Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 49, 50, 62, 64, 72, and 75 to 77.
The Minister of State, Home Department (Norman Baker)
I will be brief because, as Members will recall, clause 104 introduces a new offence of forced marriage. The new offence is an important part of our efforts to stamp out that appalling practice, and will send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. I am pleased the Scottish Government has also decided that forced marriage should be a criminal offence, and new clause 9 introduces a similar provision for Scotland. Breach of a forced marriage protection order is already a criminal offence in Scotland, so there is no need for a similar amendment to mirror clause 103, which makes that the case in England and Wales. The other amendments in the group are consequential on new clause 9.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I was not in the Chamber yesterday, so may I welcome the Minister to his new post and let him know that any conspiracy theories he comes up with about me will probably be true?
The Opposition accept the need to deal decisively with forced marriage in Scotland, as in England, and we are pleased that the Government are extending to Scotland provisions that make forcing someone into a marriage a criminal offence. We therefore support the new clause and its consequential amendments. It was clear from evidence taken in Committee that there are differing views on the issue, and some who are active in the sector oppose the use of criminal law in that area because they believe it would deter victims from reporting what is happening to them. That is an understandable view, but not one I share. Victims of forced marriage are British. They are of many ages, although many are young people. British boys and girls, of whatever colour, deserve the same protection as every other British boy and girl.
It is important to make the point that forced marriages are not about religious beliefs—they are not condoned by any of the major faiths, whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Forced marriages are about abuse, often of children. What we condemn as abuse in any other sector of society cannot be condoned because of the colour of a person’s skin, their ethnic background or their parents’ culture. I am therefore glad that new clause 9 will make coercing someone into a marriage a criminal offence in all parts of the UK. I hope we will give young people, their communities and others the confidence to challenge forced marriage and to stand up and say no, knowing that they are supported by the law throughout the country, and, I would hope, by others in the community.
It is fair to say that, in some respects, Scotland has moved ahead of the rest of the UK on the matter because, as the Minister has said, breach of a forced marriage protection order is a criminal offence in Scotland, as it will be in the rest of the UK when the Bill becomes law. It is therefore clearly right that new clause 9 extends the criminal offence of coercing someone into a marriage into Scottish law. However, the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to do much more. No forced marriage protection orders have been issued in Scotland since its current legislation came into force, and yet no one would seriously argue that there were no forced marriages last year. In fact, the UK forced marriage unit gave support in 1,483 cases related to possible forced marriage. That is a high number, but the National Centre for Social research report published in 2009 estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 reported cases throughout the UK each year. Of course, many cases go unreported.
The Opposition therefore support the Government’s legislation for Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I should tell the Minister that the legislation by itself is not enough. We need to put in place a system that allows people to report when they are at risk of forced marriage, that encourages them to report, and that offers them the support they need. Currently, that is sadly lacking. For example, much more work needs to be done in schools, so that teachers are alert to the signs that a pupil might be being forced into marriage. Young people need to be educated so that, if they or one of their friends are at risk, they know where to seek help.
I therefore ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to raise awareness of forced marriage. Where is the money to fund such a campaign? In 2012, the forced marriage unit said that many agencies, whether those dealing with children or with vulnerable adults, still did not recognise forced marriage as a safeguarding issue. That is totally unacceptable. There is evidence that police throughout the UK recognise the need to deal with forced marriage proactively, but other agencies—not just schools, but colleges and health organisations—still have a long way to go. I hope Ministers discuss the measures needed with the Scottish Government, so that we can develop a common approach throughout these islands.
We must have training not only for teachers to allow them to recognise the signs that their students are at risk, but for others. Teachers are important because, sometimes, they are the only person outside the family with whom a victim has contact at first. I remember the tragic case of Shafilea Ahmed in my area—she lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). She was so desperate that she drank bleach when she was taken to Pakistan. Later, she was missing for a week before anyone from the school raised the fact that she was not there, despite the warning signs she had given. Teachers did not intervene, and health workers did not follow up or ask the right questions. In the end, she was tragically murdered. I tell the Minister that, although the legislation is welcome, the Opposition want to know what he will do to ensure there is not another Shafilea.
Social services provision is struggling because of the draconian cuts the Minister’s Government are making to council services. Women’s refuges have lost a third of their budget, and refuges and specialist advice services are closing. There is evidence that services that cater for women from black and ethnic minority communities are particularly hard hit. One test of the willingness of both the Scottish Government and the coalition Government to enforce the provisions will be whether they provide the services that people need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Lady’s submission to the House that more focus should be on certain cultural or ethnic groups rather than having a generic focus? I ask because the examples she gives—other hon. Members will give similar ones—come from certain cultural areas. Should the financial focus be on those areas to help them?
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman needs to differentiate services that protect women from violence and specialist provision for those dealing with forced marriages. They are two parts of the same thing, but the current evidence is that specialised services for black and ethnic minority women—services that they feel more comfortable accessing because the people there understand the cultural background—are being closed at a greater rate than other refuges. That is a worry.
My point to the Minister is that the legislation is all very well, but unfortunately, unless he ensures that there are services to allow women and girls to make use of the legislation and access the services they need, the Opposition will be forced to conclude that the Government will the ends but are unwilling to fund the means. We need a much more joined-up approach from the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government if the legislation is to protect people in future. We do not oppose but welcome the Government’s new clauses, but that is the test we will apply to the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Fees for criminal record certificates etc
‘In Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (criminal record certificates etc), in section 125 (regulations), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
“(1A) In prescribing the amount of a fee that—
(a) is payable in relation to applications under a particular provision of this Part, but
(b) is not payable in relation to applications made by volunteers,
the Secretary of State may take into account not only the costs associated with applications in relation to which the fee is payable but also the costs associated with applications under that provision made by volunteers.”’.—(Damian Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 28—Court and tribunal fees.
Amendment 184, page 115, line 19, leave out clause 143.
Amendment 95, in clause 143, page 115, line 26, leave out
‘the person was innocent of the offence’
and insert—
‘no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered.’.
Government amendments 137, 138, 66, 139, 74 and 83.
Damian Green
I will first deal with the Government’s proposals, although I am aware that hon. Members will wish to speak to other amendments. I will deal with those at the end of the debate on the group.
The Government proposals in the group are on the setting of fees for two distinct public services. New clause 10 concerns fees charged by the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is Government policy—I imagine and hope that this is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—to encourage volunteering in our communities. To that end, it has long been the case that criminal record checks, where needed, such as in respect of work with children, are provided free of charge to volunteers. The new clause puts on a clear statutory basis the ability of the Home Secretary to take into account the cost of providing criminal record certificates and other services covered by part V of the Police Act 1997 when determining the fees charged for those services.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The Minister is making important points about ensuring that people are able to pay. As I understand it, it is not currently possible to get a basic disclosure within England and Wales—it has to go through Scotland. Will he look at ensuring that, where appropriate, basic applications are available and free?
Damian Green
I am conscious that at various times there have been difficulties with the practicalities of the system, and I take on board my hon. Friend’s point.
The other services covered by part V of the Police Act 1997 when determining fees charged for services also apply to the new update service that was launched earlier this year. This will enable employers to verify whether existing criminal record certificates for those signed up to the service remain up to date, allowing us to ensure that the overall costs of the service now provided by the disclosure and barring service are fully recovered through fee income, and not subsidised by the taxpayer.
Earlier this year, when the update service was introduced, we made interim arrangements under the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 to provide the legal gateway for this measure to apply. However, the overall arrangement was complex and not entirely transparent. For that reason, we believe the new clause will benefit volunteers and the people and communities they support.
New clause 28 contains substantive provisions to replace clause 147, which, as we made clear, was a placeholder clause. The new clause provides the Lord Chancellor with a general power to set fees at a level that exceeds the cost of the related services. The services are those provided by the courts in England and Wales, including the Court of Protection, the tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible and the Office of the Public Guardian. The primary focus of our proposals for using this power will be the courts of England and Wales. The courts play a vital role in our society, providing access to justice so that the public can assert their legal rights. Ensuring that they are properly resourced is essential to maintaining access to justice. This must be delivered when public spending is required to fall—deficit reduction is one of the Government’s key priorities—and the courts and those who use them must make a contribution.
As new clause 28 makes clear, the purpose of enhanced fees is to finance an efficient and effective court system. This change to the way that fees are set will help to ensure that courts are properly resourced to deliver modern, efficient services so that access to justice is protected. The proposed legislation provides a general power; specific fees would be increased through secondary legislation. When a specific fee or fees are set at an enhanced level for the first time, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—there will be full debate in both Houses. Any subsequent changes to those fees will be subject to the negative procedure.
We will shortly be consulting on proposals to achieve full cost recovery, less remissions, in the civil and family courts. However, even on this basis the running of the court system in England and Wales costs more than £1 billion a year, so we need to go further in reducing the burden on taxpayers. We believe it is fair and proportionate that those who use the courts and can afford to do so should make a greater contribution to their overall funding. That is why we are bringing forward this provision to allow fees to be set above cost in some circumstances.
Let me assure the House that we will not be using the power to set excessively high fees. In setting fees, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied. The new clause requires him to have regard to the overall financial position of the courts and tribunals, and the international competitiveness of the legal services market. We are not bringing forward specific plans for charging enhanced fees at this stage. We want to take some time to ensure that we get the measures right. As I said, we will consult widely on the proposals and look carefully at how any proposed court fees might compare with the overall cost of litigation, the value of the issues at stake and the fees charged by our international competitors. Following the consultation there will, as I have indicated, be full parliamentary scrutiny of any enhanced fees that we decide to introduce.
Amendments 184 and 95 relate to the tests for eligibility for compensation following a miscarriage of justice. I propose that the House hears from the hon. Members who tabled them before I respond.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), tabled amendment 95. Does the Minister not recognise that he is proposing a dangerous step forward that would actually reduce the chances of overturning a miscarriage of justice case? Would the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six have been declared innocent under his proposals?
Damian Green
As I said, I think it would be sensible, for the purposes of the debate and the convenience of the House, if the hon. Gentleman makes his case and I then respond to it at the end of the debate. I think that is better than pre-responding to the speech I suspect he will make. [Interruption.] I am happy to make the same speech twice, but you, Mr Speaker, might feel that that was out of order. If the hon. Gentleman wants a taste of what I am going to say, I do not agree with him, but I will wait to hear his fuller analysis to see if he can convince me in the course of the debate.
Mr Speaker
Order. I note the spirit in which the Minister of State made his remarks, but the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said nothing disorderly. He might not have said as much as he has to say or as the Minister would like to hear, and we wait with bated breath to see whether the hon. Gentleman will spring from his seat to seek to catch my eye, but his behaviour has been orderly and respectful, as always.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I rise to speak on two matters; first, briefly, on enhanced fees. We are not opposed to the principle of what is being proposed, but it is clear from what the Minister has said that this is about more than full cost recovery, the kind for which we argued yesterday in respect of firearms. This is a revenue-raising measure. We will therefore scrutinise carefully any orders brought forward under the proposed legislation to ensure that any charges are reasonable, and that the interests of the administration of justice are best served.
Amendment 95 relates to miscarriages of justice. I am proud to serve the city of Birmingham. In 1974, the city saw the most appalling terrorist outrage when, as a consequence of bombings by the Provisional IRA, 21 innocent citizens died. Six innocent people were then convicted of that terrorist outrage. I should make it clear that I have been a lifelong opponent of violence by the Provisional IRA. My mother and father were both Irish. I was also on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties for many years, and served as its chairman. In that period, we campaigned against terrorist violence and for justice at a time when it was sometimes difficult to stick one’s head up and say that what had happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was unacceptable. Sixteen years after the Birmingham Six were sent to prison, they were released and found to have been wrongly convicted.
On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) are bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. We are rightly proud of our judicial system, but we know that it is not perfect. The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four are but two examples of miscarriages of justice that highlight in extremis the consequences of getting it wrong; taking away years of a person’s life and damaging their reputation, their friends, family and colleagues. It is therefore entirely right that when such a miscarriage of justice occurs, the innocent people who have suffered are entitled to compensation.
At the heart of our legal system lies the principle of innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. However, Government changes to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to
“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”
seem to fly in the face of this age-old principle. Under the Government’s new narrowed compensation tests, none of the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four would have been entitled to payments. Billy Power, one of the six men wrongly convicted in the 1970s for the Birmingham pub bombings, has warned that the changes would mean that
“the standard presumption of innocence would be abolished”.
And he is not alone. A report from the Westminster joint human rights commission said:
“In our view, requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence, which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR. We recommend that clause 143 be deleted from the Bill because it is on its face incompatible with the Convention.”
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
As the hon. Gentleman will hear if I have a chance to say a word, I am very supportive of what he is arguing for and of the amendment that his hon. Friends have tabled. With respect, though, I would like to correct something that he said. The opinion that he just quoted was that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—not the Westminster convention, or whatever he called it—which is making exactly the argument that he is putting to the House.
Jack Dromey
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is of course right.
We support a rigorous and fair justice system, but it must ensure that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all that they have suffered, which, in the more extreme cases, can involve years of their lives. If a miscarriage of justice has taken place, it is the justice system’s mistake, and it should be its job to put it right, not to make it harder for innocent people to do so. If—God forbid!—we ever saw a repeat of what happened with the Birmingham bombings and the subsequent convictions, it would be absolutely unthinkable that those people would not be entitled to compensation.
I very much hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment and our representations. We intend to support the amendment in the other place, where we believe that further detailed scrutiny should take place, because the Government have got it wrong and we must put that wrong right.
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the opening comments.
I thoroughly support new clause 10, because it is right that we recognise volunteers. Too often, people have had to pay far too much to go through the processes necessary to volunteer, as I know from my own voluntary work, although that was more of a problem when people needed separate certificates for everything they did. I am glad that we have made some progress at least.
There is an issue, however, about the availability of the right level of disclosure for criminal record certificates. I thought I knew this area reasonably well, but I did not realise until recently that it was not possible to get a basic certificate—there are three levels: basic, standard and enhanced—listing unspent convictions in England and Wales; the only body that does it is Disclosure Scotland. While getting the pricing correct, therefore, we must also ensure availability. It seems perverse that only under Scots law can somebody get what most employers ought to have access to. Most employers do not realise that they should have the basic, rather than standard or enhanced certificate. I hope that Ministers will consider that point and ensure that while providing the right costings, we also get that right, and that the Government implement the relevant provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
On new clause 28, the Minister made a strong case for having some fees. I think we would all agree that if a Russian oligarch makes great use of our courts, they should make some contribution. None of us would suggest that their having to pay £1,000 or so would inhibit their ability to get justice. Perhaps the cost of using the courts should be a fraction of the fees going to the lawyers; that might be a safe way of ensuring that we make our fair share. That is not the route chosen, however, although it is quite tempting, given how large the legal fees are in many of these cases. It is not just Russian oligarchs, of course; it is anybody with a very big transaction. It seems right that they should contribute to the costs of our fantastic court system.
We need to ensure, however, that people not in a position to pay are not hit. It should still be possible for people without money to access the courts, and in that, the fees system could help, because by taking more money from those who have lots of it, we could subsidise those who do not. I note that there is broad support for the idea that any money made should be reinvested in improving our court system and ensuring that it works well. Broadly, therefore, I am pleased to see the new clause.
Dr Huppert
It is nice to be encouraged by the Whips to speak at greater length, but I am sure we have enough to debate and I do not want to take time from the important debates coming up.
On the concerns about clause 143, the hon. Member for Islington North has, of course, tabled his amendment, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also tabled an amendment that would get rid of the clause completely. I am not a lawyer, but my assessment is that the JCHR approach is probably a cleaner one, but both amendments aim to achieve exactly the same thing. I agree with the shadow Minister that we should flag this up as a big issue, but leave it to the other place to find the right answer. By then, I hope that the Government will have reflected on it and accepted the principle that it is incredibly hard for anybody absolutely to prove their innocence. That is a really tough threshold. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and that we can strike a better balance in the other place.
Jeremy Corbyn
I will be brief; because of the odd timetable we have for the Bill, there is not much time to debate any of it. My remarks are concerned solely with amendment 95, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explained, there is strong support.
