Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Damian Green Excerpts

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), not only on the powerful case he made in his introductory speech and on choosing such a central and serious issue for his private Member’s Bill, but on the depth of the Bill itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made the point that this Bill is different from some of those debated here on a Friday morning, in that a huge amount of thought has clearly gone into the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover is to be congratulated on that and on framing his speech in the way that he did. It was instructive that his speech and this Bill provoked the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and the modern version of a Socratic dialogue between him and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). A Friday morning when this House is forced to confront the difference between deontological and utilitarian responses to the moral consequences of our actions cannot be described as a Friday morning wasted. I think we all felt better educated and informed at the end of that dialogue, and that was even before my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset added to the philosophical wisdom we had from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border with his own inimitable lecture on the history and the necessity of our being cognisant of the importance of history in all this House’s deliberations.

The Bill would make significant changes to the existing UK human rights framework to attempt to address a number of concerns that have been expressed throughout this debate. Those changes include: repealing the Human Rights Act; having the UK still bound by the European convention on human rights but with the convention no longer forming part of the UK legal system; and the creation of a new set of UK rights, which add to and alter the existing rights in the European convention. That would, for example, remove the possibility of using the right to family life as a means to avoid deportation.

It is probably sensible for me at the outset to set out the Government’s policy, as was requested by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who speaks for the Opposition. I should congratulate him as well, because that was the shortest speech I have ever heard him make. [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he was under orders. It is another unusual experience in this House to find someone under orders to speak for less time than they would like rather than for more, which is the normal Whips’ instruction, in my experience. Let me make it clear for him and for the House that the Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights and to ensuring that those rights continue to be enshrined in UK law.

However, we are also closely involved in the process of reform of the Strasbourg Court and we must ensure that it can focus more quickly on the cases that need its attention. I hope that there is agreement across the House on the need to reform the Court, and that the Brighton declaration, which I shall come to later in my speech, is testament to our hard-won efforts in realising the Government’s pledge to reform that Court. We must recognise that much more needs to be done, however. The achievement of the previous Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in bringing about that important reform and persuading many countries to go along with it is extreme, but there is still more to do.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that one of the biggest problems is the misrepresentation of the Human Rights Act and public bodies misapplying the concept of human rights or using them as an excuse for bad decisions. That has been at the root of many of the problems in this country with judgments of the Court, some of which have been brought up in the course of the debate and with which I shall deal later.

The other main changes that the Bill would make include ensuring that legislation passed by Parliament can only be changed by Parliament and setting out in statute a list of individual responsibilities that would not impose direct legal obligations on individuals but would be taken into account when courts were considering the application of the new UK human rights. The issues raised by the Bill inevitably attract a wide range of views, although the House should note that most of the views expressed in the debate were supportive of my hon. Friend, and the debate has been helpful in airing them.

The coalition’s programme for government was clear about the importance we as a Government attach to the question of civil liberties. Human rights are an essential element of any wider consideration of civil liberties in a modem democratic society. My ambition in the course of the debate, which will clearly go on for a number of years and, conceivably, into future Parliaments, is to reclaim human rights from the position of being almost a “boo” phrase. There is something absurd about a situation in which people can regard human rights and support for them from Parliament or the courts as leading to bad consequences. Something has gone seriously wrong when we reach that stage and we need to reclaim human rights so that they are, as they ought to be, the motherhood and apple pie of politics. There is no reason for anyone to object to human rights being applied to as many societies as possible throughout the world. Nevertheless, we are where we are and the legislative framework for human rights in the United Kingdom is a subject on which there are strongly held and often conflicting opinions.

The programme for government recognised those opinions and contained a commitment to

“establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties.”

It also hoped to

“promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.”

In accordance with that commitment, the independent Commission on a Bill of Rights was established in March 2011. The commissioners were experts who reflected the full range of views in the UK human rights debate, and included public supporters of all the main political parties.

The commission carried out two written consultation exercises and undertook a programme of seminars and visits to all parts of the United Kingdom in order to discharge its terms of reference. It reported to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Justice on 18 December.

I hope the House will agree that the commission’s final report was a thoughtful and detailed consideration of the key human rights issues and the human rights landscape in the United Kingdom today. The Government are grateful to the commission for the diligent way in which it discharged its terms of reference. Unsurprisingly, the commission’s report covers many of the issues and concerns that appear in the Bill. For reasons that I will set out later, the Government do not believe that now is the right time to decide on the changes proposed in the Bill, but if the House is minded to take the Bill into Committee, I will later set out a number of points that may assist the House in its further consideration. In doing so, I will make use of the very helpful work done by the commission, which is set out in detail in the final report.

Let me deal first with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover in his introductory speech. He explained that one of the 10 pillars of his Bill is that freedom of thought, conscience and religion should be protected to a greater extent than they currently are. He further explained that this greater protection is necessary because of the attitude to religion and belief. I am sure many will agree with him on that. He may be aware that the Strasbourg Court recently gave judgment in four cases concerning article 9—the article that deals with freedom of thought, conscience and religion—and that in each of those four cases the applicant was Christian.

The outcome of those cases confirmed that, for example, our law allows people to wear crosses at work, and that British employers are generally very good at being reasonable in accommodating people’s religious beliefs. We welcome any reasonable steps that employers can take to accommodate the wishes of their Christian employees or of those who hold a different religion or belief. Under the Equality Act 2010, employees of all religions and belief are protected against discrimination. Employers can lawfully stop their employees wearing jewellery, including a religious symbol, at work only if they can show that their policy does not disadvantage people belonging to a particular religion or belief or, if it does, that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There are obvious examples of health and safety reasons why a particular item might be thought to be dangerous.

Those decisions were widely welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset said that he could not remember any acclamation for a judgment of the Court, and he is of course right. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the response to that particular raft of judgments, which touched on one of the most sensitive areas involved in modern human rights legislation, were perhaps slightly grudgingly welcomed by those, particularly in the media, who would not normally think of themselves as friends of the Strasbourg Court.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover raised a huge number of other important issues, including that of self-defence. It would be interesting—and perhaps for later discussions—to understand how the Bill’s additional provision in relation to self-defence is intended to relate to law in England and Wales or Scotland outside the Human Rights Act, in particular the provisions currently before the House in the Crime and Courts Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I was pleased to serve on the Committee scrutinising the Crime and Courts Bill. The moves made in this area are welcome. My contention is that that should be far more fundamental to our way of life, rather than in a particular provision, which is why I tried to detail the articles in the Bill.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful and the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for that important clarification. He also spoke, rightly, about section 2 of the Human Rights Act and the obligation for the courts to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence. He entered the discussion that has been taking place for some time about what exactly that should entail. The Commission on a Bill of Rights noted that Lord Phillips, then President of the Supreme Court, said in evidence to Parliament:

‘If the wording “take account” gives a message at all, it is that we are not bound by decisions of the Strasbourg court as binding precedent.’

I think that many will welcome that clarification.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also mentioned the International Criminal Court and terrorist trials. Not only are there offences of universal jurisdiction—this was debated by my hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border and for North East Somerset—but there are clearly offences, such as war crimes and genocide, that have universal jurisdiction and are of such seriousness that they can be tried anywhere. There have been trials in the UK for such offences, and indeed Parliament chose to extend the possibility for that in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also raised a point of debate—one of continuing importance—on the balance between rights and responsibilities, arguing that the possession of rights must inevitably entail some responsibilities. The commission had points to make on that as well. It concluded that rights should not be made conditional on the exercise of responsibilities. It concluded that a Bill of Rights may allow the courts, when awarding damages, to take into account the conduct of the applicant, but my hon. Friend’s Bill would go further in incorporating the notion of responsibilities in determining whether a right has been breached. It concluded that any provision on responsibilities should only be declaratory.

I would like to deal with some of the points my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North made in his thoughtful speech. He said that the Brighton declaration had not been successful, but I must part company from him on that, because I think that the declaration is a substantial package of welcome reforms. Their implementation is being negotiated in Strasbourg. No changes have yet been made to the text of the convention, but once the reforms are realised we expect their net effect to be that more cases will be resolved at a national level and fewer will go to Strasbourg. The European Court will be able to focus on the more important cases, which is what it was originally set up to do, and, equally importantly, to do so more quickly.

I am conscious that in previous debates on the subject, particularly those relating to individual cases, and often those involving extradition, including from this country to the United States, Members on both sides of the House have expressed understandable frustration about the delays in the legal process. That is because British citizens have been kept in British jails for many years not because of delays in the British legal process—of course, there are also delays in that process—but specifically because of delays in the European Court. The measures that will follow the Brighton declaration, which I think will lead in the long run to cases appearing before the Court more rapidly and, therefore, more rapid decision making, will have a direct effect on individual human rights, because they will mean people spending less time in jail.

