Police (Complaints And Conduct) Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Police and crime commissioners have very significant powers in relation to chief constables. Their ultimate power is to dismiss the chief constable if they believe that they are behaving so badly that that ultimate sanction is necessary, so the legislation provides considerable powers.

My main point is that the effect of this change will simply be to replicate powers that are already provided for in statute, but it is also important to note that clause 1 places a witness attendance requirement on different categories of individuals. It applies not only to serving police officers, who are members of police forces and subject to the conduct regulations, but to police staff, who operate under a different conduct regime and are outside the scope of the conduct regulations. As such, it would be neither appropriate nor effective for the Secretary of State to make regulations for a universal sanction applying to those two very different categories of individual.

In clause 1, we have been careful to mirror, as far as possible, the existing provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 relating to the interview attendance requirement for those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC. As such, the two powers should be similar. The existing provisions in the 2002 Act relating to those under investigation do not include any provision for sanctions. To provide expressly for a sanction in primary legislation in relation to witnesses but not to those who are subject to investigation by the IPCC would be anomalous. Such a provision would suggest that the new power relating to witnesses is somehow of greater importance and should be more robust than the existing power relating to suspects, and that position risks falling into confusion, as the right hon. Member for Delyn rightly warned, when we want clarity. That, I am afraid, would be the effect of the amendment; there would be more confusion than clarity. In any case, the Secretary of State has the power to do that.

Let me address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). If a serving officer refuses to attend an IPCC interview, they should be subject to sanctions, which are serious and could result in dismissal. If the officer continues to refuse to attend, they can still be investigated by the IPCC and, where appropriate, charges can still be brought regardless of whether they attended an interview or refused to do so. Therefore, failure to attend the interview is not a way of avoiding the decisions of the IPCC. Such a failure would be a breach of prescribed standards of behaviour, and the officer would rightly become the subject of misconduct proceedings.

The final, overarching point in reply to the hon. Lady’s questions is that the IPCC is an investigatory body. It has not asked for the power to impose sanctions, nor is it particularly well-equipped to exercise that power; it is there to investigate. Having said that, I recognise that we are all anxious to ensure that there is clarity on the availability of an effective sanction.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I do not have the information in front of me, but my impression is that the IPCC did ask for sanctions.

[Damian Green]

I have spoken to the IPPC, and it clearly stated that it did not want sanctions to be included in the Bill for some of the reasons that I have given. While I am certain that there is no need to amend the Bill, I am happy to give the Committee the assurance that I will continue to discuss the matter with the IPCC to see whether it needs any longer-term changes. In making any changes to regulations, we need to take a consistent approach in terms of sanctions on those who fail to attend as a witness or as a suspect.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The sanctions apply if someone is convicted of a criminal offence—I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to be clarified. If someone has not been convicted of a criminal offence, matters affecting their pension would, not least, engage human rights legislation as well, so things would be much more difficult in those cases.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I understand the Minister’s point that if someone was guilty of a criminal offence, there would be consequences, but what if someone who was serving and was investigated at the time had been found guilty of not carrying out their duties in an appropriate manner? That would have been a disciplinary matter rather than a criminal matter. Is there any sanction that could apply in those circumstances?

[Damian Green]

I think we are getting into the realms of speculation about individuals. There is a clear distinction, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, between criminality and pure misconduct. It is clearly difficult to take disciplinary action against someone who is no longer an employee. At the most serious end, many of the Hillsborough cases would potentially involve criminal sanctions, but too detailed speculation on these matters might be unhelpful in the long run, not least to the families and others seeking justice as well as truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I have been sitting here waiting to be called trying to think of some words with which to introduce my comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman),who I thought was about to leave just as I was going to compliment her, expressed well the strong feelings her constituents and mine have about the independent panel report chaired by the Bishop of Liverpool. I do not seek to add to that, other than to say that she demonstrated that we are almost at the point of exhausting the lexicon of infamy in describing what came out in it.

I want to make only two points, and I will try to be brief. First, with a little indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to say that I know the Attorney-General is close to the end of his deliberations on whether an application should be made to the court on the inquest that took place. As I have said previously, I attended one day of the inquest with some of my constituents and have never witnessed proceedings so designed to offend. I do not want to add to that, but I do not use that description lightly. I hope the Attorney-General will reach a speedy conclusion to his deliberations, that the application will be made to the court quickly and that notice is taken of the online petition referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), which was set up by Anne Williams. I hesitate to go much further than that because I am well aware of how the Lord Chief Justice might respond to the interference of politicians in the conduct of the courts, but I hope it will be given prominence in the discussions between the Attorney-General and the Lord Chief Justice. We have the opportunity to talk about serving officers when we discuss the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), myself and others, so I will reserve my comments on that issue until then.