Clause 143 will fundamentally overturn the huge changes made after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. For many years, along with Chris Mullin and many others, I was one of those who, from this position in the House, raised questions about the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and I could paper the walls of my house with the letters of abuse we received for taking up their cases. None of us who took up those miscarriages of justice was ever in favour of the bombing and killing of civilians in any circumstances; we were, however, in favour of justice.
The first person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was Paul Hill, one of the Guildford Four, who had been a constituent of my constituency before I was elected, but was in prison when I was elected. Meeting him and the others in prison, I was struck by the sheer hopelessness of being locked up for an offence they did not commit, when every newspaper and commentator in the country said they were guilty and when their family members were abused in the street and vilified because they had a son, nephew or cousin in prison for an offence they did not commit. It made that campaign very difficult, but some very brave people stood up, and eventually those happy days when they were finally released brought about a fundamental change in the whole narrative of justice in this country.
Dr Huppert
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on this issue over many years; it is a great tribute to him that he took it seriously. Does he agree that a fundamental principle underlies this point, which is that no matter what somebody has been accused of, however heinous it might be, they are still entitled to due process and due legal protections? That is an essential principle from which we should not vary, whether a person be accused of terrorist activities, sex crimes or anything else. Due process is important, because errors are made.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. However heinous the crime, however vile the accusation against an individual, unless they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, we undermine everything we believe in as a democratic society.
The big change that came after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—and Judith Ward for that matter—was the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which immediately started looking at 600 miscarriage of justice cases that had not received the sort of publicity that we had managed to engender in the three cases I just mentioned.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I wish to refer to one of those cases. The Cardiff Three, who were accused of a non-terrorism crime, suffered the same injustice and vilification, but eventually got some sort of justice.
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. I recall that campaign very well. Although I was not centrally involved in it, I certainly supported it.
The question really goes back to the Minister. I intervened on him during his opening remarks to give him a chance—a double chance; not double jeopardy, but a double chance—to provide us with good reasons why he is introducing a provision that we, along with Liberty and many others, believe will fundamentally undermine much of what has been achieved through the Criminal Cases Review Commission and by the ability to overturn miscarriages of justice.
Justice can go wrong. The media can get it wrong. There can be a campaign of vilification that gets it wrong. We should not be too holier than thou in this country as we already have a considerable number of people held indefinitely under immigration law, and we have anti-terror laws that I believe are highly questionable in many ways when it comes to justice. I hope that the Minister will explain in his reply exactly how a serious campaign on a miscarriage of justice case would be dealt with in the future and how many more people could indeed be locked up for a long period for offences that they did not commit and could not have committed.
If amendment 95 is not accepted—I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington that the whole of clause 143 be deleted—I hope that the House of Lords will look at the provisions in forensic detail. Many of those who did such incredible work, including Baroness Helena Kennedy, in representing these causes and cases over many years, sit in the other place and I hope they will ensure that this legislation is fundamentally changed so that we recognise that mistakes can happen, that terrible injustices can take place and that unless we provide the opportunity and ability to remedy them, they will happen again and again and again. That is very dangerous in any democratic society.
Simon Hughes
I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister and to colleagues because I had to slip out briefly at the beginning of this debate, albeit for what I hope are appropriate reasons. I had to meet a press deadline to pay tribute to one of our party members—not a parliamentarian, but a man called Stan Hardy who had been a great campaigner on these sorts of issues. He died last Thursday at the ripe old age of 93. Not just Liberal Democrats or liberals but Labour and Conservative colleagues in London and beyond recognised Stan as a doughty campaigner for civil liberties as well as for the rights of the under-privileged.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on these sorts of issues, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to his doughty campaigning throughout all the time he and I have been together in the place—now more than 30 years in both our cases. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment, supported by his hon. Friends, is designed to deal with a wrong in this Bill that I hope we can remedy.
There is a difference between amendment 95, tabled by the hon. Member for Islington North, and amendment 184, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and me. We argue for our amendment in our own right, but also on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amendment 95 would amend clause 143, taking out from line 26 the words
“the person was innocent of the offence”
and inserting the words
“no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered.”
The Joint Committee’s collective view was that we would do better to remove clause 143 as a whole—exactly the issue for which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) argued. I have been here long enough to remember and to have supported numerous campaigns to deal with miscarriages of justice, many of them very unpopular for the reasons we have all identified. Having looked at the issue again, I honestly believe that the removal of the clause would be the better way to deal with the problem. There are technical problems with amendment 95, so I strongly commend to the Minister the amendment to remove clause 143.
Finally, I shall not press the Joint Committee’s amendment to a vote, but we feel strongly about this issue as a Committee. I am sure the Minister knows that we will listen respectfully to what he says, but I hope he can be helpful and confirm that the principle of the Government’s proposal—that the provision should apply
“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent”—
will be changed because that is not the test that should be applied to deal with miscarriages of justice.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I, too, rise to speak to amendment 95, to which my name is attached, along with that of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)and others have said, the history of serious cases of miscarriages of justice should bear very heavily indeed on all Members. I include in that the cases that were fought, promoted and championed against very difficult headwinds here in Parliament by Members of all parties. I recall Conservative Members like the late John Biggs-Davison and others championing those cases alongside Labour and Liberal MPs—but little thanks did they get for it from sections of the media and others.
My own predecessors and party colleagues in Parliament fought on those issues at that time. I remember working in John Hume’s office writing all sorts of letters to the Home Office. Of course, we were told that new facts and new evidence did not qualify as new facts and new evidence. Perhaps that issue still applies to clause 143. Even if amendment 95 were accepted, the question of what counts as a
“new or newly discovered fact”
still arises, although I hope that the wording of the amendment, which would provide that
“no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered”,
would help. There were historical arguments about whether new evidence was indeed a new fact or a material consideration, and I would not want to legislate to produce more circular arguments or obfuscations like that for the future.
Clause 143 is pernicious. It seeks completely to reload the basic, long-standing presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It basically provides qualification of the notion of a miscarriage of justice, suggesting that when someone has suffered what most people would call a miscarriage of justice and when their conviction has, on subsequent judicial appraisal of relevant evidence, been overturned, they should still not be able to proclaim their innocence. There is an insinuation that if they were previously convicted, they are innocent and entitled to compensation as innocent only where they can prove that they are innocent “beyond reasonable doubt”.
For the people affected, many of their convictions will have taken place many years previously and they will be in no position to marshal all the evidence that could necessarily prove their innocence beyond what someone would call a reasonable doubt. Nobody has to meet that criterion at their proper and due initial trial, so why should anybody have to do that to receive compensation after a conviction has been overturned? Compensation is not the only issue here because it is not the monetary value that motivates the fundamental objections to this proposal.
Before I became a Member in 2005, I worked on the cases of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven when they still needed and wanted a full and proper proclamation of their innocence, not least because many sections of the media and others were retelling the slur that these people had somehow secured just a technical acquittal. Their conviction was quashed, but the insinuation remained that they were not really innocent. That problem arose from issues surrounding compensation and other factors.
I recall being asked by Gerry Conlon, a friend of mine and one of the Guildford Four, if I could get a direct and clear statement of apology and a proclamation of the innocence not just of himself but of his late father, Giuseppe Conlon. I was also asked the same by Sarah Conlon, Gerry’s mother and Giuseppe’s widow. It was plain that Gerry Conlon wanted that clear proclamation of their innocence for his mother, that his mother wanted it for Gerry, and, of course, that they both wanted it for Giuseppe.
Hywel Williams
I will support amendment 184, or, failing that, amendment 95.
Clause 143 in its present form marks a significant and hugely detrimental shift in the law which would make it far more difficult for individuals to gain compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights, including the Committee on the Administration of Justice, as well as highly respected organisations such as Justice and Liberty, have expressed major anxieties about the clause. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) explained very eloquently, an individual who applies for compensation for a miscarriage of justice must currently demonstrate that a court could not have established beyond reasonable doubt that he or she was guilty of the offence. Clause 143, however, shifts the burden of proof to the individual, and compels that individual to prove that he or she is innocent of the offence. A miscarriage of justice would henceforth be proved to have taken place only if newly discovered facts showed beyond reasonable doubt that that person was innocent.
As Justice has pointed out, since 2006 section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 has provided the only avenue for individuals to obtain financial redress after miscarriages of justice have occurred. It is chilling to think that, had the proposed change in the law been in place at the time, none of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven or the Cardiff Three—I have some interest in that case, and indeed referred to it earlier—would have satisfied the innocence test.
Those infamous cases, of course, paved the way for the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The individuals involved won compensation because it was proved that the evidence that had been brought against them was flawed, and that a jury could not have found them guilty had the case been retried. As was made clear by the hon. Member for Foyle, the justice system of England and Wales is unlike the Scottish system in that a case cannot be found to be “not proven”, although there have been arguments about that position.
In the notorious cases that I have just listed, the rule of thumb for the awarding of compensation was always that the individuals would receive the amount that they would have earned had they been working during the time when they were wrongfully imprisoned. The purpose of that was to ensure that they would not be impoverished when they were released. It would be wicked indeed to deny individuals that compensation when the justice system has gone wrong.
Under the current law, it is already exceptionally difficult to persuade the criminal Court of Appeal to review new evidence. For cases to qualify, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is required to apply section 13(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which provides that individuals must satisfy a “real possibility test”. Arguably, both the Criminal Cases Review Court and the Court of Appeal adopt an excessively strict interpretation of this test. They restrict reviews to new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial or appeal, which means in practice that evidence that was available at the time of the trial or appeal cannot be considered, even in cases in which it was suppressed by the police. Given how difficult it is to get cases referred to the Court of Appeal under both the “real possibility test” and the need for fresh evidence, it is harsh indeed that the Government are attempting further to restrict people’s ability to gain compensation. Innocence is far too high a test and would be virtually impossible to prove after many years, which is when such cases are usually heard.
If this matter is not pressed to a successful Division this afternoon, I sincerely hope that Members in the other place will apply the most stringent attention to the clause. My noble Friend Lord Wigley will certainly do so.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called, Mr Speaker. Thank you for letting me speak in the debate. I appreciate that my role as a shadow law Minister means that it is an indulgence to allow me to speak. I appreciate it.
I have been in the House for eight years and I thought that I was unshockable, but the way in which the Government are seeking to amend section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to redefine a miscarriage of justice is truly shocking. They wish to change it so that, if and only if newly discovered facts show beyond reasonable doubt that the person is innocent, there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nothing less than that will do. Only in those circumstances can someone be given compensation.
I am sure that the Minister will have noted, as anyone else watching the debate will have done, that no one has yet spoken in favour of clause 143, not even the Minister himself yet. If the matter is not dealt with this afternoon, I hope that there will be the opportunity to deal with it in another place. We need to marshal our forces, because the essence of our liberal society is threatened.
The Government’s arguments for introducing an innocence test—there are many arguments; I want to concentrate on the Government’s justification—are, first, that it is needed for the sake of clarity; and, secondly, that it will save money. Neither of those arguments is remotely convincing. Let me turn to the first, about clarity.
The law at the moment is perfectly clear. Three recent authoritative judgments have rejected the innocence test as an affront to the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court did so in the case of Adams in 2011, in which Lady Hale said:
“a person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt...He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”
That was reiterated in the High Court in the case of Ali earlier this year. There was an attempt to widen the definition, but that attempt was well and truly quashed by the High Court. This summer, moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Allen v. the UK, made it perfectly clear that any legislation that calls into question the innocence of an acquitted person would be a breach of article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights on the presumption of innocence.
Therefore, the law is clear. That law has been reiterated by our own Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has been able to assert that
“it is now clear beyond doubt”
that the proposed new test in clause 143 is incompatible with the right to be presumed innocent in article 6(2). Therefore, rather than clarifying the law, it seems that the Government are having a pitched battle with the settled, established law.
The second argument is about saving money. The Bill’s own impact assessment reveals the expected savings to be negligible. According to that MOJ assessment—the Minister looks puzzled; it is on page 4—the effect of the clause will be to reduce by two per annum the number of judicial reviews of Secretary of State decisions, which it estimates will save around £100,000 per annum. Therefore, for the sake of saving £100,000 per annum, we will be trading in the centuries-old principle of the presumption of innocence. The courts have rejected an innocence test not out of some quibbling legalistic technicality. They have rejected it because it is a cornerstone of a fair justice system. We have a fair justice system and a free society where it is for the state to prove guilt, not for the individual to prove innocence.
The reason for that is obvious. Proving a negative is very difficult and the burden of proof it would place on the individual is extremely onerous. It is for the state with all its resources to make the case of a person’s guilt. The presumption of innocence applies before an acquittal. As Lord Phillips said in the Adams case, any test that requires innocence
“will deprive some defendants who are in fact innocent and who succeed in having their convictions quashed on the grounds of fresh evidence from obtaining compensation. It will exclude from entitlement to compensation those who no longer seem likely to be guilty, but whose innocence is not established beyond reasonable doubt. This is a heavy price to pay for ensuring that no guilty person is ever the recipient of compensation”.
Damian Green
This has been a serious debate, appropriately, because these are serious issues. Having listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, I believe that there are some genuine misunderstandings about what is proposed and what its effect will be. I will seek to deal with those as briefly as I can. It is a complex issue.
As we have heard, amendment 95 seeks to maintain the current definition of a “miscarriage of justice” derived from case law, which is therefore subject to ongoing litigation. Amendment 184 goes further and would prevent us from creating a statutory definition of a “miscarriage of justice” at all, leaving the definition subject to the shifting view of the courts. Over the years, the courts have provided complicated definitions of a miscarriage of justice, which are often confusing to a lay person and are by definition subject to change over time. In this instance, it is unlikely that an applicant for compensation would know what
“properly directed as to the law”
means in a particular case. That would have disadvantages for applicants, who will find it difficult to know whether they have a valid claim, or to understand the Secretary of State’s decision on their case.
Emily Thornberry
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although there has been a challenge in respect of the case of Adams in the Supreme Court, the position has not moved and the law on the definition of miscarriage of justice has been settled since 2011?
Damian Green
I will come to the Adams case in a moment, if the hon. Lady will be patient.
Many disappointed applicants seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision, because they do not fully understand its basis or because the case law is unclear. In practice, very few such claims succeed, and they place a significant burden on the applicant involved and on the taxpayers who have to fund them. Therefore, the purpose of clause 143 is to restore the law to the pre-2011 position and to make the definition of a miscarriage of justice more consistent, clearer and easier for the public and potential applicants to understand. That is fairer than using an obscure and confusing definition, or continuing to work, as we have to now, with a definition that is subject to unpredictable change. We are firmly of the view that the provision is compatible with our international obligations and the convention rights. I am conscious that we are in discussions with the Joint Committee about that and that we hold different views on the matter.
Simon Hughes
Although this issue is being dealt with very carefully, there is clearly a difference of view, and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made the case for the legal justification. Rather than just have a battle at the other end of the building and a lottery of an outcome, will my right hon. Friend undertake to facilitate a meeting of all those interested in both Houses with members of the relevant Committees so that we can hear evidence and try to do the job properly, and see whether the Government have adopted the right position or we need to do something else? I would far rather we got it right and were really clear and all signed up than we had a maverick outcome that satisfied very few or nobody.
Damian Green
I am happy to continue to engage in the discussions that the Departments have been having with the Joint Committee or anyone else, but I regret to say that I am not sure that having a meeting at which a definitive view could be arrived at would be possible, as that would be subcontracting the right of Parliament to be that Chamber—that is the purpose of this House and the other place, and I do not think it is constitutionally right to try to subcontract that to a meeting of experts.
The nub of Members’ complaints about clause 143 is that it is in some way incompatible with the presumption of innocence—I do not think I am traducing hon. Members in saying that—and that is the issue we need to address. Of course the Government recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence and we would not introduce legislation that cuts across that. We consider that article 14.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives effect, provides only for compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not commit the offence. In the Government’s view, that is the proper definition of a miscarriage of justice. Compensation should not be payable where the basis for the conviction being overturned does not demonstrate the applicant’s innocence.