[Mr Nuttall]

I must have inadvertently misled my right hon. Friend and wish to clarify my views on the Brighton declaration. I think, for the reasons he has just set out, that it is a step in the right direction. All I had intended to do was show that the most recent statistics bear out the need for what was agreed as part of the declaration to be brought into force as a matter of urgency.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s clarification. I completely agree with him that the sooner implementation can happen, the better it will be not only for us but for individuals.

My hon. Friend also made the point about rule 39 applications about the stay of deportation, and the UK’s supposedly very high numbers in this regard. Under rule 39 of the Strasbourg Court, the Court may, on application, advise a stay of deportation, for example. This is about indications, not violations per se, and the Court has become stricter about granting such requests. As a result, fewer than one in 20 requests made for interim measures against the UK are now granted. In real numbers, that is only about 30 or 40 requests a year.

Various hon. Members have talked about prisoner voting. I think that everyone would recognise that the strength of feeling in this country is clear, and we have been clear in our view that it should be a matter for national Parliaments to decide. The Government are under a legal obligation to bring forward legislation. We have therefore published a draft Bill that presents a range of options, including banning prisoners sentenced to four years or more from voting, banning prisoners sentenced to more than six months from voting, and reaffirming the current ban on prisoners voting. We have asked a Committee of both Houses to examine the Bill. In the end—the point made most eloquently, as ever, by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset—Parliament is sovereign and it will decide on whether to change the law, and the draft Bill is the first step in Parliament’s considering the issue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I note that the draft orders for the Committee are on the Order Paper. Can the Minister tell the House how many proposed members of the Committee have legal training?

[Damian Green]

Off the top of my head, I do not know which of its members have legal training. As a matter of principle, however, I suspect that a Committee considering such legal matters would benefit from having a mix of legal experts and people who are not legal experts but are capable of asking simple but important questions. The interplay between legal expertise and the lack of legal expertise can often result in good and practical legislation. As a final thought on this, I should point out what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has said, which is very clear:

“Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament”.

There was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North and the hon. Member for Hammersmith about indeterminate sentences for public protection. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced a new legal framework for dangerous offenders which has now been commenced and which replaces the IPP with a new extended determinate sentence. However, prisoners currently serving IPPs will not be released unless the Parole Board authorises it on the usual basis of risk assessment. It is important to set that out.

Having dealt with some of the points made by hon. Members, let me deal with the Bill itself. It is unusually serious and detailed for a private Member’s Bill, and it deserves a detailed and serious response. The Bill draws on the structures of and mechanisms in the Human Rights Act 1998 but makes important variations, deletions and additions.

Clause 2 deals with the interpretation of the new UK rights set out in schedule 1. Under the Bill’s new framework, clause 2 would replace section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which deals with the interpretation of convention rights. Section 2 requires courts and tribunals, as I have said, to take into account rulings from Strasbourg when determining a question that has arisen in connection with a convention right. Clause 2(1)(a) to (c) lists a wider range of sources that the UK courts may take into account when determining a question that has arisen in connection with a UK right.

Further consideration needs to be given to whether the courts need to be conferred a discretion in legislation in order to take into account the sources listed in clause 2. Courts already cite judgments from other jurisdictions, such as Canada, when determining human rights issues. Paragraph (b) is unnecessary, because by repealing section 2(1) of the Human Rights Act, domestic courts would no longer be obliged to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence.

Similarly, the Government are not certain that it is necessary to state in legislation that the ordinary rules of precedent continue to apply. Considering the obligations under section 2(1) of the Act, Lord Bingham held that courts should continue to follow binding precedent.

Section 6 of the Act makes it unlawful for public authorities in the UK to act in a manner that would breach a person’s convention rights and goes on to define what is a public authority for the purposes of the Act. Section 6 and the definition of public authority attracted a lot of comment and attention when the Commission on a Bill of Rights sought views on the existing legal framework. In the conclusions of its final report, the commission said of this important matter:

“The one area where we conclude that a case for change should certainly be considered is in respect of the definition of a ‘public authority’. In line with a majority of those respondents who expressed a view on this issue, we conclude that the growing prevalence of the outsourcing of once traditional publicly provided functions to private and third sector providers means that the current definition should be looked at again if a UK Bill of Rights were to be taken forward.”

Clause 7 of the Bill covers similar ground to section 6 of the Act, but it does not address the issue of definition directly. Instead, the clause’s focus, as described in the Bill’s explanatory report, is on ensuring that public authorities should not be penalised for applying legislation approved by Parliament.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous in taking interventions. Does he recognise and accept that the majority of people in this country have lost confidence in the European Court of Human Rights and its judgment and that it should reassess its entire approach and look at striking a better balance in interpreting the convention rights?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is right that many people in this country now have little confidence in the judgments of the Court. A separate issue has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset about the legitimacy of the Court whether we agree with individual judgments or not. As I have said, the Brighton reforms introduced by the previous Lord Chancellor are designed to remove one source of irritation with the Court, namely its current backlog, delays and concentration on the types of cases that I do not think its founders intended it to concentrate on. The Court was set up to deal with big, international human rights issues and to drive forward human rights in countries with no history of Parliament, courts or the free press—all things that we in this country should not, but perhaps do, take for granted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that there is widespread feeling that the Court has gone off-track. That is precisely why the Government set up the commission and why the commission’s report is so interesting.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made clear, there are no contradictions in the views of the two coalition parties on this matter. We simply disagree about how best to preserve and enhance human rights in this country. That disagreement will form part of the debate.

Clause 7 would introduce a new test, at least in terms of our existing human rights legislation, of whether an act of public authority could

“reasonably be regarded, in all the facts and circumstances of the case, as compatible”

with the new UK rights. The explanatory document on the Bill makes the point that that provision contrasts with the strict test under the Human Rights Act of whether an act is compatible with convention rights. The document goes on to explain that

“there are different precise interpretations of human rights, and if the public authorities are within the bounds of what a reasonable person could regard as satisfying the requirements of the UK rights, they should be allowed to get on with their job without being second-guessed by the courts”.

Deviating from the current supervisory approach of the courts would require significant further consideration before we legislated on this subject.

In a similar vein, article 20 of my hon. Friend’s Bill of Rights would ensure that nothing in certain articles of the rights

“shall be regarded as preventing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.”

Under that American usage, “aliens” means people who are not citizens, as was understood when the convention was drafted in 1950. However, that is not the current UK formulation and I suspect that we may wish to use different language if we proceed with the Bill.

One of the major issues raised by the Bill, and one that has been at the heart of our debate this morning, is our relationship with the convention. I understand that it is my hon. Friend’s intention that his proposals would sit alongside the UK’s obligations under the convention. Indeed, the Bill makes specific provisions in relation to the convention. However, it would be the effect of his Bill that the convention rights would no longer be directly effective in our domestic law. Our domestic courts would instead make their decisions under the new, adapted code of UK rights.

With that in mind, it would be helpful for the House better to understand the intention behind clause 9(4). If my hon. Friend’s intention is to sever the link with the convention, why does the Bill provide for our courts to continue to have regard to the scale of damages awarded by the Strasbourg Court?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am happy to provide clarification on that. There is a history in our courts of granting damages that are entirely run-away. The one area in which most of us can agree with the European Court of Human Rights is in its more level-headed and sanguine awards of damages, because it is taxpayers who have to foot the bill. That is the one area where the jurisprudence of the European Court holds some water.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He is right that the European Court might prove a better friend of the UK taxpayer than our courts in that regard.

That is not the only area in which it is possible to regard what comes out of the Strasbourg Court as more sensible than what emerges from our courts system. In my previous job as Minister for Immigration, I was struck that the Strasbourg Court had a more sensible test of what rights should apply when deciding whether someone should be removed from this country than was sometimes applied in our domestic courts. It may be unusual for a Minister to wish for European jurisprudence to take precedence over UK jurisprudence, but there were some cases in which I did so. My hon. Friend makes a good point about damages, but that is not a unique area in which the Court can be regarded as quite sensible.

It would be reasonable for the House to debate a number of other detailed technical issues, but I hope that over the past few minutes I have illustrated that, as one would expect, there would have to be significant scrutiny of large parts of this Bill were it to proceed further.

I wish to say a bit more about what will happen now because, as I have said, a twin-track approach is needed and we must know what will happen during the rest of this Parliament. As several hon. Members have said, the United Kingdom played a pivotal role in shaping the original human rights framework in which the rights were, literally, fundamental. Indeed, then hon. Members from across the House, including David Maxwell Fyfe and Hartley Shawcross, were architects of what was at the time a document that everyone in Britain was very proud of.