The second issue is whether retired police officers can be compelled to give evidence to the IPCC’s investigation. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and the hon. Member for City of Chester have rightly called on the good name of the police and said that they hope everyone will do the honourable and honest thing. I echo those calls, but I throw in a note of caution. Some people who are now retired—I will not get into the realms of talking about who they may be or what they may have done—may be culpable of offences. Appeals to their honour, when by giving evidence they risk being put in a position where they are either telling lies or incriminating themselves, will in some cases fall on fairly stony ground.

In the years I have been a Member of this House, and even before that, I have always been a strong supporter of the police. I believe they perform an incredibly important role on behalf of all of us in society. But the truth is—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned this difference—we know that serving police officers, either under pressure or voluntarily, altered important statements, and many of them will now be retired. I realise the Minister’s problem, and I am not criticising him for not finding a way of covering those people in the Bill, but the IPCC will have to think about how it can, if not compel, at least make it difficult for those retired officers not to give evidence. Quite how it can do that, at this juncture, is beyond me. I do not offer any suggestions, but it is something that the IPCC needs to give careful thought to.

I wish to bring to the IPCC’s attention one other point that has been referred to already. Often, it is all too easy to find a friendly doctor to say, “This person is not in a fit state to give evidence in such a forum.” Let us be brutally honest. If someone searches for long enough, they will find a doctor who will do that. If what I shall call the Pinochet defence is used in these cases, I hope that the IPCC will not accept it at face value and that, if somebody claims to be unable to give evidence on the grounds of ill health, further inquiries will be made to test the validity of the claim.

Finally, it was remiss of me not to welcome the Bill and the work that the Home Secretary, the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends have done to bring us to this pass. With the reservations I have outlined, I am happy to give my strong support to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I already have in my diary a meeting with the Police Federation next week, and I would be happy to meet the Police Superintendents Association at any time.

There has been a lot of discussion about retired officers—not least by the shadow policing Minister, but also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the hon. Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). As I have said, former officers are civilians—not police officers—and they are no longer bound by the duties and regulations that governed their lives as serving officers. The police themselves do not have powers to compel witnesses to attend interviews, so I can only repeat that to grant this power to the IPCC would be unusual in the extreme. However, given the seriousness of the allegations being considered by the IPCC in the Hillsborough case, I repeat that the IPCC has made it clear that it will fully conclude investigations for both criminality and misconduct even when officers have left the service.

This is an unusual step. The IPCC does not normally investigate retired officers for misconduct, but it is clear in this case that there is an enormous and legitimate public demand, reflected by Members of all parties, for that to happen. That is what the IPCC was going to do. During its investigation, the IPPC will no doubt call retired officers to provide evidence. As we all agree, the retired officers will understand the importance of this investigation, and I am sure that the vast majority, if not all of them, will attend willingly.

Finally, the IPCC has been clear that it needs these powers only in respect of serving officers. That is what the Bill provides for. I understand the calls to grant a power to compel retired officers to give evidence, but because it is so unusual and because it would be such a powerful tool, I think it would be inappropriate to do this through fast-track legislation. That should be considered when it comes to the possibility of future legislation.

[Mr George Howarth]

I understand the Minister’s point that making a change such as this in fast-track legislation might not be appropriate, but can he give a commitment that, should it become apparent later that there is a reluctance on the part of retired officers to come forward, some further action could be taken by this House to bring in an element of compulsion?

[Damian Green]

What I will say is that we are debating this Bill here today because the IPPC came to the Government and said, “We need extra powers.” We have responded as quickly as possible so as not to delay the move from truth to justice. We are always willing to accept representations from the IPCC and to consider what is the most practical way of allowing it to do its job as efficiently as possible.

The right hon. Member for Delyn asked me about a related subject, namely the retirement of officers during an investigation. The IPCC can continue an investigation into either criminal or misconduct matters even when an officer has chosen to retire in the middle of it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by that. He also asked about private contractors. Contractors working as detention and escort officers already fall under the IPCC’s oversight, and are therefore covered by the Bill. We are considering the need to extend the provision to other kinds of contractor. That is not relevant to events that took place in 1989, because there were no private contractors then, but we will consider the issue in the longer term, along with the IPCC.

I was asked when the IPCC investigation would conclude. I think that everyone recognises that it is a huge, complex, far-reaching investigation, and that it will take time for it to conclude thoroughly. The last thing we want is an investigation that is not carried out thoroughly. The IPCC will set out the scope and projected timings in the new year. As well as meeting my officials, it has been meeting the families and their representatives, and will continue to do so in order to ensure that they are in the loop at all times.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) asked about sanctions. As we are about to debate that subject, I shall not intrude on your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will say that we have not expressly provided for a sanction for failing to comply with a witness attendance requirement because effective sanctions are already available under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012. I shall doubtless say more about that shortly, when we discuss amendment 1.