The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) brought up the European Court of Human Rights. We are aware of its decision on this issue and we have written in some detail to the Joint Committee on Human Rights about it. However, we continue to consider that this provision would not interfere with a person’s fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We take firm support for this view from the Supreme Court in the Adams case, which held unanimously that the presumption of innocence is not infringed by the current arrangements for compensating a miscarriage of justice. In our view, the proposed change does not alter that analysis. As the European Court acknowledged, more than an acquittal is required to establish that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Through clause 143, we are determining where that line should be drawn.
Under clause 143, there is no requirement for a person applying for compensation for a miscarriage of justice to “prove” their innocence. What is determinative is the fact on which the conviction was overturned. So, for example, if a person’s conviction is overturned because DNA evidence comes to light showing they could not have committed the offence, it is only right that they should be compensated. Following the coming into force of clause 143, they will, as now, be eligible for compensation.
The proposed new test for determining eligibility for compensation does not require the applicant to demonstrate his or her innocence; it focuses on the new fact. When the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in the case of Allen that the presumption of innocence is engaged when deciding whether to pay compensation for a miscarriage of justice, the Court made it clear that states were entitled to conclude that more than an acquittal was required. This clause will enable us to say, for the first time in statute, what beyond an acquittal is necessary for there to have been a miscarriage of justice. It introduces for the first time some certainty in the process.
I should say in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that the clause will have no impact at all on the very valuable work being done every day by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and nor will it change the basis on which a conviction is overturned.
Emily Thornberry
I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the wording of amendment 95 reiterates the wording in the settled case law I have been telling him about.
Damian Green
Yes, indeed, and I have addressed directly the cases the hon. Lady raised.
We are returning the law to where it was in 2008 under the previous Government, where following the decision of the House of Lords in Mullen, compensation was held to be payable only where a person could be shown not to have committed, or to have been demonstrably innocent of, the offence for which he was convicted.
As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Adams, it is difficult to glean exactly what the framers of the ICCPR intended on this point from the papers now available, and nor is there international consensus on what the ICCPR requires in this regard. Signatories to the ICCPR have some latitude in determining the requirements of article 14.6. For example. New Zealand and Canada restrict the payment of compensation for a miscarriage of justice to cases where the applicant was innocent. Further, while the Supreme Court in Adams ultimately held that eligibility for compensation was not limited to cases of innocence, four members of the Supreme Court, including the current Lord Chief Justice, considered that compensation should be payable only in cases of innocence. We are therefore confident that what we are doing achieves the aim of creating a more readily comprehensible test which meets the Government’s policy objectives, while also complying with our international obligations.
We recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence, and there may simply be a disagreement in this Chamber as to whether we are breaching it, but I can assure the House that there is no intention of doing so, and I am firmly of the belief that clause 143 does not do that. All it does is require compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not in fact commit the offence. This, in the Government’s view, is the proper definition to be given to a miscarriage of justice
I hope I have cleared up what I think are genuine misunderstandings about the effect of clause 143, and I urge the Members concerned not to press their amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Power of community support officer to issue fixed penalty notice for cycle light offence
‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (powers of community support officers) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 1 (power to issue fixed penalty notices)—
(a) for “in respect of an offence” there is substituted “in respect of—an offence”;
(i) an offence”;
(b) at the end there is inserted “, or an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
(i) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11A (power to stop cycles)—
(a) for “has committed an offence” there is substituted “has committed—
(a) an offence”;
(b) at the end there is inserted “, or
(b) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.’.—(Damian Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 16—Control of new psychoactive substances—
‘(1) Any person supplying, or offering to supply, a synthetic psychoactive substance including but not restricted to—
(a) a powder;
(b) a pill;
(c) a liquid; or
(d) a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis,
which is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication will be subject to a Synthetic Psychoactive Product Order prohibiting its supply.
(2) Any subsequent breach of that Order will be an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) This section does not apply to alcohol, tobacco, or any drug currently scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968.’.
New clause 26—Assault on workers in public facing roles—
‘(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
(2) No offence is committed—
(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
(3) In this section—
“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and
(b) (i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or (ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally.
“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.
New clause 27—Long-term police authorisation requiring independent approval—
‘( ) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows—
(a) after section 32A (Authorisations requiring judicial approval) insert—
“32AA Long-term police authorisations requiring independent approval
(1) This section applies where a relevant person has granted a long-term authorisation under section 29.
(2) The authorisation is not to take effect until such time (if any) as the relevant independent body has made an order approving the grant of the authorisation.
(3) The relevant independent body may give approval under this section to the granting of an authorisation under section 29 if, and only if, the relevant independent body is satisfied that—
(a) at the time of the grant—
(i) there were reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
(ii) the relevant conditions were satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
(b) at the time when the relevant independent body is considering the matter, there remain reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the relevant conditions in relation to a grant by an individual holding an office, rank or position in a relevant law enforcement agency, that—
(a) the individual was a designated person for the purposes of section 29,
(b) the grant of an authorisation was not in breach of any prohibition imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(a) or any restriction imposed by virtue of section 30(3), and
(c) any other conditions that may be provided for by the Secretary of State were satisfied.
(5) In this section—
“relevant law enforcement authority” means—
(a) a police force in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the National Crime Agency.
“relevant judicial authority” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales,
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session, and
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.
“relevant person” means—
(a) an individual holding an office, rank or position in a police force in the United Kingdom, and
(b) an individual holding an office, rank or position in the National Crime Agency.
(6) In this section—
“relevant independent body” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.
“long-term” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.”.’.
New clause 31—Annual review of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act—
‘(1) The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation shall monitor and publish a report to Parliament providing an analysis of the application of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
(2) The report shall include an assessment of those persons stopped, questioned or detained who have protected characteristics within the meaning of section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (The protected characteristics).
(3) A Minister of the Crown, must not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’.
New clause 32—Sunset provision for Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000—
‘(1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 shall be repealed, five years after the commencement of this Act, unless continued in force by an order under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide—
(a) that those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding five years from the coming into operation of the order; or
(b) that those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
New clause 34—Public order offences committed against constables in private dwellings—
‘(1) In section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(a) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
(2) In section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(b) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
(3) In section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(3) Subsection 2 and subsection (4) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.’.
Government amendments 51 to 55
Amendment 148, in clause 127, page 98, line 17, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert
‘Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed.’.
Amendment 150, page 98, line 18, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall by order make any amendments to Schedule 7 or 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 recommended by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to limit the scope of its application.’.
Amendment 136, in clause 144, page 116, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
Government amendments 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 78 and 79 to 81.
Amendment 149, page 146, line 26, leave out schedule 7.
Amendment 151, in schedule 7, page 147, line 15, at end insert—
‘Power to stop, question and detain
1A (1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2(4) is repealed.
(3) After paragraph 4 there is inserted—
4A An examining officer must ensure that all questioning, beginning at the commencement of the examination, is recorded and retained for as long as is deemed necessary, which must be no less than one year, so that it may be used in any complaints process that may follow.’.
Amendment 179, page 147, line 16, at end insert—
‘Limits on duty to give information and documents
1A In paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “A person who is questioned” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below”.’.
Amendment 178, page 147, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2A) A person questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 may not be detained under paragraph 6 unless the examining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that he is a person falling within section 40(1)(b).’.
Amendment 180, page 147, line 33, before paragraph 3 insert—
2A In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before ‘An examining officer’ there is inserted ‘Subject to paragraph 9A below.’.
Amendment 181, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
3A In paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “An examining officer” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below.”.
3B In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 9 there is inserted—
“Data stored on personal electronic devices
9A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) the information or documents which a person can be required to give the examining officer under paragraph 5,
(b) the things which may be searched under paragraph 8, and
(c) the property which may be examined under paragraph 9,
do not include data stored on personal electronic devices unless the person is detained under paragraph 6.
(2) “Personal electronic device” includes a mobile phone, a personal computer and any other portable electronic device on which personal information is stored.”.’.
Amendment 156, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘(4) The copy, and information derived from it, may be used for no other purposes than those specified in subparagraph (3).’.
Amendment 182, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘Audio and video-recording of interviews
4A In paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, the words “if the interview takes place in a police station” are omitted.’.
Amendment 157, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘Right to silence
4A In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 18 there is inserted—
18A Right to silence
Nothing in this Schedule—
(a) imposes a duty on a person to respond to questioning; or
(b) allows inferences to be drawn from their silence.”.’.
Amendment 152, page 148, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 6(1) the words “Subject to paragraph 8” are omitted.’.
Amendment 153, page 148, line 43, after ‘7(1)’, insert—
(a) the words “Subject to paragraphs 8 and 9” are omitted;
(b) ’.
Amendment 154, page 148, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3A) Paragraph 8 is omitted.’.
Amendment 155, page 149, line 1, at end insert—
‘(4A) Paragraph 9 is omitted.’.
Amendment 183, page 150, line 2, after ‘officer’ leave out
‘at such intervals as may be specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the code of practice’
and insert—
‘(2A) The first review shall be carried out as soon as is reasonably practicable after the time of the person’s detention and not more than one hour from that time.
(2B) Subsequent reviews shall be carried out at intervals of not more than 2 hours.’.
Government amendments 84 to 86 and 91.
Damian Green
I propose to run through the Government amendments in this group briskly, so that other Members can speak to their amendments. Given the linkage to the Government amendments on low-value shop theft, I also intend to touch on amendment 136 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). With the leave of the House, I propose to respond to the other non-Government amendments in this group when winding up.
New clause 11 follows up a debate in Committee initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who raised some important points about the powers of police community support officers. In particular, he proposed that two new powers should be conferred on PCSOs: first, that they should be able to issue a fixed penalty notice for riding a bicycle without lights; and, secondly, that they should be able to search someone for controlled drugs.
I gave a commitment to consider my hon. Friend’s proposals over the summer, in the context of the specific role that PCSOs play in our communities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is an inconsistency in PCSOs’ powers around cycling. They can issue a penalty notice for riding on a footway, but not for riding without lights. Extending their powers in respect of cycling, as provided for in new clause 11, would end this anomaly and complement their important engagement role. Being on foot patrol, they are well-placed within their communities to increase awareness and educate people about the importance of cycle safety. Backing this up with the power to issue a penalty notice could enhance the impact they have in their neighbourhoods.
The power to search for controlled dugs is more complicated. We do need to keep a clear distinction between the role of a PCSO and that of a constable. We need to be mindful of the risk that new powers could increase the element of confrontation in the role of PCSOs and detract from their presence on the streets. It is vital that we get this right and, accordingly, we are still considering whether such an expansion of powers is appropriate. I assure my hon. Friend that I will let him and the House know the outcome of that consideration as quickly as possible.
Jack Dromey
I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.
Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old, excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.
What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—
Jack Dromey
Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.
On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.
Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.
Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.
It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.
Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.
We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.
New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.
We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.
Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.
Jack Dromey
I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.
In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.
David T. C. Davies
I know that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as quick as I can.
I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, which is why I wanted to speak. My speech can be short, because I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. I particularly support new clause 26 on public-facing workers. I have little need to add anything. He was absolutely right in everything he said. In fact, only yesterday, I dealt with a lady, a retail worker, who had been spat at at close range. Obviously, I meet many rail staff who—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—are the victims of daily verbal and physical abuse. We have already heard about nurses, too. I absolutely agree with the new clause and told my Whips that I would support it and vote for it, if it came to a vote.
I am saddened that I am unable to do so, however, because of new clause 34, about which the hon. Member for Stockport will speak in a minute. I ask her to think very carefully about that, because the clause would reverse some of the good work that would be done by new clause 26. It would take away some of the rights that police constables, who are, after all, public sector, public-facing workers, should have. They should have the same rights as nurses, rail staff, bus drivers and the rest. That is important because police officers are often called to domestic dwelling houses late at night, in cases where drugs and drink can be involved, and they will suffer horrendous verbal abuse and, sometimes, threats of physical abuse. I do not think that police officers should have to put up with that any more than social workers or anyone else who goes into a private dwelling house.
New clause 34 might also have unintended consequences. I am not trying to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong, but sometimes neighbours might ring to allege that domestic violence is taking place and, when the police officer arrives, they might find one angry male—I am sorry if that is a stereotype, but it is often the case—under the influence of drink and shouting, swearing and so on. If neither of the people in that house is able to make an accusation, the fact that one person is drunk and shouting might be enough to allow a police officer to remove them from the premises by arresting them under the Public Order Act 1986. That is not something that police officers do lightly because they know that any arrest needs to be proportionate and that they will have to take somebody in front of a custody officer, who will not take kindly to arrests made without due cause. I ask the hon. Lady to think very carefully about her new clause.
If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington wishes to propose his new clause on some other occasion or to table an early-day motion, I will fully support him. I offer him my public support and I will vote for such protection for public sector workers. I would not do so, however, at the expense of police officers, who are also public sector workers like all the others.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I want to say a few words on new clause 34. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for giving me his views on it, but I think there might have been a misunderstanding.
The new clause would change the law to make the use of racist or other abusive language in a dwelling house an offence when it was directed at a policeman. I was recently contacted by a serving police officer from my constituency who was present when a colleague from the Greater Manchester police was called a “nigger” in a private house. Under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, no offence is committed if the “harassment, alarm or distress” takes place inside a dwelling house—that is, somebody’s house or flat. I was surprised by that because, like many people, I was under the impression that racist abuse was an offence wherever it was committed. However, this is not the case. I was shocked to hear that somebody could not be charged with the offence because it took place in a dwelling against a police officer pursuing his duty.
My amendment would make it an offence to use racist or other abusive language against a police constable who was present in a dwelling in the execution of his duty. The police officer from my constituency described attending a property where two men were aggressively arguing. One was very drunk and called one of the police officers a nigger. The officer described seeing her colleague abused and she told me, “I was quite horrified he had to endure this kind of abuse. I felt very frustrated and helpless that we could not charge the offender with any offence.” I am sure that this is by no means an isolated case and I suspect that other professionals such as social workers and health visitors have also been subject to racist abuse when visiting a person at their home address. It does not seem right to me or, I suspect, to the public that if the police officer had been called a nigger in the street, an offence would have been committed, but none was committed because it happened inside a house. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment that I propose.
Simon Hughes
I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 178 to 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.
We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.
The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.
Dr Huppert
I shall do my best to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate.
I welcome Government new clause 11. It is right to extend powers to PCSOs, allowing them to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. I am a huge champion of cycling. I was delighted when the House passed a motion to get Britain cycling. One of the banes of my life in that context is cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. Anything that we can do to get people to cycle safely and legally will make it easier for those of us who want to extend facilities for cyclists. There are sensible ways forward. In Cambridge we have been using a “lights instead of tickets” campaign to make sure that people get their lights. I welcome the new clause as a sensible step forward.
I shall spend most of my time talking about schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I have tabled a series of amendments. There has been particular controversy recently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, because of the detention of David Miranda, the partner of The Guardian journalist working on the Edward Snowden leaks. This has led to the Independent Police Complaints Commission taking the Met to the High Court over failure to address complaints and how schedule 7 is used. This is a very broadly written power. It should not be a surprise that it has expanded from its original use in Northern Ireland in the 1970s to become worse and worse as illiberal Governments have made it even heavier.
It seems to me that it is not right for people who “look like terrorists” to be detained. That is exactly what happens under schedule 7. StopWatch has done a huge amount of work on this. Last year there were 64,000 schedule 7 stops—a huge number. Twenty-seven per cent. of those stopped for under an hour were Asian, much more than their proportion in the community, and 77% of those stopped for more than an hour were from ethnic minority populations. We should not consider that acceptable. StopWatch cites some chilling quotes from one man Glasgow who said that
“the first thing you ask your friend is . . . not how was the holiday, it’s did you get stopped and what did they ask you?”
If we are setting up a power that creates huge concern in the Muslim and ethnic minority populations, that will separate people from the bulk of our country and is deeply alarming. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and David Anderson QC have also commented on how damaging that is.
This is a matter that Liberal Democrats have been concerned about for a long time. It is not just about David Miranda, who has the support of The Guardian. It is also about people who are detained routinely. That is why my party has debated this and why I tabled a range of proposals. There are many concerns about schedule 7. One option would be to get rid of it. There are alternative powers in section 47A. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There are other options that we have looked at. I would like to see us committed to David Anderson QC’s proposals to limit the scope of schedule 7. The Government should introduce provisions to that effect in the other place.