The convention was designed to address terrible abuses of human rights in a fractured continent. We have all read in history books about the state of post-war Europe, and it is important to put this debate into an historical context. Today we talk about European rows and problems, great though they are, but just 70 years ago—it is not ancient history—the continent was completely fractured. We now have a Europe in which we can argue about how human rights are best enforced, rather than a Europe in which we have to enforce basic human rights. The situation is immeasurably better now than it was, and that change has taken place during our lifetimes. We have come a long way from the time when the convention was absolutely necessary, but not everything has changed and our concern then—as now—was to give those who most needed protection from the excesses of state power a clear understanding of the rights and remedies available to them. That means that the human rights framework must be accessible and proportionate in its application.

The convention should be used to defend the most vulnerable, but because of the way some articles in the convention have been interpreted by the Court, people do not feel that that basic fairness is being applied any more. Indeed, the desire to ensure that the mechanisms in place to protect the most vulnerable exist for that reason and no other was at the heart of the programme of reform that turned into the Brighton declaration, just as it is at the heart of our calls now for further reform of the Court of Human Rights.

The Court is important for the protection of human rights from Iceland to Turkey, but as I have said it faces a huge backlog of nearly 130,000 applications. Some of those may include examples of the type of fundamental abuses that Maxwell Fyfe and others sought to remedy back in 1950 and in a very different world. However, if the Court is to retain its legitimacy—this point has rightly been raised in the debate—it must focus on its core functions. The UK helped draft the convention and there is no controversy about its values, which everyone still supports, even those most sceptical about the value of the Court. Many more people are extremely sceptical about the Court’s performance yet they nevertheless sign up to the basic values in the convention.

It cannot be repeated too often that the convention has contributed to important changes for the good in many countries across Europe; for example, the decriminalisation in many countries of homosexuality, or the recognition in former Soviet countries of religious freedom. Given our discussions today, and the frequent public discussions, about the necessity of protecting people’s capacity to express their religious views, it is worth remembering that in other countries the convention has been extremely helpful in allowing people to express their basic freedoms.

There are other examples. Legal systems and police behaviour have been improved by the convention in countries where the tradition of democracy and the rule of law is less than it is in ours. I hope we can all agree that the problem is not the convention itself, but how it is sometimes interpreted.

Our concerns about the Court bring us back to its fundamental role; it is supposed to focus on the most egregious violations of human rights throughout Europe. We might think that the UK would rarely, if ever, be found in breach, and I am happy to say that is the general situation. Last year, the Strasbourg Court ruled against the UK in only 10 instances. The underlying question we need to consider is whether those cases, and the apparent breaches, were of a magnitude that the founders of the convention would recognise. We have to ask ourselves what we expect of the Court today and how we can help to restore its legitimacy. Those are the questions we are dealing with now.

We would like the Court to have the following priorities, particularly after the Brighton declaration. First, it should not involve itself in cases that national courts have already decided properly. In this country, one would expect that to be so more often than not. Secondly, the Court should focus its resources on the most deserving cases; on the surface, a backlog of nearly 130,000 suggests that is not happening. Thirdly, the Court should not delve into our own legislation without very good reason. The margin of appreciation must be observed. Fourthly, judges adjudicating serious cases must be of the highest quality. Each of those priorities would involve a big programme of reform for the Court, but individually and collectively they are extremely important to ensure continuing support for the legitimacy of the Court. We may yet need deeper and more fundamental reform to preserve the role of the convention.

At the outset, I mentioned a Commission on the Bill of Rights, and I referred to its findings in relation to the provisions in my hon. Friend’s Bill. I remind the House of some of the commission’s key conclusions.

[Martin Horwood]

I am eager to hear the commission’s conclusions, but given the fact that the Government are opposing the Bill and supporting the next Bill we are to debate, which would reinforce the Government’s commitment to devoting 0.7% of our national wealth to international development, I hope the Minister will be able to share the commission’s findings with the House in writing rather than extending debate on the Bill unnecessarily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I can only say that were I extending debate on the Bill unnecessarily, Mr Deputy Speaker would call me to account. I am dealing with the central issues that the Bill has raised, and I hope I am doing so in appropriate detail, as the measure is so serious and important. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I shall delay no further.

On the central question of whether there should be a UK Bill of Rights, a majority of the commission concluded that there is a strong argument in favour. That was on the basis that any such Bill would incorporate and build on all the United Kingdom’s existing obligations under the European convention on human rights, and that it would provide no less protection than is contained currently both in the Human Rights Act and in the devolution settlements. This was in line with the Commission’s terms of reference.

The majority saw the current lack of public ownership of the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights as the most compelling reason in favour of a new Bill of Rights. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover made similar points in his speech. Some of those in the majority who favoured a Bill of Rights felt that any new Bill could usefully define the scope of some rights more clearly and adjust their balance. That is another point on which there is some concurrence between the Commission’s findings and the rationale behind the present Bill.

The two Commissioners in the minority concluded that the Commission’s two consultations and its deliberations had failed to identify any real shortcomings in either the existing Human Rights Act or how it is applied by the domestic courts. Although unable to reach agreement on all its conclusions, the Commission’s report identified issues that would need careful consideration before a Bill of Rights was introduced. Given the ongoing human rights debate, it is no surprise that the Bill also touches on some of these issues, for example, on what scope there is for more clearly incorporating the concept of responsibilities as well as rights in any new legislative framework. The Commission also proposed consideration of whether any new Bill of Rights in the future should include additional rights beyond those contained in the Human Rights Act, and my hon. Friend’s Bill addresses similar issues.

The Commission was also united in urging the Government to continue to pursue reform of the European Court of Human Rights. The Government agree to the importance of maintaining the report’s momentum. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice recently appeared before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and made it clear that in his view there was a strong case for further reform along the lines that I have expressed today. He is working not just with colleagues in Government here, but in Strasbourg to secure an agreed approach to the longer-term future of the Court.

[Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now been speaking for 45 minutes. Each Conservative Member who spoke in the debate did so for about an hour. Clearly, this is a tactic to stop us getting to the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill, which the Government supposedly support. Does using such tactics to stop the Bill being heard today not make a mockery of the Prime Minister’s attempts to try to detoxify the Conservative party?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point in a forceful manner. Had I believed there to be a filibuster taking place, I would have intervened and prevented it from doing so. I have not heard a filibuster.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment. I am happy that he has at least had the chance to express his support for the Government’s commitment to meeting their aid targets, which we have done more successfully than any other previous Government.

To return to the subject of the Bill before the House, most fundamentally, all Commissioners agreed that any debate on a UK Bill of Rights had to be fully alive to the sensitive issue of devolution and that, in itself, cautions against change at this time. Human rights are intricately woven into the existing devolution settlement, and as that settlement is to be reconsidered in the relatively near future, that argues strongly against any precipitate changes to the existing human rights framework in the United Kingdom. The Commission’s final report notes:

“As a matter purely of practicality all of us believe that, while we would not want to see an inhibition on further discussion in the light of our report”—

it is lucky that it said that, because there will not be one—

“it would be essential to await the outcome of the referendum (in Scotland) before moving towards final decisions on the creation of a UK Bill of Rights for the obvious reason that it will only be after the referendum that the future composition of the UK will be known.”

I hope that the House would agree that it is difficult to fault the logic of that conclusion, which provides a persuasive reason as to why now is not the time to embark on wholesale changes to the human rights framework.

In the context of the devolution settlement, and of the Commission’s comments, it is interesting to note from the report that the Commission’s findings revealed wide differences of opinion in different parts of the United Kingdom. Respondents in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland often argued that there was little or no call for a UK Bill of Rights among their populations.

My hon. Friend’s Bill is serious and detailed, and a huge amount of work has clearly been done on it by some very talented drafters and lawyers, but I hope that he will appreciate that it could be slightly premature to jump this particular fence at the moment. The whole House should express its gratitude to him, however, for bringing the Bill before us. This debate has given me a chance to thank him and the Commission on a Bill of Rights for their work, and to explain where matters stand following the publication of the report. I am happy to assure him that the report, the Bill and the points expressed in today’s debate by him and the other hon. Members who have spoken will continue to inform further Government opinion on this important topic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

To reinforce the point I was making, the complacency that flows through every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered will be seen as anathema to the majority of people who voted in the by-election in favour of Eurosceptic parties who want a completely fresh look at our relationship with the European Union.