Let me again thank the Opposition, and Members in all parts of the House, who have spoken today and expressed their support for the Bill. I hope that the constructive manner and tone that have characterised the debate will serve as a reassurance, not least to the families of the victims, that the House is working well to try to help them as much as possible. I look forward to the Bill’s remaining stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Police (Complaints and Conduct) Bill (Allocation of Time)

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I have no intention of opposing the motion, but the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, has made my point for me somewhat. Obviously, discussions between the two Whips Offices have led to this decision. It may well be that this is such an important issue that everything has to be done in one day. However, as a general rule, although we can allocate four hours for Second Reading and two hours for Committee, one of the reasons we have safeguards in our Standing Orders is that arguments developed on Second Reading may be reflected on and amendments can then be tabled for the Committee stage. I am not saying that this is not one of those Bills that need to be rushed through in a day—I do not know enough about it, although it certainly relates to an important issue.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is, in general terms, making a good point, but he needs to reflect on the fact that this is a short Bill and, as the Minister has said, that it is focused in its intent.

Points of Order

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Hon. Members have a date for their diaries, and it is clear that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is an exceptionally busy bee.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We will come to the right hon. Gentleman. We are saving him up and we will keep the best until last.

Recall of Elected Representatives (no. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Zac Goldsmith presented a Bill to permit voters to recall their elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed (Bill 300).

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you assist the House by letting us know whether somebody has amended the number of hours in the day on Friday 27 April?

[Mr Speaker]

Not yet, but don’t encourage them—[Laughter.] I am glad that the House is in such an upbeat and buoyant mood.

Justice and Security Green Paper

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I certainly agree with all my right hon. Friend’s principles, and they are confirmed by the current Government: we are flatly against the use of torture; we do comply with international law; my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has published new guidelines for the security and intelligence services; and, as I have said, we certainly want them to be properly accountable.

No one has ever established malpractice in previous cases, and one thing we are seeking to do is to draw a line under all the past allegations. I have been settling cases and all the rest of it, but no one has ever made an adverse finding against the security services on any of those grounds. Having public confidence, we now want a process whereby we can sustain it.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that certain judicial decisions on intelligence sharing have undermined the confidence of our close allies, particularly the United States, with a material effect on some areas in which they are willing to co-operate. Does he not share my concern that our close allies will be concerned to find that he now places on judges the burden of making those decisions? In reality and in our experience, judges look at the conduct of their own proceedings, rather than at national security.

[Mr Clarke]

There has been the one case, the Binyam Mohamed case, which we have touched on, but unsurprisingly no one here has touched on the growing number of cases under the so-called Norwich Pharmacal procedure, on which we make recommendations. It is important that we do not find that the interests of the particular parties lead to highly sensitive intelligence material just getting into the public domain. Having consulted the judiciary, and from my experience of them, I have to say that it is actually wrong to argue that they are indifferent to the needs of national security; they accept that we need clear reform of our processes. We had been waiting for some Supreme Court cases before we produced our final proposals in this Green Paper, and the judiciary think it is time for Parliament to make clear how the processes can be modified to enable them to protect justice and liberty on the one hand and national security on the other.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the reason the last Government introduced IPPs was that they were reducing the time of a sentence automatically served from three quarters to a half. They introduced what sounded like a tough measure, with these new indeterminate sentences. However, it immediately went wrong, and they introduced more legislation after two years to try to reduce the numbers. I regret to say that my first effort was to go in the same direction and reduce them even more. I hope that I have my hon. Friend’s support in saying that the best thing is to get rid of them and return to a sensible system of long, determinate sentencing.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should be aware that part of the problem with his original proposals was his failure to establish the case for community sentences as an alternative to prison. In his statement he refers to new, tough community sentences. Can he describe what the characteristics of a tough community sentence might be?

[Mr Clarke]

I never advocated—nor did the Government —the replacement, as it were, of short prison sentences with community sentences. I have some very curious opponents in sections of the media, and this was one of the bees they got in their bonnet almost as soon as we started, but we never proposed that. Community sentences need to carry public confidence so that magistrates can consider them properly as an alternative to prison in suitable cases—they do now, but more would. What I have in mind with tougher sentences is better organised sentences, so that, for example, unpaid work—which is one of the best community-based punishments that one can impose—doing genuinely worthwhile things for the community should be better organised and better disciplined. It should not have to be fitted in on the odd day over several years; it should be better organised on the day and based round a pretty normal working pattern of so many hours each week when it is under way. There are plenty of things that we can do—that and making more use of curfews and tagging—to build up public confidence in community sentences, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and I both agree would be a good thing to do, but which we would also agree is lacking at the moment.