I have also proposed implementing proposals that my party made at our conference. They include getting rid of the principle that authorities can stop people without any suspicion at all, restoring the right to silence for those who are detained, and questioning to be recorded from start to finish. Restoring confidence and the basic principles of the rule of law to that process and making sure that data collected are not used inappropriately should be important in the case of David Miranda. I also propose a statutory principle of annual review and a sunset clause. The Government should look at these proposals and I hope they will take advantage of the process to make sure that that happens. I am glad that that is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I would love to deal with the proposals made by the Opposition and their proposals to ban synthetic caffeine, but in the interests of time I will allow the Minister to respond.
Damian Green
I am grateful. I shall be brief.
On new clause 26, as I said in Committee, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the clause. The work of a great number of people, whether within the public or the private sector, brings them into face-to-face contact with members of the public, and we know that some of these people suffer violence in the course of their jobs. It is essential that we are satisfied that the law adequately addresses this issue. However, I do not think the new clause is necessary to achieve that. There is already a range of offences that have general application and that criminalise violent behaviour and they would already apply in the context envisaged by the clause. Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so could well result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. So I do not think the clause is necessary, although as I said, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.
New clause 27 seeks to introduce a system of independent authorisation for undercover policing operations. I announced to the Home Affairs Committee in June our intention to legislate to enhance oversight of undercover law enforcement officer deployments. This can be done through secondary legislation and I will lay the appropriate order before the House shortly.
The changes will mean that law enforcement agencies will need to notify the Surveillance Commissioners, all retired senior judges, at the outset of undercover operations and get their prior approval for every deployment that lasts longer than 12 months. In addition, I am increasing the rank of the authorising officer. Deployments of undercover law enforcement officers will be authorised at assistant chief constable level or equivalent. Deployments lasting longer than 12 months will be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent. The rank of an authorising officer for emergency deployments will increase from inspector to superintendent level or equivalent. These changes will promote the highest standards of professionalism and excellence in this most sensitive area of policing and therefore achieve the aims of new clause 28. I hope they will be welcomed by the House.
On schedule 7, there is clearly debate on whether this requires further modification along the lines proposed in some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. For the purposes of the debate today, I put it to my hon. Friend and to the Chair of the Joint Committee that it is premature to consider making such changes because the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of these powers in the case of David Miranda. The Government, sensibly, will want to examine carefully any recommendations he makes in his report, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will want to do likewise. It would be wrong to pre-empt that report or commit now to implementing its recommendations. It is for the independent reviewer to make recommendations, but it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what legislative changes should flow from them.
Given the importance of these issues, any such legislative proposals should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, as with the provisions in the Bill, rather than being implemented through secondary legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggests in amendment 150. Although I welcome this contribution—
‘Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602) | In Schedule 1, paragraph 5(4) to (6).’. |
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Dog number control notice—
(1) This section applies where more than one dog is being kept in a domestic property in England or Wales.
(2) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that the number of dogs being kept in a domestic property gives rise to a risk that any one or more of the dogs may become dangerously out of control while in or partly in the domestic property (“the risk”), he or she may serve on the person in charge a written control notice which—
(a) states that the authorised officer is of that belief;
(b) specifies the maximum number of dogs which, in the opinion of the authorised officer, are capable of being kept in the domestic property such as to sufficiently reduce the risk;
(c) requires the person in charge to reduce the number of dogs kept in the domestic property to no more than the number specified under paragraph (b) and;
(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the control notice must be complied with.
(3) A control notice may be served on more than one person in respect of one domestic property.
(4) It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (2).
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(6) An authorised officer may make a complaint to a Magistrates’ Court if a person in charge fails, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified.
(7) A Magistrates’ Court receiving a complaint under subsection (6) shall, if it finds that the person in charge has failed to comply with the steps required in a control notice, make an order in a summary way directing any of the dogs kept in the domestic property to be destroyed.
(8) In this section—
“authorised officer” means a person appointed by a local authority within whose area the domestic property is situated for the purposes of this section;
“domestic property” means a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both);
“person in charge” means the owner or owners, and if different, person or persons for the time being in charge of the dogs.
New clause 17—Community protection notices (dogs)—
(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice (dogs) to the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog if they have reasonable cause to believe that—
(a) the dog is not under sufficient control, and
(b) preventative measures are required to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal.
(2) An “authorised person” means a police officer, local authority dog warden, or other authorised person.
(3) A community protection notice (dogs) is a notice that imposes any of the following requirements on the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog—
(a) a requirement to have the dog microchipped;
(b) a requirement to obtain third party liability insurance;
(c) a requirement for the dog to be kept on a leash in public;
(d) a requirement for the dog to be muzzled in public;
(e) a requirement for the transferring or relinquishing of ownership of the dog without notifying the enforcing authority.
(4) A community protection notice may be issued—
(a) without notice, and
(b) with immediate effect.
(5) A person issued with a community protection notice (dogs) who fails to comply with it commits an offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
New clause 18—Requirement to fit a post box guard where a dog is present—
(1) The Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations to require householders to fit a guard to their letterbox if—
(a) the householder owns a dog,
(b) the dog is kept in residential premises to which the letterbox is fitted,
(c) the letterbox opens directly into those premises, and
(d) a person may reasonably conclude that there is the possibility of the dog causing harm to someone using the letterbox.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision in respect of—
(a) the size and style of the guard to be fitted, and
(b) the householder to be liable to a civil penalty for any harm caused as a result of failing to comply with this requirement.
(3) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
New clause 19—Written control notice—
(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and, if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
(a) states that he or she is of that belief;
(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;
(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice.
(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and
(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.
(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;
(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;
(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;
(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and
(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.
(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in wild state.
(7) A person served with a dog control notice may appeal against the notice to a magistrates’ court within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which that person was served with the notice.
(8) The grounds on which a person served such a notice may appeal are one or more of the following—
(a) that the notice contains required steps which are unreasonable in character, or extent, or are unnecessary; or
(b) that there has been some defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice.
(9) On hearing of the appeal the court may—
(a) quash the dog control notice to which the appeal relates; or
(b) vary the notice in such a manner as it thinks fit; or
(c) dismiss the appeal.
New clause 29—Improving the welfare of seized dogs—
(1) Where an expert examination is required for a dog that is alleged to be one to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies that examination must be carried out and completed by both the defence and prosecution within 28 days of seizure of the dog and a written report produced within one week of the examination.
(2) If the prosecution or defence fail to carry out the examination as described in subsection 1 within the requisite period the prosecution or defence, as the case may be, may not rely in evidence on any expert report involving an examination of that dog after the 28 day period unless the Court extends this period.
(3) In considering any application to extend the examination period the Court must take into account the welfare of the dog, the costs of kennelling the dog and any other relevant matters.
New clause 30—Rehoming of prohibited types of dog—
(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4B(1)(b) (Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction) after the first “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”, and after the second “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”.
Amendment 143, in clause 98, page 69, line 43, leave out subsection 2(a).
Amendment 140, page 70, leave out line 3 and insert—
(ii) for “injures any person” there is substituted “injures or kills any person or assistance dog”.’.
Amendment 144, page 70, line 6, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.
Amendment 145, page 70, line 7, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.
Amendment 146, page 70, line 11, after ‘(or is both)’, add
‘or in premises used partially or wholly for business purposes’.
Amendment 147, page 70, line 17, at end insert—
(iii) D (if not present at any time) could have reasonably believed V to be in, or entering the building or part as a trespasser if they had been present.’.
Amendment 134, page 70, line 23, at end insert—
‘(1C) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case where they, or an associated person, are being attacked by another person or another dog at the relevant time.
(1D) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are a vet or someone working in a veterinary practice at the relevant time.
(1E) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they themselves are the victim of any incident involving their dog.
(1F) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are removing in connection with their work.
(1G) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are required to maintain in any police or court proceedings or if they are assisting the courts as a witness (expert or otherwise).
(1H) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog that they are authorised or required to look after in connection with their work.
(1I) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are looking after by virtue of the dog being in their kennels.
(1J) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is a police dog or a dog being used in an official capacity to assist with their work.
(1K) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is an assistance dog.
(1L) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are registered blind.
(1M) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) if, as a result of any disability, they were not able to physically prevent the offence.
(1N) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) unless they encouraged the dog in its actions.’.
Amendment 133, page 70, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2A) If an owner of a dog, and if different the person for the time being in charge of a dog unreasonably omits to keep the dog under proper control, or if he causes, or encourages the dog to attack a protected animal, and any of those things lead to the injury or death of a protected animal he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2B) A “protected animal” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.’.
Amendment 141, page 70, line 28, at end insert—
(iii) for “two years” there is substituted “fourteen years”.’.
Amendment 142, page 70, line 28, at end insert—
‘(1C) In proceedings for an offence under section 3(1) it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he took reasonable steps to prevent the dog being dangerously out of control.’.
Amendment 135, page 70, line 41, at end insert—
‘(1B) Anyone authorised to seize a dog under subsection 1A is exempted from the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.’.
Amendment 98, page 70, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert
‘for the purposes of this Act, “assistance dog” means a dog which has been accredited to assist a disabled person by a prescribed charity or other organisation.’.
Amendment 97, page 70, line 46, at end insert
‘“dwelling”, for the purposes of section 3, includes enclosed buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling and associated with it, where a person might reasonably expect to find a dog, such as garages, sheds and other outbuildings;’.
Amendment 132, page 70, line 47, leave out subsection (6)(b).
Amendment 99, in clause 99, page 71, line 33, at end add—.
‘(5) After section 7 there is inserted—
“7A Fit and proper person code of practice
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a draft code of practice giving guidance about the matters to be considered when determining whether someone is a fit and proper person for the purposes of sections 1, 4 and 4B.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) any draft code of practice prepared under this section; and
(b) an order to be made by statutory instrument providing for the code to come into force, subject to subsection (4).
(3) Before preparing such a draft code, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(4) Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(a), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—
(a) the Secretary of State may issue the code in the form of the draft; and
(b) it shall come into force in accordance with provision made under subsection (2)(b).”.’.
Mr Reed
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to move this new clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).
Dangerous dogs, or, perhaps more accurately, irresponsible dog owners, are a serious public threat. Not only do we have a duty to act, but there is widespread agreement on what form that action should take. I regret to say that the Government are the only ones standing meekly on the sidelines, refusing to take the necessary action. Having failed to lead from the start with this Bill, the Government refused to act in Committee, despite the support of their own Back Benchers for such action, but I hope, with a new Minister in place, there will be a fresh approach and a chance to move forward and tackle this menace.
I want to start by speaking to amendment 141, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I have strong sympathy with the case he is making, and which he made in Committee, for a much stronger punishment for irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to maim and kill. We were deeply disappointed, however, that the Government failed to meet their own promise, made in an open Committee, to publish the findings of a consultation on what level of sentencing would be appropriate in such cases before the Bill returned to the Chamber.
As it was, the Minister wrote to members of the Committee last Friday, after the tabling deadline. An e-mail was sent at 5.50 in the evening, stating that the Government had not had time to review the consultation responses, and that therefore no Government amendment would be put before the House. It was in good faith that the Opposition did not table an amendment, as we believed his predecessor’s word that the consultation would result in a Government amendment. Announcing that he would not do anything after the tabling deadline was not a welcome start to the Minister’s tenure in the Home Office. I hope that we will not see a repeat of those tactics.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the families and loved ones of victims who have been injured or killed by out-of-control dogs will be very disappointed that their representatives in this House will not be able to vote on the precise measures and changes that are required to increase the sentences for such actions?
Mr Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have read the comments that he made in Committee and sympathise with his views. I hope to address them further in my comments.
The Opposition supported increasing the guideline prison terms for manslaughter under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in Committee. We continue to support an increase, although we would prefer to have the consultation response before the House so that an informed decision can be made. Our starting point is that the current maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment for allowing one’s dog to kill someone is far too lenient. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford will accept our support in principle for toughening the sentencing guidelines and work with us in the other place to agree on appropriate sentencing guidelines, informed by the consultation response when the Government get around to publishing it.
New clause 3 would introduce dog control notices. I believe that this measure enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House and near-unanimous support from outside organisations with an interest in dangerous dogs and animal welfare. When reading the Committee transcripts, I was struck by the strength of support from Government Back Benchers, in addition to the support from Labour Members. However, that should not be surprising. Taking responsible, tough action to protect people from dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners is plain common sense and something that Members on all sides of the House should support.
Yesterday, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) to meet the father of Jade Anderson, who was savaged to death by four dogs when she was just 14 years old. Michael Anderson and his friend Royston had cycled down from Bolton in support of the Justice for Jade campaign. They came to lobby Members of this House because they want dog control notices to be introduced in England and Wales, as they have been in Scotland. To lose a child is bad enough; to live with the knowledge of the appalling circumstances in which they died is almost too much to bear. I can offer Mr Anderson only my support, sympathy and admiration that he is seeking to make something good out of such desperate and tragic circumstances.
Sadly, Jade’s case is not an isolated one. Since 2005, nine children and seven adults have died as a consequence of dog attacks. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospital in England and Wales after dog attacks. That is almost 20 attacks a day that result in someone ending up in hospital. Not only could many of those attacks be prevented by dog control notices, but the cost of those attacks to the NHS, the police and communities is an avoidable drain on already overstretched resources.
Dog control notices are not punitive. They provide a menu of options that local authorities and the police can use to act in the interests of their local communities against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend and those who tabled new clause 3, which would improve the Bill. May I also commend to him and other hon. Members new clause 17, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? It would dovetail nicely with new clause 3 and would allow the notices to be published there and then at the point when they are needed, rather than waiting for an attack to take place.
Mr Reed
I thank my hon. Friend, who has an abiding interest in this issue, for that most helpful intervention. I will seek to address his point further in my comments.
Dog control notices include the following measures: requiring a potentially dangerous dog to be muzzled whenever it is in a public place; requiring it to be kept on a lead in places to which the public have access; neutering male dogs; and requiring dogs and dog owners to attend training classes to bring potentially dangerous animals back under control. A dog control notice would also require the dog to be microchipped and registered, so that any dogs that were found to be in breach could be identified clearly and unambiguously—something that is absolutely necessary for effective enforcement.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to new clause 19, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)? It talks about not only the dog owner, but the person who is in control of the dog at the time. I hope that he will recognise that it is important to hold that person responsible.
Mr Reed
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and helpful point. I recognise the sense of what he says.
It is disappointing that on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government resisted dog control notices and said that community protection notices would be sufficient. I can only hope that, having read the Committee transcripts, the new Minister will bring fresh eyes to the issue and use fresh ears to listen to the experience of outside organisations, the victims of dog attacks and Members from all parts of the House who want tougher action.
The use of community protection notices, as advocated by the Government, is simply not sufficient. They are slow to serve, can be challenged in the courts, causing further delays, and have been described by one outside organisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show leadership on this issue. They could have led this House and this country to act to protect children and adults alike from further dog attacks. However, the powers in the Bill and the limited changes to which the Government are clinging are not sufficient—not even close.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 3. Does he agree that one of the successes of devolution is that we in Westminster can learn from the experiences of the devolved authorities in various matters and do not have to reinvent the wheel? Will he refer later in his speech to the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Mr Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.
The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:
“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s response on this serious issue. I do not know whether he saw the Chair of that Committee’s summary of what was in the report, in which she said that what the Government had brought forward was “woefully inadequate”. She said that unless we have a measure that deals effectively with prevention, we will not tackle the problem at its source. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the introduction of dog control notices, what the Government propose is indeed woefully inadequate?
Mr Reed
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that sensible view on the record. Of course, I am sympathetic to it. Indeed, I will add another sensible view, that of the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said:
“We remain unconvinced that CPNs will fulfil the same purpose as bespoke Dog Control Notices.”
I could go on to read the evidence to the Bill Committee of organisation after organisation: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, police and crime commissioners, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Although that would support my argument, I fear that a lengthy recitation would weary the House. However, two further sources of support for dog control notices are worth drawing to the House’s attention.
First, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) helpfully drew the Bill Committee’s attention to the fact that before the general election, the Conservative party pledged to give police and councils more power to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs through the introduction of dog control notices. As it happens, the same is true of the Liberal Democrats, who also supported such notices when in opposition. We are used to the policies of one or other Government party being lost in coalition fudges, but I am not aware of a policy supported by both parties being lost in such a way. On this occasion, not only do I agree with Nick, but I am willing to agree with Dave as well. If we all agree, for goodness’ sake let us act and bring in long-overdue and much-needed tough but fair measures to deal with dangerous dogs. Six thousand hospitalisations a year is too many simply to look the other way. I would challenge any Member to sit down with Michael Anderson, Jade’s father, as I did yesterday, and not conclude that the measures that we suggest must be on the statute book.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who is in her place, for tabling new clause 6, which is similar to new clause 3 in many ways. It highlights her commitment to bringing her constituency issues to the House in the most powerful way possible.
New clauses 17, 29 and 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), were mentioned earlier. They include a number of further sensible and proportionate measures to deal with dangerous dogs, and I am sure that Members of the other place will want to study them carefully in their less time-pressured environment and take up many of them.
I must push the Minister to accept new clause 3. To date, the Bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government. The need for tougher action is clear and well evidenced, and the desire to act has been endorsed not just by the parties of government before the last election but by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and by every major organisation that deals with dangerous dogs, animal welfare and irresponsible owners. The means to act are now before the Minister, and I urge him to take the chance to do so.
Huw Irranca-Davies
In the many months since the Government brought forward their provisional proposals, they have failed to persuade any of those good and sensible people and organisations of their case. Those are not stupid organisations and people, and I urge Members to support them and support new clause 3.
Mr Spencer
I rise to speak to new clause 19 and amendments 97 to 99, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) tabled. Like the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), we are keen to ensure that there is provision for written notices so that not only dog owners but those in charge of a dog at any time have control of that animal and prevent it from causing injury or damage to any person or any other animal.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
We have all heard the tragic tales of those who have been injured or even killed by dogs that are out of control, and the issue is of growing concern to the public. I am therefore glad at least to see that the Government are prepared to do something to tackle the problem.
The cases that have stuck out in the debate that has taken place over the past few years relate to children such as John Paul Massey, from Liverpool, who died three or four years ago; the girl from Chingford who was in the park and nearly lost part of her ear because of an attack by a dog that was running free, unrestrained by its owner; and Jade Anderson, who died recently and about whom we have heard today. There was also the case of Keith Davies, the postman in Cambridgeshire who was attacked in a cul-de-sac by two rottweilers that had escaped from behind the gates of a private residence, and who nearly lost an arm. It was saved only through the skilful intervention of surgeons. Paul Coleman, the Sheffield postman who got me involved in this campaign, nearly lost his leg as a result of an attack on the street where I used to live by a dog that was roaming free on the public highway.
All those cases indicate to me that enough is enough. We spend £9.5 million a year on NHS costs alone to deal with the injuries inflicted on human beings by dogs that are out of control, and that is before considering the costs incurred by the police and other bodies in dealing with the issue. Any progress, however slight, is therefore welcome. I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to extend the law to private property. The onus will now be on owners to exercise responsible control of their dogs at all times, which will be welcomed not just by postal workers but by other delivery workers, health visitors, doctors, party members canvassing at election times and a whole range of other people. That really important safeguard will be more than welcome, because 6,000 postal workers a year alone are injured as a result of attacks on private property.
I believe that a strengthening of the defence must be built into the proposed legislation. The Bill currently includes the defence of general household protection, but amendment 142 would strengthen the defences given to householders who do their utmost to ensure they keep their dogs under reasonable control. It is my contention, and that of bodies such as the RSPCA, that the current defence does not do enough to protect householders who do their best to keep their dogs under control at all times. We can never legislate for all possibilities, and it is important that we include the best possible defences in the Bill to ensure that householders do not, for example, adopt the habit of keeping dogs imprisoned in the house for most of the day because they have visitors. That would be unreasonable, but the Bill as currently drafted could make dog owners feel vulnerable to the proposed legislation, and therefore adopt those unfortunate welfare standards. Amendment 142 is reasonable and I hope the Minister will take it seriously.
My general point about the content of the Bill is that we need more than currently exists. What we do have is not necessarily best designed and in many ways is inadequate for encouraging responsible dog ownership and improving the welfare of dogs more generally. We need not only consolidation of the legislation but a comprehensive look at what measures we need for dog control. That position is supported by a grand coalition of charities and trade unions, including the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. The Dogs Trust pointed out that 12 pieces of legislation in statute deal with dog control, but little emphasis is placed on the prevention of attacks and there is little focus on responsible dog ownership.
We need legislation that deals with dog ownership in the broadest possible sense, which is why I am working with animal welfare charities on a strategy to take a long-term look at what needs to be done, and at how charities work together to improve welfare standards and responsible dog ownership. Once finalised, legislation will inevitably be part of that strategy, focusing not only on dog control by the dog owner but on the breeding and sale of dogs, and the responsibility of all involved in dog welfare, including dog owners.
The Bill does not tackle that issue holistically or comprehensively, and along with animal welfare charities I remain disappointed that we have not had a dedicated Bill to update the legislation. Community protection notices are a blunt and unwieldy measure, not suited to the task of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. As indicated by the changes in new clause 17, the Bill contains no power to issue notices instantly so as to get on top of a dog that is potentially dangerous or out of control as soon as the situation occurs. In some cases, inevitably, the authorities will wait until an attack has been committed before issuing a notice, because they will not feel they should intervene and go through the unwieldy procedure to get a written notice before they can make that move. I do not believe that the Bill tackles those issues. New clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), contains the important requirement that an owner whose dog is potentially out of control should be made to engage in training and behaviour courses related to their ownership of the dog, and in that sense the new clause is helpful.
New clause 17 provides for a bespoke community protection notice modelled on the dog control notices recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Guidance has already been issued on community protection notices and the measures in the Bill, but so far that guidance is long and difficult to interpret, and much of the support offered is found in the annexes to the guidance, not the guidance itself. As far as animal welfare charities are concerned, there will be an issue about the interpretation of that guidance, and a risk that animal welfare standards will be compromised as a result of the way it has been drafted. The guidance has not been produced properly in consultation with animal welfare charities.
Finally—you have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will refer quickly to the new clauses that relate to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Clearly, section 1 on breed-specific legislation is not working. In a consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that Act and the measures before us today, 71% of those consulted thought that the breed-specific section of that Act should be repealed because it is not working. It costs a tremendous amount of money to kennel dogs seized under section 1 of the Act, with an annual cost over the past three financial years of £2.6 million for the Metropolitan police alone.
The new clauses relate to the need to ensure that a time limit is imposed on the courts regarding how long a banned-breed dog can be held before the issue of whether it should be exempt from the legislation is dealt with, to ensure that animal welfare standards are not compromised. That is critical. There should also be the power to rehome dogs that are fit for exemption but have nowhere to go. The only other choice available to animal welfare charities at the moment is euthanasia, which is not good enough. It is the deed not the breed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that important issue, which I know the Metropolitan police, as well as animal charities such as the RSPCA, are keen to see dealt with.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will not impose a time limit, but we must finish by 4.30 pm and we need 10 minutes for the Minister. I will try to get everybody in, but can we try to stick to five minutes wherever possible?
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I rise to address amendment 133 tabled in my name, which looks specifically at extending the Bill to include protected animals. I tabled a similar amendment—slightly differently worded—in Committee, and it has been redrafted by animal welfare charities for consideration today. The amendment is intended to be limited in scope, and would not capture a genuine, accidental attack by a dog on a protected animal—that was one concern raised in Committee. For example, some dogs chase cats or other small animals, and that would not be caught by the amendment, which refers specifically to attacks.
From previous discussions in Committee we know there has been an increase in attacks on protected animals. Charities, law enforcement agencies and the general public are concerned about the increase, yet we do not have a public record of the number of attacks and must rely on press reports. We know that there have been 66 reports of attacks—mostly fatal—on cats, including one last week, when the death of Caspar, which was devastating for the family involved, was reported in the Bolton News.
The problem is genuine for people who love their pets—it is incredibly important to them. My proposal is designed to deal not only with dog-chasing-cat events; attacks are often aggravated. The argument in Committee was that the current legislation deals with the problem, but some animal welfare charities beg to differ. For example, it is true that the RSPCA has used section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on occasion to prosecute following dog attacks on other animals, but there is often incitement by the animal’s keeper or a history of other attacks. It can therefore be difficult to obtain information or prove a case, which means that section 4 is not a straightforward mechanism for prosecution.
Ann Coffey
I shall speak to new clause 18, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Rightly, there is a lot of concern about serious injury and death caused by aggressive dogs, and I support the measures proposed by my hon. Friends to tighten the current criminal law and introduce stricter penalties.
New clause 18 deals with a different situation—it is a simple preventive measure to stop injuries to many people who, every year, post millions of bits of paper through letterboxes. It is not unknown for dogs to regard fingers put through letterboxes as curiosities and fair game for fastening their teeth on. Some dogs are aggressive, but others might simply believe they are being playful. The thought of a dog hurtling itself at a letterbox might conjure up visions of an hilarious scene from a sitcom, but for the real-life recipient, it can be traumatic and painful. People can sustain injuries ranging from bite marks and minor bruising to fingers or nerves being severed, causing long-term injury. Some years ago, I had to take my constituency assistant to accident and emergency for a serious injury to her hand sustained while leafleting.
The amendment requires householders who keep a dog in their house to put up a wire mesh guard around their letterbox where there is a reasonable probability that, either through aggression or playfulness, it could go for somebody’s hand. I am not saying that every dog owner must rush out and buy a wire guard—if they have a good dog there is no need to worry. However, if there is a chance that their dog might jump up and, for whatever reason, bite someone through the letterbox, it would be up to them to take responsibility to prevent accidents and put in a simple wire guard.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying. While delivering leaflets during the previous general election campaign, I was bitten by a dog. It took an hour out of my life to have a tetanus injection at the hospital.
Ann Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure his experience is shared by a lot of hon. Members.
If dog owners fail to comply with the requirement and there is an incident, the person bitten would be entitled to take a civil court action against them. By this simple measure, I believe that many injuries could be averted every year, and it has the added advantage of protecting householders from the hostility generated if their dog bites someone, particularly if that happens to be a child.
I understand that there may not be much public sympathy for politicians who get bitten by dogs, but this is not simply a problem for politicians. Many people push leaflets and letters through doors, including: postmen and women; newspaper boys and girls; people starting up new businesses or advertising pizza and other fast food services; neighbours posting Christmas and birthday cards; and people posting leaflets advertising community events.
I support the other amendments that have been tabled that aim to change criminal law, to make owners manage their dogs better and to put stricter penalties in place. However, my amendment is designed with safety, not the criminal law, in mind and I hope the Government will feel able to accept it. If they do not, I hope they will include the proposal in any future consultation.
Richard Fuller
I rise to speak to amendments 140 and 141 in my name, which would increase the maximum sentence to 14 years for owners of an out-of-control dog that kills or injures a person or assistance dog. I am happy that the Government responded to the requests of the Committee and conducted a consultation over the summer. However, I am disappointed that the results are not available.
People have the right to see their representatives debate fully and vote on what sentences they feel are appropriate to be imposed on the owners of out-of-control dogs. Those people include the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been an outstanding campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of out-of-control dogs across the country. They include the families who have lost loved ones over the years, as hon. Members have mentioned in their speeches, and the 13-year-old boy who was attacked in Bradford a couple of months ago. As reported by the Daily Mail, he suffered a 10-minute attack which ended with the young boy saying, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” These people have the right to see us debate how we intend to increase sentences.
The Communication Workers Union has a lot on its plate these days, but like any good union it is thinking first and foremost about the safety and well-being of its members. Five thousand postal workers are attacked each year by dogs. They have the right to have the House debate the right sentence. It is important for the Minister to understand that the CWU supports a 14-year sentence for the killing of a person by an out-of-control dog. The police also have a right to see us debate and vote on this issue today. In their evidence to the Committee, they raised the total and utter inadequacy of the current legislation in dealing with the important and increasing problem of attacks by out-of-control dogs. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s comments. I do not want to hear any flim-flam from him about how he is not sure where this is going and how we should just trust the Government to get it right.
Richard Fuller
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because others want to get in.
I believe that 14 years is the right maximum penalty. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for saying that, in many ways, it is equivalent to the maximum penalty imposed for dangerous driving. I believe that 14 years would send a strong message that owners must now take responsibility, and not just assume that it lies with the dog, and to judges, who today, even with the inadequate maximum penalty available, are not handing out very significant sentences when they should.
I want us to provide reassurance that this would be a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty, and that we are not asking people to lock up their dogs, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned; we have to get the balance right. I will listen to the Minister, who is casting a fresh set of eyes on this, but let us not forget that at the moment the dog gets a death penalty, but the owner walks away pretty much scot-free. That is not responsible. The Government need to be responsible today and say what they intend to do.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I want to speak specifically to new clause 6, other new clauses in my name and some of the amendments.
The House will be aware of the tragedy that occurred in my constituency on 26 March, when 14-year-old Jade Lomas-Anderson was killed by four out-of-control dogs in the house of a friend where she was staying overnight. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) has paid tribute to Jade’s dad and his friend Royston Brett, who cycled from Atherton to Westminster over the weekend to add their voice to those calling for the legislation to be strengthened in this area.
By all accounts, Jade was a smashing girl, full of life, kind to everyone and a good friend to many. When her parents were asked what Jade would have thought about their campaign for justice, they answered that she would have been the first to campaign, as she was such a caring girl. Her life was cut tragically short, but because of shortcomings in current legislation, no one can be held accountable. The tragedy has had a profound effect, not only on Jade’s mum and dad, Shirley and Michael, and her immediate family, but on the whole community of Atherton.
Jade’s parents have bravely led a campaign supported by the community and by Wigan council to ensure that no other family suffers like they have. As Michael says, this is a problem of epidemic proportions. According to the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, 1 million dogs have displayed dangerous behaviour towards people and animals in the past year. About 250,000 attacks are made by dogs each year and 12 postal workers will have been attacked by dogs today. The cost to the NHS and taxpayers is about £9.5 million. According to my figures, more than 6,000 people are hospitalised each year, many of whom will have received life-changing injuries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North said the number was higher. There have been 16 deaths since 2005 and I cannot even say that Jade was the last person to die, because in May 79-year-old Clifford Clarke was killed in Liverpool. In the area around Hag Fold, where Jade was killed, I know of three serious attacks since March. It is endless.
I am pleased that the Government are taking the issue seriously and that people could now be prosecuted for attacks on private property, and I sincerely hope that they will bring forward proposals to increase the penalties when the Bill goes to the other place, in the way that the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) just described. I still believe, however, that they are missing a trick by ignoring the call from all the dog charities, the CWU, vets, nurses and the police to introduce straightforward legislation on dog control notices. I am sure that they believe their proposals will tackle this issue, but when all the dog charities and other vested interests are telling them they have got it wrong, they should listen. Fears that the Government’s proposals are too bureaucratic; that there would have to be more than one incident; that they would not apply if the dog had already been brought under control; and that they would not tackle the problem of dogs first becoming dangerously out of control must be taken seriously and be addressed either today or when the Bill goes to the other place. I hope that the Government see sense today and accept new clause 3.
Let me move on to new clause 6. I believe that the issue of having too many dogs in a household should be tackled as part of dog control notices. I wish I could talk in detail about the dogs that killed Jade, but unfortunately I cannot because the dogs’ owner still awaits sentence on dog cruelty charges. This demonstrates well how dog welfare and community safety are closely linked. For that reason, I will have to speak in the abstract.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
What the hon. Lady says about the number of animals sometimes kept in the home is extremely important. On a lot of estates, it is the number of animals that often leads to a lack of control. Does she agree that one of the most important ways of trying to tackle the problem is to get local authorities to engage with housing tenancies and use the management of those tenancies to control the number of dogs in houses and perhaps to say that the top of a tall building, for example, is entirely unsuitable for keeping pets?
Julie Hilling
I want to say more about that. I agree with the hon. Lady, but the issue does not apply only to social housing, which is why we need legislative change so that the problem of people having too many dogs can be tackled wherever somebody lives. She is right that we need to do more for people in social housing and other rented properties.