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Chope]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

[Damian Green]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We are in danger of veering off piste in a big way. There is going to be a big post-mortem about what happened in yesterday’s by-election, but let us not start it in the Chamber right now. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

[Damian Green]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Mr Chope.

Entry Clearances: Overseas Students

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Michael Connarty]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which (a) universities, (b) colleges of further education and (c) private providers have lost UK Border Agency highly trusted sponsor status since September 2010.

[Official Report, 19 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 868-69W.]

Letter of correction from Damian Green:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) on 19 June 2012.

The lists provided included Leicester College and Princes College School of English. Neither of these sponsors had lost their Highly Trusted Sponsor status and therefore should not have been included.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Damian Green]

No universities have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010. There have been 33 further education colleges that have lost their UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

Abingdon and Witney College

Askham Bryan College

Barnet and Southgate College

Blackburn College

Bolton College

Brooklands College

Carshalton College

City College Brighton and Hove

College of North West London

Coulsdon College

Croydon College

Cumbernauld College

Greenwich Community College

King George V College

Kirklees College

Leicester College

Lowestoft College

Motherwell College

Newham College of Further Education

North West Regional College

Oatridge College

Plumpton College

Reid Kerr College

Sandwell College

South Birmingham College

South Nottingham College

South Tyneside College

Southern Regional College

St Vincent College

Stow College

Varndean College

Worcester Sixth Form College

49 private providers have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

A+ English Ltd

Abacus College

Access College London

Azad University (IR) in Oxford

Basil Paterson College

Bedfordshire College

Birmingham International College

Bournemouth Business School International

Cambridge Seminars College

Care in Hand LTD

Christ the Redeemer College

City Banking College Limited

Colchester English Study Centre

ELT-Banbury Ltd

Embassy CES Brighton

English for Everyone Ltd/IH Aberdeen Ltd

English in York

Foyle Language School

Harrow Academy UK

Institute of St Anselm

Lake School of English Oxford

LAL Language Centres (Torbay) Ltd

Language Studies International

Language Studies International, London Central

Le Cordon Bleu Limited

Leicester Commercial College

London Hotel School

London School of Beauty & Make-up

Loxdale English Centre/Swedish Folk High School

Margate Language Centre

Maria Montessori Training Organisation (The)

Midlands Academy of Business & Technology

MM Oxford Study Services

Northumbria School of English

Olivet English Language School

Princes College School of English

Ray Cochrane CIDESCO International Beauty School

Riviera English School

Sassoon Academy

Shane Global Language Centres

Sophies Recruitment Services Ltd

Stafford House School of English

Stanton School of English

Surrey Language Centre

The New School of English Ltd

Twin Towers English College

University of Leicester International Study Centre

University of Wales International Study Centre

Westminster Academy

Some institutions are seeking to reverse these decisions through current representations. However, some institutions will have reapplied for Highly Trusted Status since revocation and some will be able to reapply for Highly Trusted Sponsor Status six months after the decision to remove it.

The correct answer should have been:

[Damian Green]

No universities have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010. There have been 32 further education colleges that have lost their UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

Abingdon and Witney College

Askham Bryan College

Barnet and Southgate College

Blackburn College

Bolton College

Brooklands College

Carshalton College

City College Brighton and Hove

College of North West London

Coulsdon College

Croydon College

Cumbernauld College

Greenwich Community College

King George V College

Kirklees College

Lowestoft College

Motherwell College

Newham College of Further Education

North West Regional College

Oatridge College

Plumpton College

Reid Kerr College

Sandwell College

South Birmingham College

South Nottingham College

South Tyneside College

Southern Regional College

St Vincent College

Stow College

Varndean College

Worcester Sixth Form College

48 private providers have lost UK Border Agency Highly Trusted Sponsor Status since September 2010.

These are:

A+ English Ltd

Abacus College

Access College London

Azad University (IR) in Oxford

Basil Paterson College

Bedfordshire College

Birmingham International College

Bournemouth Business School International

Cambridge Seminars College

Care in Hand LTD

Christ the Redeemer College

City Banking College Limited

Colchester English Study Centre

ELT-Banbury Ltd

Embassy CES Brighton

English for Everyone Ltd/IH Aberdeen Ltd

English in York

Foyle Language School

Harrow Academy UK

Institute of St Anselm

Lake School of English Oxford

LAL Language Centres (Torbay) Ltd

Language Studies International

Language Studies International, London Central

Le Cordon Bleu Limited

Leicester Commercial College

London Hotel School

London School of Beauty & Make-up

Loxdale English Centre/Swedish Folk High School

Margate Language Centre

Maria Montessori Training Organisation (The)

Midlands Academy of Business & Technology

MM Oxford Study Services

Northumbria School of English

Olivet English Language School

Ray Cochrane CIDESCO International Beauty School

Riviera English School

Sassoon Academy

Shane Global Language Centres

Sophies Recruitment Services Ltd

Stafford House School of English

Stanton School of English

Surrey Language Centre

The New School of English Ltd

Twin Towers English College

University of Leicester International Study Centre

University of Wales International Study Centre

Westminster Academy

Some institutions are seeking to reverse these decisions through current representations. However, some institutions will have reapplied for Highly Trusted Status since revocation and some will be able to reapply for Highly Trusted Sponsor Status six months after the decision to remove it.

Policing of Violence at Hunts

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing this evening’s debate. It is not often in an Adjournment debate that the full emotions behind it are apparent, but they already have been this evening. The House will be aware of the strong emotions and feelings held on both sides of the debate.

In the last few minutes of his speech the hon. Gentleman set me some challenges, so let me address them directly. Violence at hunts is unacceptable, whether that is violence towards those who are hunting or towards those who are protesting against hunts. As with any violent crime, I would expect the police to take appropriate action should violence occur at a hunt.

The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted me to direct chief constables to do certain things. I should point out to him as gently as I can that it is not for Ministers to tell chief constables how to do their job. One of the things that we most cherish about British policing is that the police are operationally independent, and when politicians try to direct police in detail as to how they should do their job, they enter very murky—

[Chris Williamson]

Does the Minister not feel it is appropriate, however, to issue guidance to the chief constables to make it clear that the Hunting Act 2004 is the law of the land and that police have an obligation to uphold the law—all laws?

[Damian Green]

I am not aware of a single police officer in this country who does not know that the Hunting Act is the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to interfere in the operational decisions of the police. That I refuse to do, and any sensible Policing Minister—indeed, any Minister—would refuse to do that because that is not the way we do policing—

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to keep interrupting his flow, but surely he is not satisfied at the fact that hunts are regularly and flagrantly breaking the terms of the Hunting Act. That cannot be right, can it? It is the law of the land and surely the Government have an obligation to make sure that the law of the land is upheld.

[Damian Green]

Let me get to the facts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said, on both sides of the hunting debate it is possible for people to compile a list of grievances. That is what has happened.

Let me turn to the question of policing at hunts very directly. There are over 325 registered hunts in England and Wales. Together they have carried out over 70,000 days’ hunting since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005. From 2005 to 2011, the latest year for which official figures are available, a total of 332 individuals were prosecuted under the Hunting Act. Of these, 239 were found guilty.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance to forces on the enforcement of the Hunting Act. This guidance reinforces the general position that the deployment of police officers, including for enforcement of the Hunting Act, is an operational matter for the police force concerned. The police, of course, have an important duty to enforce the law, but this general duty to enforce the law is subject to the normal discretion of chief constables, who are required to balance resources and priorities. The Hunting Act is no exception to this principle. It is up to the police to decide what resources they use to enforce and prioritise the Act.

The hon. Gentleman indicated that he thought the police were perhaps neglecting this because of the absence of sufficient resources. The Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit and that means that all public services must constrain their spending. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of the police in the community, or between numbers and the quality of service provided.

I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House and on both sides of this passionate debate would welcome the fact that in the first two years of this Government, crime fell by 10%. On both measures of crime it is clearly falling and it is perfectly clear that the police, even with the constraints on resources, are able to do their job better than ever before. There is no argument to be made at all that resources are restricting the police from doing their basic job of cutting crime. That applies across the board.

Let me turn to the right of protest, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. I agree with him that peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society.

[Chris Williamson]

The right to protest is not what I was talking about in relation to hunt monitors, who are engaged in a perfectly legal and lawful activity in monitoring the activities of the hunting fraternity, partly to make sure that they do not transgress the law. Indeed, evidence garnered by hunt monitors has led to numerous successful prosecutions. It is not about protest: it is about monitors being allowed to go about their lawful business.

[Damian Green]

Indeed. I have already, I hope, enlightened the House with the number of prosecutions. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that hunts are not being properly policed, I simply point out that there have been 332 prosecutions and in 239 of those people were found guilty. Whether he regards monitors as protestors or as something else, it is clear that the police are doing their job, as is the rest of the criminal justice system, and people are being prosecuted successfully.

The rights of monitors, protestors, or whatever we wish to call them need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or of serious disruption to the community. The police have a responsibility to assess and manage this balance to ensure public protection and safety, and to engage with protestors, monitors and event organisers to enable peaceful activities to take place. It is clear that on either side of this debate none of these rights extends to violent or threatening behaviour. It is not acceptable for peaceful and law-abiding people to be attacked by others for expressing their views, and the police will and do act if that happens.

The police have a range of powers available to deal with violent crime, whether at a hunt or elsewhere. Where a violent crime has been committed or alleged, or a complaint has been made to the police, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate and determine whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation. The hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples, in some of which the police had clearly looked at evidence and decided that a prosecution would not be successful. That is normal police activity; it is what the police do every day. They detect more crimes than end up in court because they may well, on looking at the evidence in any type of crime, decide that perhaps a crime has not been committed or that there is not enough evidence to—

[Simon Hart]

The Minister sensibly mentioned the issue of intimidation. Would he like to express a view about whether it is necessary for people involved in hunt monitoring or hunt protesting to wear paramilitary gear and balaclavas? Is not that in itself intimidatory? Could the police exercise the powers they already have to make sure that people who want to protest do so in a legitimate and non-confrontational way?

[Damian Green]

Violent or intimidatory behaviour will draw the attention of the police, from wherever it comes. As I have said several times, this is a passionate debate with very strongly held views on both sides. I am anxious that those views can continue to be expressed but that people stay within the law, and that intimidation and violence is kept out of this debate, as it should be kept out of all debates in a democracy.

[Chris Williamson]

For the sake of clarity and setting the record straight, I have seen evidence—I have it here on this DVD and I have seen other footage—of hunt supporters wearing the paramilitary uniforms and balaclavas that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned, being extremely intimidatory and, indeed, physically assaulting hunt monitors. I hope that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman would admonish those individuals as well.

[Damian Green]

I say to the hon. Gentleman what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire: I will condemn violence and intimidation wherever it comes from. We are all aware of how strongly felt the views are on this matter, but they should not lead to violence or intimidation.

If the police have evidence of violence, intimidation or any other criminal activity, they will consult the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide whether an offence reaches the threshold required for prosecution under the relevant legislation. The code for Crown prosecutors prohibits a prosecution from continuing if there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.

Once criminal proceedings are brought in an individual case, it is for the courts alone to determine whether the police have acted correctly in enforcing the law and whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charges brought. Where a defendant is convicted, it is for the court to decide, within limits laid down in legislation, what sentence should be imposed, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating features of the case. That is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system and no Government Minister has the power to influence the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion—and a very good thing, too.

On hunting more generally, this has been a highly contentious issue for many years, both in this House and among the general public. It has been brought home to me this evening, as it has on other occasions, that that remains the case. I know that the hon. Gentleman in particular is passionate about the issue, as is my hon. Friend. It is right and proper that Government and Parliament should reflect on this matter from time to time.

I should make it clear that, while I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue that needs to be discussed from time to time, the Government are not proposing any immediate reform at this stage. We recognise the strong views held on both sides of the debate and—this point is important to the House—that it is an issue of personal conscience. Members of all parties in the House hold different views on the subject of hunting and it has traditionally, and rightly, been subject to a free vote in Parliament. I was a Member at the time of the Hunting Act and voted against it. My personal views are on the record. I should say as a declaration of non-interest that I have never been hunting in my life. Nevertheless, I voted against the Bill.

The Conservative election manifesto promised that Parliament would be given the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote. There are many greater priorities facing the Government at the moment, but we plan to honour that commitment by tabling a motion on hunting at an appropriate time.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Green]

I will give way one last time.

[Chris Williamson]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that that commitment and the rhetoric of senior Ministers are, as I said in my speech, tantamount to tacit approval for those who are transgressing the Hunting Act to continue to do so? They may be misinterpreting them—I am sure that Ministers would not encourage people to break the law—but does the Minister not understand how the hunting fraternity might take that as tacit approval to break the Hunting Act?

[Damian Green]

No, absolutely not. Every party at every election makes promises to change the law. Nobody takes that as tacit approval to break the law. If they did, no party would, responsibly, ever promise to change the law at any election and, therefore, there would be no point in having elections or election manifestos. As I hope the House will have observed, I am trying to steer a course, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely reject his interpretation of my party’s policy at the election.

As I have said, the time is not appropriate and we are not prioritising reform of the Hunting Act at the moment, but the right to protest peacefully and within the law is one that this Government hold dearly. Violence against those who do or do not support hunting is unacceptable. I know that the police will take appropriate action to identify and prosecute the perpetrators of violent crime, using the range of powers at their disposal to deal with any violence or unlawful activity. That is what the police should be doing, that is what the police are doing and that is what they will continue to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Metropolitan Police Service

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Streeter. I echo others in congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr Thomas) on securing the debate, and I echo his tribute to the Metropolitan police and to the police as a whole on the remarkable job that they continue to do. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) spoke about their performance, in particular during the Olympic and Paralympic games, when forces from throughout the country worked together in London to deliver the biggest peacetime policing operation in our history. That was a huge and undeniable success.

I will start on one of the things the hon. Member for Harrow, West said that I agreed with. He will not be surprised to learn that there were not many, but there were some. I completely agree with him and the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee on the importance of diversity in police recruitment and retention, and I have two concrete things to say in response.

I was pleased earlier this week to help launch the College of Policing, a new body set up with support from across the House to increase professionalism within the police, to improve standards and to share best practice. Clearly, one of the areas in which the college will have fruitful work to do will be on practical ways to improve diversity, which is obviously a particularly important issue for the Met. As has been said, chief officers as well as Ministers in successive Governments have said that something needs to be done. There has been no lack of push to do it but, so far, there has been a lack of sufficient success in doing it. I hope that the college will help to achieve that.

The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), made a point about money. I admire the elegance of his phraseology: when the previous Government were organising something, he used the words “savings” or “reductions”, but when this Government do it, it is “cuts”. They are exactly the same, and wrapping it up in nice language does not make any difference.

When we came to office, we set the police a challenge to cut crime while playing their part in reducing the country’s record deficit, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party left us. In the case of the Metropolitan police, the response to that challenge is being ably led by the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We know about some of the difficulties that the Met has faced in meeting that challenge. They have been brought up by many hon. Members during the debate, but we also know that it is fundamentally determined to address those difficulties, and that it is being successful in doing so.

In November 2012, the Metropolitan police submitted a plan for a balanced budget and stated its intention to transform the service, prioritise the front line, and maintain officer numbers. The Mayor’s office for policing and crime is consulting on a draft policing and crime plan and estates strategy. I regret the way that the consultation has been criticised by various hon. Members during the debate. It seems to me that we should all welcome the deputy mayor’s visits to London boroughs to hear local concerns as a model of consultation.

[Ms Buck]

It is right that we can have a mature debate about police premises and the best way to base the police in the community, but given that the Mayor said categorically that police stations and counters would not close until alternative provision had been found, why have we gone through an entire consultative process with no alternatives being offered, merely being asked to comment on 65 station closures?

[Damian Green]

I will come to station closures. I take the point, which has been raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. I want to deal with it.

The consultation includes commitments about not only the level of resources that the Met will have at the front line but—this point has been neglected but needs to be injected into the debate—how those resources will be used. At the forefront of the Met’s plans is the Met change programme, which is being used to transform how operational policing is delivered in London. The programme has several strands, including plans to deliver a flatter management structure, thereby putting more constables on the beat, engagement with the supply services market to examine new ways of delivering the services they provide in areas such as human resource, technology and finance, and plans to release under-utilised assets.

I hope that hon. Members agree that the Met’s recently issued plans show that it is looking at a transformational approach to the way in which it delivers policing in London. Everyone has observed that London is a fast changing city that is difficult to police, so it needs to keep ahead of the curve. Clearly, there has been great interest, not just in the debate, but across London about the closure of police stations. As has been said, decisions about the number of stations and their operating hours are matters for the Mayor and the Commissioner. I am sure that many hon. Members will contribute to the consultation.