The number of dogs creates a problem not just in relation to community safety. A recent event was organised on Hag Fold estate by Wigan council to micro-chip dogs and promote responsible ownership as part of the Jade campaign. Two volunteers, Councillor Karen Aldred and the wonderful local resident Sandi Lucas, went knocking on doors to try to find dog owners to encourage them to attend the event. When they knocked on one door, they were told, “Well, I haven’t got any dogs, but go over there because the owner has loads of dogs and is creating mayhem in the community.” That owner had seven dogs in a small house, creating noise, unpleasant smells and making life a misery for the neighbours. I am working with Wigan and Leigh Housing on tenancy clauses for dog ownership, but as I said, the issue is not confined to social housing; we need simple remedies for all.
The new clause does not specify how many dogs should be in a household because I am not trying to restrict the responsible ownership of dogs. Frankly, if someone lives on a country estate with vast grounds, they can have as many dogs as they want, as long as they do not cause danger or disturbance to anyone else. I hope that the Government will listen to calls from communities to give them the powers they need for people to live peaceful and safe lives.
Let me touch briefly on the issue of breeding dogs. We know that a strong contributory factor to dogs becoming out of control is how they are socialised in the first few weeks of their lives—whether, for example, they are taken away from their mother too soon or are appropriately socialised with other dogs and people or are sold to people who know how to train and look after them. This may be an issue for the urgently needed dog welfare and control Act, which I shall continue to press the Government to introduce because, whatever the results of these provisions, we still need holistic legislation to deal with those issues.
Finally, I want to press the Government to extend the legislation to cover attacks on all protected animals. Attacking other animals is a sign that dogs are becoming dangerously out of control and therefore a threat to people. Why should a responsible pet owner have to face the trauma of an attack and the related veterinary expenses and heartache? Many owners are actually injured while trying to protect their beloved pets, such as the woman in Atherton who, just two weeks ago, lost part of her finger when she picked up her dog to protect it from a ferocious dog.
There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, but it does not go far enough. I ask the Government to look again and to support our new clauses and amendments to strengthen the Bill. Jade, her parents and all the other victims of dog attacks deserve no less.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am sure that she spoke for the whole House in relation to the case of poor Jade Anderson. Sadly, that is just the latest and most tragic example of what the hon. Lady rightly described as an epidemic of dog attacks which are hospitalising thousands, and injuring thousands of postal workers and others. I am afraid that there have been many distressing cases in my own constituency, which led me to become involved in what has been quite a long campaign. I pay tribute to, in particular, the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), both of whom have campaigned very persistently.
For many years it seemed as if the Government were not budging at all on the issue, so it is enormously welcome that we are considering it in the context of this Bill, and that the Government are taking action. Their action is being taken step by step—it is rather gradualist—and that may be frustrating for some of us, but we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We should recognise the positive steps that are being taken in the Bill, not least in the context of the Government’s earlier action in setting a timetable for the introduction of universal microchipping. That will help us to identify the real culprits, who—as many Members have pointed out—are irresponsible dog owners as much as the dogs themselves, some of which are just more victims of this phenomenon.
The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and others have made a strong case for dog control orders. I have been sympathetic to that idea for many years, but I should be content if we could achieve the same outcome by other means. I understand the Government’s position; I realise that their main purpose is to simplify and rationalise antisocial behaviour legislation without sacrificing flexibility. The Bill underlines the important point that the issue of dangerous dogs is inextricably linked with that of human antisocial behaviour. If we can tackle one by tackling the other, I shall be satisfied, even if the legislation does not include the actual words “dog control order”.
One of the most important provisions involves the extension of liability for dangerous dogs to private property. Liberty has expressed some concern about the so-called “bite a burglar” provisions, and I think that Ministers need to consider those carefully. Our two contradictory instincts are to say, quite rightly, that burglars who enter other people’s properties with malicious intent should do so entirely at their own risk, and to support the extension to private property of liability for the dangerous behaviour of animals. Both are worthy instincts, and resolving that conflict will be a difficult task for Ministers. I speak as the brother of a postal worker who is very keen for the Bill to proceed.
Martin Horwood
I am sorry, but I will not, because of the time.
Another important provision, which has not been mentioned much in the debate so far, is clause 99, which begins the necessary shift from breed to deed. It requires a court to establish whether a dog is
“a danger to public safety”,
given
“the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour”,
and to establish whether the dog’s owner is a “fit and proper person” to own a dog. I agree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge of the rather strange list of obscure breeds, which I am not sure that most police forces would recognise even if they came across them. I do not know whether we will eventually abolish that list, but I certainly think it significant that the Bill is embarking on that shift towards tackling deed and behaviour rather than just breed.
I have some sympathy for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). They seek tougher sentencing, underlining the fact that in many instances dogs are used as lethal weapons, and that we should see that in the context of the responsibility of their owners. I also have some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), as, I think, will legions of Liberal Democrat “Focus” deliverers. My constituent Councillor Rob Reid provided me with a paddle which I now use to push leaflets through letter boxes. A deliverer can take some responsible action. The paddle now bears a good many teeth marks, which could have been on my fingers. Councillor Reid made it by cutting up old “Yes to the alternative vote” campaign placards, which is probably one of the lesser but more positive outcomes of that campaign.
Angela Smith
Is it not true that, if we legislate specifically to require dog owners to put guards on their letter boxes, we will run the danger of neglecting the other risks that people face when they go on to private property, such as dogs running free in back gardens? Is it not the case that there are a number of possibilities in terms of dog attacks once someone passes the boundary of the gate?
Martin Horwood
It is important that the Government consult carefully on all these things. We do not want to intrude too much into the realm of private property and what people are allowed to do with their dogs in their property, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is well made.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully the campaign by Naturewatch, which is based in my constituency and led me to table early-day motion 412 to address the issues of irresponsible breeders and the need to regulate the advertising and selling of pets. That could be the next important step that the Government take in their rather gradualist approach to the issue. In many ways, that is one of the root causes of the phenomenon of dangerous and trophy dogs and dogs used as weapons.
For now, however, we should congratulate the Government on taking some important steps to tackle the issue. The steps we are voting on today will help to save lives. They will potentially save the lives of children like poor Jade Anderson and the lives of adults. They will certainly save the lives of pets. Those steps are overwhelmingly to be welcomed.
Luciana Berger
In November four years ago, my constituent, John Paul Massey, was killed by a dog in Wavertree. He was four. It happened during the run-up to the general election. I remember the impact that his death had not only on his family and their friends but on the wider community. To this day, I have people who come to talk to me about the experience of that happening in our community and how it has impacted on them, even though they may just have been a neighbour or someone who lived in a neighbouring street. It is not just John Paul Massey who tragically lost his life. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many other victims. One life lost because of a dog is one life too many. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
I am going to echo many of the comments made by hon. Friends and Members on the Government Benches. I notice that there are people present who have been long-standing campaigners on the issue for far longer than I have following my election in May 2010. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for the hard work that she has done for so many more years than I have on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has been affected in more recent times. We have heard the worst examples and seen evidence in newspapers and on television of the most tragic injuries and of people who are permanently disfigured. As we have heard, every year, thousands of people are hospitalised. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are attacked by a dog and may not present themselves to the NHS. For many of those people, there are long-term psychological consequences. For people on the front line who go into homes, be they social workers, BT workers, meter readers or energy company staff, such attacks can have a long-term impact on their ability to work.
As we have heard, the attacks come at a great cost. The estimates that we have are very conservative. There is a cost of £10 million a year to the NHS. That should cause any Government concern. Equally, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) said, people who are visually impaired will be affected if their guide dog is attacked. I do not think that enough of us know—I learned this only recently—that it costs £50,000 to train and look after a guide dog over its lifetime. That is all charitable money. If a guide dog is attacked by a dog, not only will there be a cost and long-term consequences for the guide dog, but the owner, who has spent time bonding with the guide dog and has depended on it, will no longer have a friend. That can also have long-term consequences.
I support new clause 3, which is in my name and that of many hon. Friends, because I share the criticism by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Although I welcome what the Government have done on the issue, the clear message that I have heard from professionals in the field is that we should prevent dog attacks from happening in the first place.
I have listened very closely to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House, in particular those on the Government Benches who spoke in support of what the Government have come forward with thus far. I have also looked very closely at the community protection notices and I have listened to the professionals who know far better than I do how this will operate in practice, and I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, too, but I have strong concerns. As it stands, CPNs are very bureaucratic and practitioners will need a lot of time and resource to implement them. They will not sufficiently address dog behaviour and welfare. That is, essentially, what all of us here are talking about today. There are also concerns that the CPN will come too late, because the dog owner must be served with a written warning before they can be issued with a CPN.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I welcome what the Government are doing. It is quite brave. Dealing with any topic such as this one fuels great passions. All of us love dogs, but those of us who are parents feel slight fear when we see an unruly dog in a playground or somewhere else.
We have to strike a proper balance. The whole thrust of what the Government are doing in this area is to simplify and make flexible antisocial behaviour legislation so it can be more easily used. Therefore I urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, although I accept they have been tabled for understandable and strong reasons, and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) certainly made a very good contribution. We ought to go forward with what is being proposed, which is CPNs, and see whether they deliver what the Government have assured us they will.
There are DPNs in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Government have looked at them and concluded they would rather have CPNs. If devolution is to mean anything, it must allow Scotland and Northern Ireland to go their own way and the rest of the United Kingdom to go a different way if it perceives that is a better way to deal with the problem.
Mr Syms
No.
We all know the problem is irresponsible dog owners, and the Government’s raft of proposed legislation ought to be able to deal with that effectively. I therefore urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, but I also urge him to give special attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said. The Committee came up with some refreshing ideas. Some of the Back-Bench Members had meetings with Ministers, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Lord de Mauley. The refreshing thing was that they were prepared to look at the issue of the tariff and sentencing. A consultation took place in the summer, and although my hon. Friend is disappointed that it has not yet been published and any changes will be made in the House of Lords, by Whitehall standards this is the speed of light: we have a Bill, we meet a Minister, the Minister undertakes to have a consultation, we have the consultation and in a matter of weeks something will come back to the other place. That is pretty good, so I welcome what the DEFRA officials and the Minister have said.
Richard Fuller
I join my hon. Friend in commending Lord de Mauley for his speed of reaction in DEFRA. We are just looking for the same speed of reaction from the Home Office.
Mr Syms
Absolutely. Progress has been made and the Government listened to our Committee debates. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who mentioned cats, did not mention Mungo and Basil, as they got a mention in Committee. It was an interesting Committee and things were well debated. We made proposals that will improve the Bill. I urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, but to consider the amendment to do with the tariff, which needs to be given serious consideration.
To go back to my first point, the Bill is about simplifying things and making them more flexible, and I urge the Minister to resist more complicated legislation. Let us get on with the job and let us make it easier for legislators. This is a good Bill, extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property and protecting assistance dogs. It contains a lot of good things and if we can get the tariff up as well, it will be a result for those who served on the Committee and for this House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and it was good to hear him speaking in the House, after a period in the Whips on the Front Bench, although what he had to say was still a little too loyal for my taste.
I welcome clause 98 and the extension of the offence of allowing a dog to cause injury or the fear of injury to all places, including all private property. That is long awaited and closes a significant loophole in the law. Ministers have simply been much too slow to make this change. Today, however, particularly with new clause 3, the new Minister has the opportunity to act ahead of a serious and growing problem, instead of just giving a long-delayed response to a problem, as we have seen so far. I am talking about the introduction of dog control notices.
We know that thousands of victims are injured and hospitalised each year as a result of dog attacks. We know that the number of owners sentenced for offences related to dangerous dogs has increased by more than one third since 2009. Just in South Yorkshire the police tell me that in the past year they have responded to 464 dog attack incidents, and that just in 2013 they have so far taken out 26 court cases pursuing prosecution against those owners.
The latest case reported to me was that of Rebecca Lowman of Goldthorpe, who was attacked and badly injured in the arm and leg last month when she was defending a woman who was being attacked by her own dog in her own house. While Becky was still in hospital, I sat down with her husband John, who was very upset by Becky’s injuries and very angry that the police had no ability to act on that dog because the attack took place in that private house.
Since I started campaigning on this issue in the past few weeks, a lot of people have contacted me, including Norma Saunders, who told me that she knows someone who was a victim of a dog attack. She said:
“After the dog attacked several times, our community felt terrorized. I did not let my little boy play in the garden & I did not walk to the shops, but the authorities were not interested.”
I pay tribute to Hallam FM in South Yorkshire, which has taken up this campaign, aired the problems and given listeners the chance to give their experiences over the past week. A couple have phoned in with very powerful points. One said that the law must be changed:
“I was mauled by an American Pitt bull crossed with a Bull mastiff at my friend’s house and as it was in its rightful house nothing could have been done…I have been left with traumatic memories and ugly scars, this dog has not been put down and has in fact bitten someone else”.
Another caller simply said that we should
“just do what is definitely necessary to prevent any more horrific and fatal attacks on innocent people and children.”
The Minister has the chance to do just that this afternoon.
I urge the Minister, taking advantage of his fresh mandate as a new Minister in a new post, to accept new clause 3. Dog control notices have been legislated for in Scotland for three years and this represents a sensible extension of the scope for local authorities, courts and the police to take action against a person in control of a dog whose behaviour is out of control. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has explained some of the steps and sanctions available to the authorities when a dog control notice is in place.
Labour has been arguing this case but Ministers have been dragging their feet for three years now. During that time, thousands more have suffered serious and often debilitating injuries. Most dog owners are responsible and their dogs are well behaved, but a minority see dogs as status symbols or even offensive weapons. The Government must go further than this Bill. Closing the loophole in the legislation over attacks on some private property is a sensible step, but one that they have been pushed to take. Let us see Ministers take the next sensible step this afternoon, introduce and accept the principle of dog control notices and help to reverse the rising trend of attacks and to head off some of the attacks we will otherwise definitely see, which will leave adults and children badly scarred, badly injured, badly traumatised and, in some cases, dead.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I support the Government’s gradualist and sensible approach and I urge the Minister to resist new clause 3. We all regret and are desperately unhappy about vicious attacks by dogs, particularly on children—although also on anybody else—and if legislation could solve that problem and new clause 3 could deal with it without causing massive potential inconvenience to millions of peaceable people who own dogs, I would be in favour of it. However, like all such amendments, it would probably, sadly, do little to control the vicious people who use dogs as weapons and it could impact severely on millions of ordinary, peaceable dog owners.
I declare an interest because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a dog owner. My dog, a little border terrier called William, is a lot smaller than yours. I saw yours in the Westminster dog show last year and many people think that your breed of dog is quite powerful, but I know from having witnessed your dog that it is well brought up and peaceable.
Let us be sensible about this. I know that new clause 3 is well intentioned, but it could have draconian effects. All it states is:
“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control”.
It requires a reasonable belief—that is not probability. We all know that there are disputes between neighbours, or that people have rows with other people. That is such a small bar to get over for an “authorised officer”.
Sir Edward Leigh
I had better not give way, because I do not want Mr Deputy Speaker to set his dogs of war on me. I shall be very brief and will not take any interventions.
Let me make a simple point. Who is this “authorised officer”? What is this “reasonable cause”? Simply because that officer of the state has some sort of belief, which might have been motivated by other people, the dog might have to be muzzled, neutered or prevented from going in particular places. I am very worried about that.
I am also very worried about the other amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was talking about 14-year sentences. It was in the papers last year that somebody had driven their car dangerously and killed somebody while they were looking at their global positioning system device. They did not look out of the window for 18 seconds and they killed a cyclist, and they went to prison for three years. We all think that is ridiculous. Are we really going to send someone to prison for 14 years for this offence?
Let us be honest about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be guard dogs. Even my pathetic little border terrier, William, barks when people come up the garden path. That is what dogs are bred to do. All this nonsense about Liberal party canvassers who are scared of getting their fingers bitten when they put a leaflet through the door—I have delivered thousands of useless Conservative party pamphlets through the door. When I see a dog behind the door, I am delighted not to put the pamphlet through the letterbox. Just show some common sense. Dogs are dogs. We cannot change dogs with legislation.
New clause 3 is just one extra bit of legislation that will not impact on the people who really cause trouble, but will, as I said, impact on millions of dog owners. We should be calm, take a gradualist approach and support what the Government are doing.