It is important not to confuse buildings with quality of service provided to the public. Fewer than 50 crimes a night are reported at front counters throughout the Metropolitan police area. Since 2008, the number of crimes reported to those front counters has dropped 20%, and internet and e-mail reporting is up by 32%. That shows how changes in the modern world must be reflected in changes in the way the police deliver their services.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I cannot keep quiet. I will give a concrete example of what will happen. Wanstead police station will shut, and there will be no replacement whatever. Response times will lengthen, and people will be put in danger. That will be a green light for burglars in the Wanstead part of my constituency. That goes directly against what Boris Johnson promised. People in Wanstead and throughout London want to know what Boris Johnson does not understand about the word “no”.

[Damian Green]

There is no reason why response times should go up. I have explained what is happening in the way people report things to the police. There are ever-increasing ways in which the public can contact the police. That includes contact centres on the new non-emergency number, 101, which takes some of the pressure off 999 services, and contact through supermarket surgeries and so on, where the police can meet thousands of people, instead of the very few who may come in to a police station.

Several hon. Members made the point that the quality of contact as well as the quantity of contact matters. It seems to be unarguable that getting the police out there into buildings where thousands of people are likely to be is a better way of making that contact than simply being inside a traditional big-building police station.

[Mr Lammy]

There is a proposal that throughout the entirety of my constituency police station hours will be reduced to 9 to 5. The matter also involves perception. The people of Tottenham do not want officers coming into the constituency from outside. They want officers based in the constituency for reasons that were echoed time and again after the riots in the summer of 2011. The issue is not just about a 9-to-5 operation; it is about visible policing on the ground in constituencies such as mine.

[Damian Green]

Indeed, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, one part of the MOPAC plan is to increase the number of police constables, so there will be more visible policing. The background that the right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned in passing—he is honest enough to know that it must be the background to the debate—is that crime is falling, but someone coming to this debate cold would not recognise that fact from the tenor of the debate so far. It is a straightforward fact that crime is falling, and that includes a 3% reduction in police recorded crime in the Metropolitan police area in the first two years of this Government between 2010 and 2012. That refutes any suggestion that reduced budgets and fewer officers inevitably make the public less safe.

[Ms Buck]

Does the Minister accept that the reporting of crime at police counters or contact points is marginal to the argument that most of us have about the police presence in the community? People want safer neighbour teams and police to be rooted in their neighbourhoods so that they do not end up having to report to a police station at the far end of the borough and, as is usually the case, the most deprived neighbourhoods are left behind.

[Damian Green]

I have just addressed that point. There are two things: the response to crime and preventing it, and the quality of day-to-day contact. That is why finding innovative ways of placing the police regularly in parts of the community where thousands of people go may prove to be a better way of establishing those contacts than the traditional way. I have seen that in action. The other week, I was in Newport in Gwent visiting a mobile police station in a supermarket car park. People of all ages and from all backgrounds were coming up and talking to the police naturally. That is extremely important.

The matter must also be looked at against the background of falling crime. Crime in Harrow—the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) introduced the debate—is down by 1.6%. We heard an impassioned speech from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who must be aware that crime in Hammersmith and Fulham over the past year is down by 4.7%. In the interests of fairness, it is important to put that context in place, because the Metropolitan police are doing an extremely successful job in vast parts of the city.

I shall deal with one or two of the detailed points that have been made. Various funds that were mentioned have been rolled into the community safety fund, which is worth £90 million in 2013-14. The allocation of that within individual budgets is the responsibility of local areas, and in London the deputy Mayor. A point was made about abstraction of police constables, and overall the Met intends to increase the number of police constables.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked about the use of dead children’s identities, which of course shocked all of us—

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but our time is up. We now move on to our next debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Hear, hear, hear, hear.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

We are considering a number of ways to make the best use of magistrates’ courts, including the option of increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our priority in the short term, however, is to extend supervision to short-sentenced prisoners to ensure they receive supervision on release to help them stop offending.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has clearly been undertaking work experience on a farmyard. We are grateful for his contribution.

[Mr Hollobone]

Kettering is fortunate to have an excellent bench of magistrates and the whole nation should be grateful for the tremendous unpaid work carried out by 24,000 magistrates up and down the country. Is the Minister aware that £40 million could be saved in the criminal justice system were he to undertake this simple revision of magistrates’ powers? Justice would be better, cheaper, quicker and more local as a result.

[Damian Green]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s high regard for magistrates both in Kettering and around the country. They are indeed volunteers who do a very good job. I am aware of the Magistrates Association’s proposals and the costings and savings that have been suggested. Those proposals bear scrutiny, because there will be second-order effects such as potentially more people in prison and more defendants electing to have a Crown court trial. As I said, the main thing to do is to ensure that people do not reoffend, which is why we have concentrated on extending supervision to short-sentence offenders.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that that puts pressure on jury service? A constituent of mine—an elderly 69-year-old lady who is not ill but slightly infirm—has been asked to do her third stint of jury service, and she has to take three buses to get to court. Is there anything the Minister can do about pensioners who have been asked numerous times to do jury service, are not capable of doing it, and do not want to do it?

[Damian Green]

I am slightly confused about why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question in relation to magistrates courts, which do not have juries. As the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) might well have the effect of more cases being heard in Crown courts, there would be more demand for juries. Jurors such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) would be more in demand, so I am not entirely sure that his question is in accordance with the original question.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as my wife is a magistrate. Occasionally, she comes home in tears of frustration, because she and her colleagues have not been given the powers to enable them to do the job in the way in which they wish to do it. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider extending sentencing powers so that they can take some of the waiting and the queues out of justice in future?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the queues, as he put it, in Crown courts in particular are coming down. We will consider the proposal from the Magistrates Association and others to increase the maximum sentencing length, but that has to be considered along with many other reforms that are needed to improve the process of justice throughout the criminal justice system.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I think that that sounded like a no to extending magistrates’ powers. In addition, a third of indictable offences of violence were dealt with by issuing cautions last year, rather than their coming to court. While the cautioning of violent and dangerous criminals is being dealt with outside court, minor offences are being sent to the Crown court. Does that not look incompetent, even by this Government’s standards? What does the Minister have against magistrates, and why is he treating them with contempt?

[Damian Green]

That is the most absurd interpretation of what I have just said—that I was considering the proposal originally made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). May I tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), given his way with the facts, that the use of cautions has come down considerably since the Government of whom he was a supporter were in power?

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

8. How he plans to ensure that the voluntary and charitable sectors play a full role in the rehabilitation of offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the legislation on squatting in residential premises introduced in 2012.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The offence came into force only on 1 September 2012, but early indications are that it is being enforced, and reports suggest that it is deterring would-be squatters from occupying other people’s homes.

[Mike Weatherley]

There are indications that as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 squatters are increasingly targeting commercial properties. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to evaluate the size of the problem of squatting in commercial premises nationally and to take action to amend the law if necessary?

[Damian Green]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are monitoring this closely, because it is possible that displacement squatting, as it were, is happening. We are in the early stages of collecting evidence. If he has specific examples from his own constituency of squatters occupying non-residential buildings, we will look at it very carefully, because squatting is a damaging offence.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of alternatives to short-term prison sentences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Magistrates courts in Swindon and Wiltshire are about to make important decisions about the allocation of crime and family work. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and those on local magistrates benches to ensure that very long journeys in order to access justice do not become the norm?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. Like me, I am sure that he will welcome the work done by the Courts Service to produce alternative ways in which people can give evidence—video links and so on—which mean that some unnecessary journeys and waiting times in courts can be removed.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T7. There are 500,000 victims of sexual offences but only 5,600 convictions. Why does the Secretary of State think that the number of sex offenders who are prosecuted is falling under the coalition Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Magistrates courts play a key role in the administration of justice in the UK, but too often their operation can be deeply chaotic—it can be unclear when cases will be heard, cases start and stop, and it is hard to follow proceedings. Will the Department consider reorganising how magistrates courts work so we get efficient and clear administration of justice in them?

[Damian Green]

I am at one with my hon. Friend on that. I visit magistrates courts and was at Maidstone recently to see a very well run magistrates court—it is well run not least because the court officials and those feeding the court can use new technology, which, increasingly, will speed up the process.

Police Grant Report England and Wales (2013-14)

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, has today laid before the House, the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2013-14” (HC 876). The report sets out my right hon. Friend’s, determination for 2013-14 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Mayor’s office for policing and crime.

This statement also includes details of other funding streams that the Home Office, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Government intend to provide to the police in 2013-14.

The Police Grant Settlement 2013-14

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The European Union (Approvals) Bill simply provides for parliamentary approval of three draft EU decisions: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; the proposal to agree the five-year work programme—the multi-annual framework—of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency; and the draft European Council decision to maintain the number of EU Commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The Bill underlines the importance placed by the Government on Parliament’s role in scrutinising the work of the European Union, which is why we enacted the European Union Act 2011.

The Government have given full consideration to all three measures and are of the view that the UK should support them. We are satisfied that they are in the best interests of the UK, and are sensible and reasonable. None has a significant domestic impact and, in particular, none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on the UK. The provisions in the Bill are technical in nature but will, in their own way, play an important role in the future shape of the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently set out the need to examine the UK’s relationship with the EU. The provisions do not represent far-reaching changes, and there will be further opportunities to examine more fundamental changes in other debates.

The Bill seeks the approval of Parliament on two proposals brought forward under a legal base of article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union: the proposal to give legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union; and the proposal for the next the five-year work programme, the multi-annual framework, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Article 352 allows the Union to take action to attain one of the objectives set out in the treaties, but for which there is no specific power set out in those treaties. Any proposal brought forward under this legal base must be agreed unanimously by the Council and gain the consent of the European Parliament, so that at European level there is a high bar for such a proposal to meet.

For the UK to agree to this at Council, and for the required unanimity to be secured, Parliament must first give its approval. The Government have put in place further parliamentary controls for proposals brought forward under article 352 of the treaty. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 states that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of, or otherwise support, an article 352 decision unless it is approved by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, without the agreement of Parliament a proposal brought forward under this legal base cannot be adopted.

The EU Commission currently comprises 27 commissioners, one from each member state. The Lisbon treaty provides for a reduction, by one third, in the size of the Commission from 1 November 2014. However, the treaty also allows the European Council to alter the number of commissioners, subject to unanimous agreement. To secure Ireland’s ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. Section 7 of the European Union Act 2011 provides that a Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of such a decision unless the draft decision is approved by Act of Parliament.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The previous Lord Chancellor thought that the second draft decision, on the multi-annual financial framework, did not require an Act of Parliament because it fell under article 308 of the previous treaties—now section 352 of the new treaties. Do the Government have a clear position on whether anything previously under article 308 will now always require an Act of Parliament?

[Damian Green]

That level has not been reached. My hon. Friend is right that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the previous Lord Chancellor, came to that opinion, but, as my hon. Friend will also be aware, the European Scrutiny Committee challenged the basis of the assessment, and it was found that, because the previous agreement had been made under a previous version of the EU treaties that was not specifically provided for in the 2011 Act, it did not fall within the exemption set out in the Act. That is the principle on which the Government will operate.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am extremely grateful for that clarification. The Act clearly refers to article 352, so would it be fair for the House to assume that if it is not specifically under article 352, the exemptions will not apply?

[Damian Green]

It is fair for the House to assume that were it equivalently done on the basis of previous treaties, the precedent set by the decision would apply, but I would hesitate, off the top of my head, to take that any further.

I turn now to the detail, starting with the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union. The Official Journal is the gazette of record for the EU. It is published every working day and records the decisions made and legislative acts of the EU institutions. The electronic version of the Official Journal has existed in parallel with the print version for some years, but a European Court of Justice judgment found that only the printed version was authentic. EU legislation is necessary, therefore, to enable the electronic version to have legal effect.

The EU institutions believe that if publication of the electronic version is given legal effect, access to EU law would be faster and more economical. At the moment, anyone wishing to access the authentic version must order and pay for printed copies of the Official Journal. This proposal will not affect those who wish to continue to have access to the printed version. This is a sensible measure in a world in which electronic communications have revolutionised how information is distributed and accessed. It will have no significant impacts or effects on the UK.

The second proposal for which the Bill seeks to provide approval is the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency, established in 2007. Its role is to support the European institutions and member states—when they are acting within the scope of EU law—to take measures and actions that respect fundamental rights. The agency does this through the collection and analysis of information and data. It also has a role in communicating and raising awareness of fundamental rights.

The agency’s work is regulated by a five-year work programme setting out the thematic areas of the agency’s activity. These must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance and be in line with the European Union’s current priorities. The work programme, defined by the Council of Ministers, gives the member states control over where the agency undertakes its work.

The agency’s first work programme covered the period 2007 to 2012. In December 2011, the Commission brought forward a proposal for a new work programme to cover the period 2013 to 2017. The proposal was amended through negotiations. The measure for which approval is sought very much continues the themes set out in the previous work programme, although there are some adjustments in the terminology.

The agreement of a new work programme will not alter the tasks of the agency, and nor will it change the agency’s role or remit. The work programme does not set out or define these elements. Those are set out in a completely different instrument—the agency’s establishing regulation—and that instrument is not under review at this time. The work programme simply sets out the themes under which the agency will work. Failure to agree the work programme will deprive the Council of the opportunity to set the direction for the agency by defining these themes.

I turn now to the third element in the Bill: the draft decision to maintain the number of EU commissioners at the equivalent of one per member state. The proposed reduction in the size of the commission and the subsequent loss of a guaranteed commissioner emerged as a concern of the Irish during the ratification of the Lisbon treaty. In order to secure Ireland’s ratification of the treaty, it was agreed that a decision would be taken to maintain the number of EU commissioners before the appointment of the next Commission in 2014. The European Council has put forward the draft decision to fulfil the commitment made to Ireland.

This Government are committed to creating a leaner, less bureaucratic European Union and to improving efficiency in the EU institutions, including the Commission. We believe there is significant room for savings in administration and will continue to push for substantial reductions in the EU’s administrative costs. However, it is also important that the UK maintains its EU commissioner. By agreeing to this draft decision, the UK will retain its guaranteed commissioner and be in a stronger position to influence the make-up of the next Commission. Furthermore, the draft decision states that it should be reviewed before a new Commission is appointed, in 2019, or when the number of EU member states reaches 30, whichever is earlier. The draft decision does not give the go-ahead for the Commission to continue expanding ad infinitum.

I hope the House will agree with our assessment that these measures, although necessary, are administrative in nature, improving the accessibility and legal certainty of the EU’s official record, providing an EU agency with a work programme and fulfilling a commitment to the Irish people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does this mean that we will be able to get an electronic version of what has happened in the European Union within, say, three hours, as we do for proceedings in this House, and that if one does not have that, it will take several days to get a printed version?

[Damian Green]

My understanding is that there will be no alteration to the accessibility of the printed version. The electronic version already exists; this Bill means that it can be taken as an authentic record of what has happened. The Bill simply changes the status of the electronic record, which—I am told—is published every day. I hope that will assuage my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but I do agree that there is a slight risk of that happening, as we have all been aware over many decades. We have to be careful about the level of democratic accountability in the European Union. I would always support increasing democratic reform and democratic accountability in the EU where we can do so.

There is the potential for endless growth in the number of commissioners, or at least for the number to be limited only by the number of European states that might join the EU. It was clear from the Irish referendum debate that, as any fan of the TV series “Borgen” will know, for smaller countries the appointment of a European commissioner is a major political issue to which people attach a great deal of importance, and we have to respect that. We are a community of many nations with many different priorities, and it is important that we acknowledge that. To that extent, I support the Government in backing this measure.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made a brave effort to make this debate sound like a very contentious one that demands this level of scrutiny. In the spirit of coalition unity, I recognise that the European Union Act 2011 has brought a greater level of accountability and scrutiny to European legislation in this place, and that process could go further. At the beginning of last year, Ministers announced that there would be a review of the way in which scrutiny of European legislation took place. Submissions were invited, and I found myself in rare agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in suggesting that Select Committees should automatically and routinely vet European legislation that was relevant to their briefs. Will Ministers update us on the progress of that process and say how far down the path we are towards introducing such routine and automatic scrutiny by Select Committees?

[Damian Green]

In the interests of the many parliamentarians I see assembled on these Benches, I should point out that the procedures of Select Committees are very much not for the Government to decide but are a matter for this House.

Direct Entry to the Police

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

On 27 March 2012 I issued a written statement to the House on the Government’s response to Tom Winsor’s final report of his review of remuneration and conditions of service for police officers and staff in England and Wales.

The Government remain committed to the review’s principles and objectives. It is vital that we have a modern and flexible police force to meet the demands placed on it, while being fair to police officers and staff who deserve to have pay and workforce arrangements that recognise the role they play in fighting crime and keeping the public safe.

In his review Tom Winsor said it is

“clear that the next 30 years are unlikely to be like the last 30. Chief Constables will need different and better tools to respond to future challenges”.