Norman Baker
We have had a good wide-ranging debate. In the time left available to me, I will try as always to address the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the individual Members who have raised points and have not had those addressed as part of my response.
Let me say first that we are very sympathetic to the calls from many people for an increase in the maximum penalty for a dog attack. The Government agrees that two years’ imprisonment is not a sufficient penalty for the devastation and damage that a serious dog attack can do. There were over 3,000 responses to the consultation, and although there was strong support for an increased maximum penalty, there was no consensus as to where to set the bar. Given the volume of responses, I regret that it has not been possible for the Department to conclude its consideration of the issue in time to table a Government amendment on Report, but I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that the Government will table an amendment to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks when the Bill is in the other place. The response to the consultation on changes will, I can assure the shadow Minister, be published in good time to inform the debates on the issue in the other place.
The Government amendment will reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that some 16 adults and children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As the consultation made clear, we will be looking to distinguish between attacks on people and attacks on assistance dogs. For attacks on people and where a person is killed or seriously injured, I am attracted—perhaps given my former role as a Transport Minister—by the comparison with penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Where a dog attacks an assistance dog, we will be looking at a lower maximum penalty, but one that is higher than the present one that applies.
I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that some people are breeding dogs deliberately to use as weapons. It is under those circumstances that higher penalties would be applicable. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given on this matter, and the commitment that I am giving to a Government amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will not press his amendments today.
New clauses 3, 6, 17, 18 and 19 deal with dog control notices, dog number control notices and the requirement for all households with a dog to fit letterbox guards. I understand the intentions of hon. Members who tabled these amendments. There is a genuine need for an additional tool to address poor dog ownership and to enable early action to prevent dog bites and attacks. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who sought to take matters forward with her new clause 18. Every day thousands of postal workers and others, including those who deliver political literature, face uncertainty and apprehension as they approach houses with dogs to deliver mail and so on. The Government believe that such individuals must be able to go about their duties without fear of injury.
It is paramount for local officers from the police or the local council to have at their disposal the right tools so that they may take action in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. But as was made clear when the issue was raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, the measures in parts 1 to 4 introduce powers that will allow exactly the type of early intervention that the new clauses seek to provide.
Those measures can address all types of such irresponsible behaviour with a dog, regardless of the specific manifestation. For example, a community protection notice can be served in cases where there are too many dogs in one home—the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—where an owner does not have proper control of his or her dog, where a dog strays and in many other scenarios. Those measures are in addition to existing statutory measures, notably offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to welfare standards, the law on statutory nuisance and, for commercial dog breeders, any licence requirements.
I want to reassure Members—this is an important point—that all the requirements they suggest under new clauses 3 and 6, such as muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead, attending training classes, fitting a letterbox guard to the door of a property and seeking expert advice, can be required under a community protection notice. The new clauses, although well intentioned, are simply not necessary. The powers are already there in the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, that is how the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifesto commitments are being delivered.
Luciana Berger
Will the Minister acknowledge that, as the legislation is currently drafted, individuals will still require a written warning before they can receive a community protection notice, which will add delays? Who knows what could happen during the intervening period?
Norman Baker
I want to address that point. Only this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioners’ manual—it is a draft because we are inviting comments on it—entitled, “Tackling irresponsible dog ownership”. It gives an example on page 15. If a dog is out of control in a park, a written notice can be issued on the spot by the relevant officer who has control in that situation. The owner would then be given a “reasonable time”, which might be just five minutes, to respond. If the dog is not brought under control in that time, the community protection notice can be issued right away. I do not understand why the Opposition think that there could be huge delays in the process, because there could not. It is a simple piece of legislation to make it effective and quick, and that relates to the issues to which attention is rightly being drawn.
Mr Spencer
I am concerned about the term “owner”, because the person in control of the dog in the park might not be the owner, so the “It’s my cousin’s dog” defence could deflect the notice.
Norman Baker
The provision might specify the person in control of the dog, so if I have that wrong I will correct it. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point and will reflect on it.
The measures in the Bill go further and allow officers to make innovative requirements based on the specifics of the case they are dealing with, for example by requesting that signage be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, or that a letterbox guard be fitted. I have genuinely heard nothing during the course of the debate to suggest that there is a gap in what is proposed in the Bill.
The Local Government Association stated in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee:
“The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill.”
We all share the objective of trying to do something about this matter, but Opposition Members seem to think that a measure cannot be effective if it does not have the word “dog” in the title, which is simply wrong.
Mr Reed
It is not just the Opposition who are making those points; so too are many experienced organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Veterinary Association, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and this House’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. All of those organisations have more experience in this area than either the Minister or I have, yet he is not taking their views on board.
Norman Baker
The shadow Minister made that point in his opening remarks. I have not been a Home Office Minister for long, but I dealt with dog legislation for many years in opposition, so I think I know what the legislation says. I have given him an absolute assurance that the issues the Opposition are concerned about, as am I, such as microchipping and neutering, could all be dealt with under the community protection notice. I have given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) an assurance that those matters can be dealt with very quickly. Those are the two points that the Opposition are perfectly correct to pursue, and I have given answers that I had hoped would satisfy them. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As far as I am concerned, the measures they want to deal with the problem that they, and we, have identified are in the Bill.
Notwithstanding that, I understand the concern that, as Labour Members have said, any dog issues may be lost in the breadth of these measures. However, these powers recognise, first, that antisocial behaviour does not come packaged into distinct areas, and secondly, that what matters is whether it can be dealt with quickly and effectively, which is what the Bill does. The practitioners’ manual from DEFRA is the Government’s attempt to reassure people that these matters will be dealt with properly.
Angie Bray
Does the Minister recognise that sometimes it is not the attacks themselves that cause anxiety but the intimidating nature of some of the dogs that are attached to what I would call dangerous owners? That blights the lives of people trying to use the parks. Just the presence of this intimidating animal with its owner can do some damage.
Norman Baker
I do recognise that. That is a good reason why it is better to have flexible, general legislation rather than specific legislation that then creates loopholes. That is what the Opposition, who are well intentioned, would do if they had their way in the construction of antisocial behaviour legislation.
Norman Baker
I must not, because I have lots of people to try to reply to. I am sorry.
I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that the approach put forward in the new clause is already provided for in the Bill. If they were minded to press it, I would invite the House to reject it. [Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is seeking to intervene while I am trying to respond to her points, proposes to reduce the time delay that can take place following the seizure of a suspected section 1 dog, such as a pit bull terrier, before it is examined by expert witnesses for the defence or prosecution to assess whether it is a prohibited dog. I understand her concerns about the impact that such delays can have on the welfare of dogs. That is why we are committed to bringing forward regulations next year to make it clear that when the police seize a suspected prohibited dog they will not be required to kennel it, but only in cases where they are satisfied that the situation of dog and owner do not present a risk to public safety. It is right to give the police this discretion, and that is the aim that we intend to take forward. It will be a condition of release, if release occurs, that the owner consents to the dog being muzzled and on a lead in public, as well as being microchipped and neutered before it can be released back to the owner. This is to ensure public safety and to prevent breeding from section 1 dogs. On that basis, we do not consider the hon. Lady’s new clause 29 to be necessary.
I now want to deal with the amendments eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which seek to extend the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover incidents where a dog injures or kills a protected animal. I entirely understand and sympathise with her reason for proposing that measure. She listed some of the existing legislation, which does have an effect and can be used in certain circumstances, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animals Act 1971, the Dogs Act 1871, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is rather unfortunate that the Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies animals as goods or property in this respect.
I understand the concern of people whose cat is savaged by a dog, but the way forward is to consider other solutions. Instead of more legislation, we want better education for owners, training for dogs, and increased awareness among the public and the authorities who can use the new antisocial behaviour powers to address these incidents and help to prevent them before they happen.
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to particular resources in legislation in respect of horses, which she mentioned. The Dangerous Dogs Act would apply in a situation where a dog threatens or attacks a horse and a rider, because the rider is likely to have “reasonable apprehension” that the dog will injure them, and therefore an offence would be created. My hon. Friend also referred to the livestock issues that I mentioned earlier. We are keen to make sure that other animals are protected. However, as I said, the general nature of the legislation provides options through, for example, the injunction procedure to see whether there are other avenues that can be taken to deal with dogs that present a danger to the public and, indeed, to other animals.
On amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I regret that because of the lack of time I will have to write to her with a specific response to the point she raises.
The actions that this Government are taking in tackling dangerous dogs are absolutely right. Everybody in the House agrees that that needs to happen better than it has done in the past, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. The provisions will enable all the dreadful acts that have been taking place to be tackled in a sensible and effective way.
Mr Steve Reed
I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced and we will press new clause 3 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Damian Green
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I take the opportunity to welcome for his last hurrah on this Bill the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), before he moves to the equally exciting field of immigration policy. It is an area that—I say this with some experience—I know he will find life enhancing.
The Bill has been much improved by the scrutiny of this House. We often beat ourselves up—and are beaten up by people outside—about the level and quality of scrutiny we apply to legislation in this House, but I think the Bill is now in better shape than it was when it entered Committee, and for that I thank hon. Members from across the House. Foremost among the improvements is the insertion of a whole new part of the Bill at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and 67 other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who supported new clause 5. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy and perseverance she has shown in pursuit of her Childhood Lost campaign.
In 2012-13, well over 1,000 people were convicted in this country of offences relating to child sexual exploitation. It is a horrible and repulsive crime and we owe it to the victims, and to all children, to do all we can to eliminate it. Prosecutions and convictions are essential, but by then, of course, the damage is done—or, as my hon. Friend put it, a childhood has been lost. We must therefore do more to prevent such horrendous crimes from occurring in the first place.
Civil orders, which help protect the public from individuals whose behaviour means there is a risk that they will sexually abuse or otherwise sexually harm others, play an important part in our prevention strategy. Although provision for such orders has been in statute for 10 years, and there are many cases in which they have been used effectively, it is clear that the current regime in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is too inflexible. Instead of supporting the protection of vulnerable children, it places unreasonable obstacles in the way of keeping them safe. The new sexual harm prevention order and sexual risk order will simplify and strengthen the current powers available to the police, rebalancing the scales of justice in favour of children and vulnerable adults.
In many respects, the approach we are taking to the reform of civil prevention orders under the Sexual Offences Act mirrors our approach to antisocial behaviour powers, and as in that case, the Bill sweeps away the complex and bureaucratic array of powers that put unnecessary obstacles in the way of front-line professionals taking fast and effective action to protect vulnerable people and communities. With the ASBO, however, there was an additional problem because the existing powers simply do not work. ASBOs can take many months to obtain, and, once secured, most are breached with more than four in 10 breached repeatedly. We need powers that will not only offer fast and immediate protection for those at risk of harm, but drive a change in behaviour and provide a long-term solution.
In her article in The Independent last month, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) bemoaned the fact that the ASBO is “much maligned”. She has recently moved on from the Home Affairs brief, on which I congratulate her, but I put it to her and to her colleagues who remain on the Front Benches that it is also time to move on from the ASBO. The ASBO is maligned for the good reason that it has been ineffective, and the Bill will rightly see the back of it.
As well as ensuring that front-line professionals have the powers they need, our reforms place the victim at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will be enhanced if it is developed locally within a national framework. Out-of-court disposals must be seen to be a fair and effective way of dealing with offending behaviour if they are to have the confidence of the community. To achieve that, each and every one should have a punitive, restorative or rehabilitative element, or a combination of those. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his comments about strengthening the provisions of the Bill to that end. Out-of-court disposals must be used appropriately, and as I have repeatedly said, they should only be used as the first response to low-level offending. When the seriousness of an offence, or the frequency of the offending behaviour, warrants prosecution, prosecution is what should happen.
Under the Bill, victims of antisocial behaviour will be able to take advantage of the community trigger. No one should have to suffer repeated incidents of antisocial behaviour because the police, local authority or landlord repeatedly fails to respond to the victim’s call for action.
The community trigger will give victims the power to demand a case review. That case review must assess whether further action is required, and it can result in the relevant authority being required to take appropriate action. That is real accountability. It gives ordinary people real power to compel the authorities to respond in a way that will stop them being victimised.
After the debate on Report and the House’s clear rejection of new clause 3, I hope we can move on from the debate about dog control notices. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the need for more effective preventive powers to tackle irresponsible dog owners. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published the draft of a comprehensive practitioners manual that shows how the new antisocial behaviour powers in the Bill can be used to tackle dog-related problems. I put it to the House that the time has come for all parties, including animal welfare groups, the police, local authorities and others, to work together to ensure that the provisions in the Bill deliver the outcomes we all want.
Lady Hermon
The Minister will know very well that responsibility for policing and justice was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010, but bits of clause 98, on dangerous dogs, appear to apply to Northern Ireland. I do not understand why some bits and pieces apply to Northern Ireland when other bits and pieces do not, but on the bits that apply, what consultation was there with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for dogs?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, throughout the passage of the Bill and on many other matters, there has been regular, continuous contact at all levels. I see the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice regularly, and our officials are in contact on detailed matters. We work closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice.
Julie Hilling
The Minister says he hopes the charities and so on get behind the Bill. It is not too late for him to reconsider and listen to what they say on how to improve the Bill rather than asking them to support measures that they believe are second best.
Damian Green
I sense the hon. Lady is trying to lure me into a debate she has just had with my hon. Friend the Minister. I heard his speech, in which he replied fully to the points made by her and others. She says it is not too late, but, in practical terms, it is—we have just had a Division and have moved on to Third Reading. [Interruption.] There will indeed be debates in other places.
The examination and detention of David Miranda at Heathrow airport in August has put a renewed spotlight on the changes we are making in the Bill to the powers in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Schedule 7 remains a key part of the UK’s border security arrangements and is vital to preserving the safety of the public. I welcome the renewed scrutiny of the provisions. It is right that, as part of his function of reporting on the operation of the Terrorism Acts, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of the powers in Mr Miranda’s case. The Government will carefully consider his report when it is received.
Dr Huppert
We had a slightly truncated debate on that earlier. The Home Secretary has rightly expressed concern about the use of stop and search—it disproportionately affects the ethnic minority population— and taken steps to deal with it. Given that a huge proportion of people who are stopped under schedule 7 are ethnic minorities—it is massively disproportionate—does the Minister agree that similar actions should be taken on schedule 7 stops?
Damian Green
The sensible thing to do is to wait for Mr Anderson’s report and then decide what changes, if any, are needed. Let us look at the evidence and then decide what changes are necessary, because the police need the power to stop, question and, when necessary, detain and search people travelling through airports and ports if they are to be able to determine whether an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism. That power is essential to the prevention of terrorism because it enables the police to detect and disrupt individuals who might be travelling for the purposes of planning, financing and training for terrorist attacks.
The amendments to schedule 7 are in line with the Government’s continuing commitment to ensure that respect for individual freedoms is balanced appropriately and carefully against the need to reduce the threat of terrorism to the British public and British interests overseas. I have no doubt that the other place will want to examine the provisions particularly closely, including in the light of Mr Anderson’s report, but we should wait until we have all had the opportunity to look at the report before rushing to make a judgment on whether we have the balance right.
I should say a few words about the much expanded part 11, which deals with extradition. The ability to extradite people to and from this country is an important component of our criminal justice system. Those who commit serious crimes should not be able to evade justice by crossing international borders to escape arrest. We owe it to the victims of crime to ensure that there are efficient and effective arrangements in place to prevent justice being denied in that way.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The Minister says that the Bill was improved in Committee and on the Floor of the House. While I am sure that that is the case for most of the Bill, he is well aware that we did not have the opportunity to scrutinise Government new clauses on extradition, or discuss the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and 28 other hon. Members from across the House. How confident is the Minister that we are providing protections that British citizens have lacked in the past?
Damian Green
I am conscious of my hon. Friend’s particular constituency interest, which he has pursued diligently. I am sure that he and I agree that our extradition arrangements need to be fair and proportionate. It is a big step to extradite a person from one country to another. The impact on family life and employment will be far greater than in cases where a person is prosecuted in his or her own country of residence. We should not, therefore, be hoovering up British residents and dispatching them to all corners of Europe to spend months in prison awaiting trial for minor offences. I am sure he would agree with that. That is why in July I recommended to the House that the United Kingdom opt back into the European arrest warrant, but only on condition that we first rectify a number of serious weaknesses in the way it has operated. That is what we are now doing.
Part 11 introduces a new proportionality bar to extradition to prevent people from being extradited for trivial offences. It also introduces a new bar to extradition where the prosecuting authorities in the requesting state have not yet taken a decision to charge and try the accused. That will stop extradited persons languishing in a foreign jail while an investigation takes place. We will amend the Extradition Act 2003 so that a British citizen cannot be extradited for conduct that is not a crime in this country.
These are all important new safeguards that will help to ensure that our extradition arrangements with other EU member states are fair both to the victims of crime and the accused. They are not particularly difficult or onerous. They could and should have been included in the Extradition Act 2003. To leave them out was a mistake, which is being rectified by this Government.
This is a significant piece of legislation, one much enhanced as it has made its way through the House. It will help us to cut crime further, to protect the public and to extend the modernisation of the police. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for thanking me for my service as shadow spokesperson on police. It is a privilege to move on to another shadow Home Office role. He and I appear to have job swapped in the course of our time on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has now joined the shadow Cabinet, for her work on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who joined the shadow Home Office team and worked on the Bill in the past two days. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her work on Report. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his efforts in Committee.
I thank the Minister for his consideration during the Bill’s progress and the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for his consideration over the last couple of days. I also thank the former Ministers, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and, in particular, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), whom I think, in a challenging Committee full of very different views, did his job with integrity; I personally was sorry to see him leave his post in the recent reshuffle. Members of the Committee, some of whom are present today, know that it was an interesting and exciting time, and I thank them also.
Third Reading is about what is in a Bill, not what might have been, and with that in mind, I will first welcome those aspects of the Bill with which the Opposition agree. We welcome the instigation of the College of Policing, which is an opportunity to provide training and investment and to set standards. We perhaps want to see it develop in different ways from the Government, but it is a positive and forward-looking initiative, and I wish both the chair and the chief officer well in their task.
I welcome the measures on firearms and the intent to supply, which, as I mentioned in Committee, had their genesis even before the last general election. These important provisions will help to reduce the supply of guns, and therefore deaths and criminality.
I welcome the extension of the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to private contractors and staff working for police authorities, particularly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) proposed such a measure last year. I am pleased that the Government have taken it up. Again, we would like to see further action, but I welcome the provision none the less.
I welcome the measures on terrorism and on terrorists travelling abroad and the long-overdue measures on forced marriage, which, in my view and that of the Committee, will strengthen the legal basis for tackling this immensely challenging problem.
I particularly welcome new clause 5 and the measures on sexual harm prevention notices, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North gave a fair wind yesterday. Their introduction to the Bill was a positive development, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) brought them forward, with support from across the House.
I welcome the measures on witness protection and, as far as they go—I will return to this shortly—the measures on dogs, although we think they could have gone further. I particularly welcome the measures against dog attacks in the home.
I welcome the policing pay review body, which we will give a fair wind, but we need to look again at the commissioning of victims’ services by police and crime commissioners, as I still worry that it will lead to the fragmentation of victims’ services across the country.
We therefore welcome several measures in the Bill. We challenged them in Committee, but they remain and broadly have the Opposition’s support. I have to say, however, that I do not welcome the changes to the ASBO regime or the developments on the injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. I cannot for the life of me understand why a party that, during my formative political years, prided itself on being the party of law and order continues to bring forward measures that reduce the ability of the police and communities to tackle elements that need tackling in our communities. We have seen it on DNA and CCTV, and we are now seeing it on ASBOs. The changes are a reprehensible and retrograde step.
On the same theme, I do not welcome the same party’s introducing thresholds for low-value shoplifting, which we had a strong discussion about in Committee. When the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,000 shopkeepers across the country, is worried about such criminality and the changes relating to low-value shoplifting, the party of law and order—as was, but not anymore—needs to give some serious consideration to the matter.
We support aspects of the Bill, then, but firmly do not support other aspects. On balance—to let you into a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker—Labour Members will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, but we will seek to take those matters forward. As I have said, we have to deal with what is in the Bill on Third Reading. We have identified important shortcomings, but we will grant the Third Reading. The Government must reflect further on the issues that have been debated, which have been raised by Members of all parties. Some issues have seen cross-party co-operation—for example, on the importance of dog notices, on the points about covert policing raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and on how to protect shop workers and other staff from assaults at work. Domestic violence and gun control are other serious issues debated in Committee on which I hope the other place will reflect carefully. Another issue to be considered is that of legal highs and reducing their availability in our communities.
While we are giving fair wind to the Bill, I hope that the other place will look carefully at the improvements we have suggested and listen not just to what Members have said today about dog notices, but to what all organisations have said about them. We want the other place to look at bringing forward measures to tackle covert policing, to protect people from assaults at work and further to reduce and stop the potential for gun use, for domestic violence and for legal highs.
I thank the Minister for his consideration in Committee, but we think there is more to be done. We think that we have been constructive on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the changes that need to be made. Ultimately, we think that the issues I have mentioned that are not covered by the Bill now will be part of it following consideration in the House of Lords.
I have enjoyed my role as shadow policing Minister and move on now to shadow Minister on immigration. I thank my colleagues for their support over the three years in opposition and one year in government in which I have discharged this role. I look forward to watching from afar as this Bill is further improved following consideration by the other place.
Tracey Crouch
It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee that considered this Bill. It was indeed the first Public Bill Committee on which I served. After my active participation, I am in no doubt that it may well be my last! I was pleased to play a role and I think that we Back Benchers sometimes underestimate and undervalue the work we do in scrutinising legislation, which is an incredibly important aspect of our job. I am proud to have been part of a team that has, as the Minister said, improved the Bill before it goes to the other place.
I am particularly proud to have made some progress on the issue of bullying—a subject on which I feel strongly, and I believe that the House should continue to feel strongly about it. It is an issue that affects many children and their parents throughout the country. Building advice on bullying into Home Office guidance is a very positive step forward. I would have liked to see more, but that is for another day. We can continue to discuss online safety and cyber-bullying via the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and I have no doubt that we will come back to those issues at some future date.
As I said many times in Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but I disagree that we should be harking back to the halcyon days of ASBOs. Although they might have started off as a very good measure for tackling antisocial behaviour, the simple truth is that the breach rates are far too high. Clearly, then, because it is broke, it needs fixing. We can argue about how best to fix it, but I think that the Government proposals will strengthen our response to antisocial behaviour.
The Minister and the House will be pleased to hear that I recently attended a residents’ meeting in Chatham at which we discussed the significantly high levels of antisocial behaviour in one small part of a ward. The police told residents that new provisions were going through Parliament as they spoke that would enable them to deal much more effectively with this problem in the future, including by ensuring some sort of community punishment. We have introduced what I consider to be sensible measures to ensure that people who commit crimes do not go into the stocks, but I can tell the Minister that my residents were very keen to put some of those perpetrators of antisocial behaviour into the stocks. I am pleased that we have amended the Bill to provide for proportionality of response, but I am also pleased that there will be an opportunity to impose community punishments such as cleaning up all the litter or getting rid of all the graffiti. That will be greatly welcomed in parts of my constituency.
I have no doubt that the House of Lords will improve the Bill further through its precise scrutiny of specific clauses, and that it will consider some of the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, including legal highs and aspects of the dog legislation with which we have dealt at such length this afternoon, not least the sentencing issues.
I am pleased to have played my part in the Bill’s passage so far, although I am not sure that the Ministers and the former Whip would be so delighted by my active participation. I think that this is a good Bill, and I look forward to its return from the House of Lords.
Mr Syms
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She has done valuable work in raising the issue of bullying, which blights many children’s lives and is a very important subject for politicians to consider.
This is a Christmas tree of a Bill. When a Bill has so many aspects it makes it difficult to provide enough time for discussion of important issues. However, I think that it has been improved during its passage so far, and it has certainly been given a great deal of scrutiny. I always enjoy the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, which are sometimes robust, and certainly—in the good parliamentary tradition—provide answers to the question of why a Government and an Opposition take particular points of view.
The main changes that have been made relate to extradition. There was a fair degree of consensus on the Bill, which was why at one point we had to slow down a little so that the extradition clauses could be tabled. The Committee had also considered the issue of extradition. In recent years, we have seen a number of examples of why the European arrest warrant is sometimes a good thing for Britain. We have seen gangsters extradited from Spain very quickly, sometimes within hours, and identified. One can understand why the Home Secretary is minded to opt back in to the arrest warrant, following an opt-out, subject to reassurances.
However, we are also aware of many constituency cases in which people have not been treated so well, and human rights have not been dealt with according to the good old British tradition of allowing someone his day in court. People have been whipped out of the country somewhere abroad, have spent a period in prison, and have ended up either not being charged or being acquitted. It is a pity that we did not have an opportunity to explore that more fully today, although I know that a good many Members will be doing so. Of course, the House of Lords is stuffed full of experts—lawyers and others who are au fait with the issues—and I am sure that there will be proper scrutiny in the other place.
I thank the Members who served on the Committee, and I thank the Ministers—including the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne)—for their contribution. We have considered some important issues, including antisocial behaviour, which blights many of our constituencies, and the National Crime Agency, which I think will be a great addition to crime-fighting, particularly across borders. Let us hope that they are considered further, and that we receive the reassurances on extradition that I think the House needs. I think that our constituents and the House will welcome many of those developments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There are two Members left to speak. Given that the debate will end at 5.30 pm, I hope that they will agree to share the remaining time, and that each will speak for seven or eight minutes.
Dr Huppert
I am sure we can do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems positively generous, given some of the discussions that we have had today. I am very glad that we agreed yesterday to extend the debate to a second day, although I think that we could have used the time more productively.
There is clearly a great deal of common ground, and the scrutiny process has clearly been useful. It began with pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee. The Bill was examined very carefully, and I commend the Government for that. A great deal has been added since then, but it was good to start in that way.
I think that the large disagreement that remains ultimately comes down to whether we think that antisocial behaviour orders were an effective solution. I very much think that they were not effective. Yesterday, we heard that they were not effective in terms of breaches and that young people often used them as a badge of honour. We have also heard that the public do not think that they were effective. Last year, about 8% of people in an Angus Reid poll said that ASBOs were an effective way of reducing antisocial behaviour. Therefore, I am pleased that we are moving away from them. Unlike the shadow Minister, I am pleased that we are moving from sounding tough on antisocial behaviour to trying to reduce it. There is a difference between the two.
I still have a number of concerns that I hope their lordships will have a chance to consider. I hope that the Government will reconsider those issues during the passage of the Bill in the Lords. I was pleased by the attitude of my hon. Friend the Minister in his maiden speech in his new role. He highlighted that we must not allow injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance to
“become a means of targeting young people simply for being young people.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 541.]
That is right. I am sure that the Government would not want that to happen. We must ensure that it does not. However, the breadth of the IPNA still concerns me. What counts as behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance? I think that some draft guidance is going out. That needs to work. IPNAs should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused and are not likely to cause harm to victims or communities. Guidance can be misinterpreted and I hope that their lordships will look further at that issue. We must also ensure that any positive requirements granted are practicable and will not force people into a position where they simply cannot do what they are required to do and hence breach the IPNA.
I remain concerned about the naming and shaming issue. Judges should do that only where it is necessary. We should have legislation to deal with that. Failing that, the guidance must be expressly clear, but I hope that their lordships will look more carefully at that.
On eviction, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted
“the seriousness of riot-related offences”,
but correctly questioned whether we need a special rule for riot-related antisocial behaviour, because it looks like
“a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm”.
It punishes the entire family. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister told the House that he would reflect on the issue. I hope that he will do so in the right direction.
On schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, I was pleased to hear the Minister make some commitments, having looked at David Anderson’s recommendations. That will take us forward. I am pleased that the Government saw the problem with the existing legislation before it became a massive media story. However, the Government can go a lot further. I have tried to itemise a series of amendments that would make a substantial difference. The time has already been reduced from nine hours to six. However, we should go further. We should get rid of the idea of holding people without reasonable suspicion.
One thing we do know is that, with all the people who have been convicted after being held, there has been intelligence ahead of that. I am told that not on a single occasion has someone been stopped and searched, effectively randomly, without suspicion, and been convicted. Therefore, if it is not working, we do not need it to be sure that we are convicting people. There is a series of processes—the right to silence, the right to a lawyer—which should be taken further in another place.
I am pleased that the Government have shown throughout the passage of the Bill, from pre-legislative scrutiny to now, that they are listening and will reflect. I hope that that will continue in the other place and that this can be the right sort of Bill that helps us to deal with the genuine problem of antisocial behaviour, but also protects, indeed enhances, civil liberties by retreating from some of the things that the previous Government introduced—antisocial behaviour orders, schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act and much more.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the House for any great period. I had the great privilege and honour of serving on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who was not always given an easy time by those whom he was whipping, even on his own Benches. As a number of hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the proceedings in the Bill Committee. It was a great pleasure of course to work with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was also taking the Bill through Committee.
The Bill has shown the House at its best. It has been improved throughout the Bill Committee, both by Opposition amendments that the Government have taken on board—they have brought changes to the Bill before the House on Report—and by amendments tabled by Government Back Benchers, which the Government have also taken into account. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work during the passage of the Bill, which a number of us were pleased to support and which has led to the vast improvement of the Bill before it leaves this place.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn for indicating he will not divide the House on Third Reading, but insofar as there is any difference between the two sides of the House on the Bill, it appears principally to centre on whether ASBOs have been a good thing. I understand that there is politics around this and the Labour party is deeply attached to the idea, but as I pointed out in our debate yesterday, whether or not ASBOs were originally effective, as matters now stand they have turned out not to be effective at all. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, they have become a badge of honour for some teenagers, and the breach rates of ASBOs among teenagers in particular have risen to such levels that they have proved completely ineffective at controlling antisocial behaviour. It is therefore entirely right that the Government have moved to tackle this issue—as, I say to the right hon. Member for Delyn, I suspect that that would have been the position even if his party were in government.
Lady Hermon
We had to wait and wait impatiently for years for the Labour party to introduce ASBOs in Northern Ireland, and we were very grateful indeed when we had them extended to Northern Ireland and we have found them very effective.
Stephen Phillips
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the breach rates among teenagers have in some places reached as high as 90% and in those circumstances it is absolutely plain, at least in England and Wales, that ASBOs are not working to control antisocial behaviour. The poll to which I referred yesterday and to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred today found that the vast majority of people in this country do not see ASBOs as an effective way of tackling antisocial behaviour. The position in Northern Ireland may be different, but the reality is that whichever party was in government, this issue had to be grappled with. I am pleased the Government have done so and have brought forward measures to deal with antisocial behaviour that are largely welcome on both sides of the House.
As the Bill leaves the House, there are great sadnesses. One of them is that we are yet to have a proper debate on the extradition provisions. We have had the Scott Baker report, yet that has never been debated at length in this House. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) have repeatedly sought to have a proper debate on extradition, and it remains a matter of great sadness to me—and, I know, a number of other colleagues—that we have not yet had that debate. I therefore hope that, as this Bill leaves the House with these effectively undebated provisions relating to extradition, they will receive a great deal of scrutiny in the other place.
When my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the Third Reading debate he pointed out that one of the things this Bill will do is put the victim at the absolute heart of tackling antisocial behaviour. That is greatly to be welcomed. I had some concerns about the way in which community remedies were going to be dealt with in the Bill, but the Government have listened to the concerns I and a number of others had around how those provisions were to be interpreted and whether or not guidance should be given. That is one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved, and it serves to show this House in its best light.
The Government have listened and brought forward measures designed to improve the Bill, so that when it is rolled out across the country, it tackles the things it is designed to tackle. I have paid a number of tributes already, but may I pay a final one? It is fair to say that the officials at the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were given a great deal of work to do by the Bill Committee during the passage of this Bill, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would wish to join me in congratulating them on all the work they did. As this Bill goes to the other place for further consideration, I can say that, in its drafting and the way in which it has been improved, it is, in my short tenure in this House, one of the best Bills the House has considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.