The issue of choosing our police leaders is of the highest importance to the future of the police. This consultation addresses the implementation of Tom Winsor’s recommendations for a fast-track inspector scheme, recruitment directly to the rank of superintendent, and amending eligibility for chief constable rank to include service in a chief officer equivalent role overseas in a common law jurisdiction. The fast track to inspector scheme will attract the brightest with the most potential to go on to become leaders. Direct entry at senior ranks will make sure that there is access to the best pool of talent, those who have proven leadership and business skills and who can bring with them fresh thinking from other sectors.

Previously I promised to consult on proposals for direct entry to the police. I can confirm that the consultation on the implementation of this major element of the wider programme of reform will launch today, 30 January, and close on 28 March. The consultation document and online questionnaires will be available on the Home Office website. My Department will ensure that all interested parties are aware of the launch of the consultation to ensure that they can have their views heard. I would also welcome responses from other interested organisations and individuals.

Tom Winsor’s recommendations form part of a coherent programme of police reform, along with wider reforms including the introduction of police and crime commissioners, the reduction in bureaucracy, developing professionalism in the police and the creation of the college of policing, and improving service to the public through collaboration between police forces, with other public services and with the private sector. This reform programme is working: crime is falling and public confidence is high.

Copies of the consultation will be available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office. I will report to the House on the results of the consultation exercise in the summer.

Police Funding

Damian Green Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I have today placed in the Library my proposals for the aggregate amount of grant to Local Policing Bodies in England and Wales for 2013-14, for the approval of the House. Copies are also available in the Vote Office.

Today the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) will be publishing proposals for the distribution of Formula Grant to English local authorities for 2013-14. Funding to the police that in previous years was paid via the Local Government Finance Report issued by DCLG will now be paid via the Home Office Police Grant Report. This change reflects the fact that the police are outside the Business Rates Retention Scheme, and confirms my intention that this funding for the police will be permanently transferred to the Home Office in the next spending review.

The Welsh Government will shortly be setting out their proposals for the allocation of funding in 2013-14 for Local Policing Bodies in Wales.

Earlier this month, the Chancellor announced further reductions to departmental budgets for 2013-14 and 2014-15 in his autumn statement. However, I have protected the police from these reductions in 2013-14. In addition, in 2013-14, I have also protected the police from reductions announced by the Chancellor in November 2011 relating to public sector pay restraint. Without this protection on pay restraint, central Government funding for the police would have been reduced by £66 million in 2013-14. As a result of both these decisions, the police will receive the same amount of total Government funding in 2013-14 that was agreed at the October 2010 spending review.

Following the Chancellor’s recent autumn statement, I have decided to defer publication of police funding allocations for 2014-15 in order to fully scrutinise all Home Office budgets.

I have decided to apply damping so that every police force area in 2013-14 will face the same percentage reduction in core central Government funding (1.6% cash). I intend to apply damping in the same way in 2014-15. In making this decision, the Home Secretary and I have carefully considered responses to the recent informal consultation on damping. Many of the responses stressed the need to undertake a full review of the Police allocation formula before changing damping policy given that damping and the formula are inextricably linked. That is why we have decided to continue current damping arrangements and why the Home Secretary will be commissioning a fundamental review of the formula to begin once Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are established in their roles and able to engage fully in the review process. Determining how funding should be allocated to the police in the future is a complex and important matter which requires careful consideration and will take time. I am also aware that a continuation of existing damping arrangements is the basis on which many Police and Crime Commissioners and police forces are making their financial plans.

We have embarked on the biggest reforms to the policing landscape for 50 years. And 2012 is the year when these reforms start to come together at both the local level with the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners and at the national level, with the National Crime Agency. In November 2012, we welcomed 41 directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners. These directly elected individuals will have the statutory duty to deliver an efficient and effective police force, which clearly demonstrates value for money and, above all, cut-crime.

Police reform is working. Thanks to the hard work of officers up and down the country, day in and day out, crime is falling even though budgets are reducing. As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has made clear, police forces have risen to the existing financial challenge, cutting spending while largely maintaining the service they provide. The proportion of officers on the frontline is increasing, crime continues to fall, victim satisfaction is up and the response to emergency calls is being maintained.

As my decisions on police funding in 2013-14 demonstrate, we are committed to ensuring that the police continue to have the resources they need to carry out their important work. I recognise that the funding settlement remains challenging, but I am confident that PCCs and forces win continue to drive out waste and maintain the level of service that the public expect.

I have set out below how I propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams in 2013-14.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Green Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What consideration he has given to reviewing the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Government are not considering reviewing the age of criminal responsibility. They believe that young people aged 10 and over are able to differentiate bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing.

[Mr Sheerman]

That was a very disappointing answer. The fact is that in England and Wales we lock up more children than any other country in Europe. We imprison four times as many young people as Portugal, 25 times as many as Belgium, and 100 times as many as Finland. I make no apology for the fact that in 1999 we changed the law to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 10, but is it not about time that we accepted the recommendation of people throughout the civilised world that it should be at least 12? Why do the Government not agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who believes that that change must come about?

[Damian Green]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my reply disappointing. I think it entirely appropriate to hold children aged 10 and over to account for their actions, and to allow the criminal courts to decide on an effective punishment when an offence has been committed. It is important to communities, and particularly important to victims, to know that young people who offend will be dealt with appropriately.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that restorative justice, a flagship policy of this Government, is particularly effective for children around the current age of criminal responsibility?

[Damian Green]

I agree, and that is why I made the point to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that it is for the courts to decide the appropriate punishment. That might well be the use of restorative justice, which is particularly effective with young offenders.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. Although the age of criminal responsibility is 10, effectively many police officers will not do anything in the case of a miscreant under the age of 16. May we have a change to the law, whereby if a police officer were to issue a fixed penalty notice for somebody under 16 who committed antisocial behaviour or a crime, it would be served on their parents or guardians so that they would ensure that their children behaved properly?

[Damian Green]

I am always interested by the expertise my hon. Friend brings to this issue, given his welcome work as a special constable. I shall certainly consider his suggestion seriously.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to address harm and injury caused by dangerous drivers.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Government have legislated to create a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. The new offence is subject to a five-year maximum prison sentence and was implemented on 3 December 2012.

[Mark Pawsey]

My constituents, Mr and Mrs Galli-Atkinson, who have campaigned for safer roads for some time, point out that in cases in which a driver causes death while over the drink-drive limit but in which there is no evidence of careless driving, the only charge available to the police carries a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment, a fine and disqualification from driving. The law should reflect the fact that driving under the influence of drink or drugs severely impairs a driver’s reaction time. Given that the Crime and Courts Bill is currently going through Parliament, will the Minister find time to address that important issue?

[Damian Green]

I know that my hon. Friend has rightly campaigned hard on this subject. I am not entirely persuaded that there is such a gap in the law. If the driving is below the appropriate standard, a variety of offences are available, including causing death by careless driving while under the influence. If the driving had not been affected, it would not be right for the driver to be charged with anything more than a drink-driving offence.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Minister not aware, however, that there is still a problem, in that the penalties imposed by the courts for driving without insurance are sometimes lower in cost than buying that insurance in the first place? Will the Minister take steps to address that anomaly, as too often there is a perverse incentive for young drivers in particular to avoid paying their car insurance, taking the risk that the penalty will be less than the costs involved?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The cost of insurance is one reason we have just published a consultation paper on whiplash claims, in which fraud is most commonly committed, an effect of which is to drive up insurance costs for respectable drivers. That could conceivably encourage the bad behaviour that he suggests.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

In reference to the Minister’s comment about whiplash claims, false claims do much to discredit and undermine those who suffer real injuries as a result of dangerous driving. In Northern Ireland, where the costs are much higher than in comparable regions in Britain, what discussions have taken place with the Minister of Justice regarding whiplash claims?

[Damian Green]

I am sure that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland will have seen the Government’s consultation document and I hope that he, along with Members of this House, will welcome it. I would obviously always be willing to speak to him further about it.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the probation service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

T4. At this time of year, our thoughts often turn to those who are living on their own and are more vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend set out what support is being offered to groups such as the Erewash community safety partnership in their fight against antisocial behaviour and to the efforts of all to bring the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to the justice they deserve?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Erewash community safety partnership, and to reassure her that this is one of the many areas where the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working together closely. She will know that last week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, which aims precisely to help community safety partnerships put victims at the heart of their response to this problem. The Ministry of Justice is funding a number of organisations, including Victim Support, that are working to the same end.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T8. I know that the Minister responsible for probation has had the opportunity to visit Manchester and see for himself the intensive alternative to custody programme, which is co-ordinated by the Greater Manchester probation service and has achieved significant reductions in the rate and seriousness of offending. Will he and the Secretary of State make a clear commitment that, under the new commissioning arrangements, whenever they are announced, that tremendously important initiative will continue?