Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

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

The Bill is brief and to the point—it has just two clauses. It seeks to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that foreign and Commonwealth citizens in the forces who wish to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are not disadvantaged because of time served overseas. In order to apply for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1), a person must have been resident in the United Kingdom for the previous five years. The Secretary of State has the discretion to disregard time spent outside the United Kingdom during that period, but an applicant must, in all cases, have been in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period. That means that foreign and Commonwealth citizens in the armed forces who are posted overseas may have to wait longer than those who remain in the United Kingdom.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have been trying to understand the Bill. Is the key moment the precise moment at the end of the five years? Is that the law under the 1981 Act? It is unclear to me, and I am sure that my hon. Friend can explain it to the House.

[Jonathan Lord]

The key point is that under the 1981 Act a foreigner or Commonwealth citizen applying for naturalisation—the pass to British citizenship—has to have been in the UK on the exact date five years prior to making that application. Of course, it is invidious that a foreign or Commonwealth soldier serving Queen and country in our armed forces overseas, perhaps even in a conflict zone, should not be able to make such an application when other soldiers based in the UK or other men and women living in the UK would be able to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Lord]

My understanding is that it would cover such people, but I look to the Minister to give us a little more clarification on that point. The key thing is that a person will have to be serving in our armed forces to be covered. It is my understanding that Army reservists are very much a part of our armed forces. I have to say, however, that we would be unlikely to find foreign or Commonwealth citizens serving in our reserve forces. They tend to join the full armed forces, rather than the reserves. It is a full-time vocation and a full-time job, and we want to recognise their hard work and dedication.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will my hon. Friend clarify what will happen when the Bill has become an Act? Someone will have to have been a fully fledged member of the armed forces for five years, but it will not matter where they were during the five years before they apply for naturalisation. Will they, at that point, have an automatic right to become a British citizen unless they have misbehaved? I am sure that that is right, but I was unable to find that fact in the Library.

[Jonathan Lord]

At that point, the person would follow the normal naturalisation process for citizenship. The key point is that a member of the armed services will be able to apply even if they have been posted abroad.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I presume, though, that once they have done their five years and applied for naturalisation, they will pretty much have an absolute right to become a British citizen. Has my hon. Friend discussed this interesting point with the Minister?

[Jonathan Lord]

I have a large amount of notes relating to the naturalisation process and all the disqualifications that could block the path to British citizenship of a member of the armed forces. Factors such as dishonourable discharge and criminality could lead to disqualification, along with all the other kinds of things that one would expect a potential citizen of this country to be judged on, whether they were a soldier or a civilian.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to speak on this calm Friday morning, and what a pleasurable experience it is to see law being made and properly scrutinised? May I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord)—I know that this is his first Parliament—that I thought his speech was outstanding. He took many interventions, and batted them all away very deftly. He has clearly done a huge amount of research. I commend him for what he has done, and also for his choice of Bill.

It is very difficult to get a private Member’s Bill through, and I see nothing wrong with trying to persuade everyone to agree to it before it arrives on the Floor of the House. There is nothing wrong with co-operating with the Government in that sense, or indeed with the Opposition. My hon. Friend’s Bill is a very delicate creature, and it would take very few Members of Parliament to kill it. However, I have no doubt that it will become law, so I say well done to him.

The Bill is important because it is entirely in tune with the armed forces covenant. Although when I was studying it in the Library my first impression was that it was very narrow, I see nothing wrong with that. Private Members' Bills have to be narrow. In fact, this Bill goes to the heart of current public debate: the armed forces are centre stage at present, and the Government have rightly made a great virtue of the armed forces covenant. Any ludicrous bureaucratic mechanism that disadvantages the forces is rightly resented by the Veterans Association. This is a good Bill, and I am sure that it will be an excellent Act.

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is a learned and long-established Member of Parliament. I wonder whether he will attempt to answer a question that has been niggling away at the back of my mind. It seems to me that the anomaly in the 1981 Act is an absolute absurdity. Why does my hon. Friend think that it occurred in the first place? Was it an unintended consequence of some part of the legislation? Was the aim to achieve something that we have missed here? Or was it simply an oversight that should never have occurred?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The short answer is that I do not know, but the Minister is sitting here, and no doubt he does know. What I will say is that although the private Member’s Bill procedure is often criticised, private Members' Bills are in fact scrutinised much more closely than Government Bills. The British Nationality Act was a large and important measure, but I am not a great believer in the conspiracy theory of history. I do not think that anyone in the Home Office wanted to disadvantage the armed forces. I am a believer in the cock-up theory of history, and if my hon. Friend wants my honest opinion, I think that that anomaly was simply a cock-up. Now it is being righted. That is what this procedure is all about.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, it is not right that the applications of people who put their lives on the line should be refused when the very reason for their absence is that we, the British Government—we, the British people—sent them overseas to protect our country. Why the anomaly arose I do not know, but it seems absurd to me, and that is why I think that the Bill, although narrow, is important.

The Minister has said:

“Making this change was a priority commitment under the Armed Forces Covenant. I am delighted to support this Bill which will ensure service men and women are not disadvantaged.”

So the Minister is on side. As has been mentioned, Veterans Aid is also on side, and put it very well when it said:

“Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign and Commonwealth servicemen and women, disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy that is demonstrably at odds with the Military Covenant.”

The Army Families Federation has said:

“This legislation will make a big difference to the many soldiers and their spouses who are currently prohibited from applying for Citizenship because they were serving overseas or were on operations at the start the 5-year residential period.”

So this is clearly an important Bill, and it is clearly widely supported.

This Second Reading debate offers us an opportunity to try to tease out more information from the Minister about exactly how many people will be affected, how much further we can go in terms of the military covenant, and how we can improve morale and recruitment. A considerable number of people will potentially be involved. As of 1 April last year, 8,510 of the 166,110 members of the trained UK regular forces were non-British, constituting approximately 5.1% of our nation’s armed forces. That is quite a lot. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he thinks that it is the right number, and what is the Government’s policy on recruitment.

I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who intimated earlier that perhaps there were too many foreign nationals serving in our forces. The Minister, who is far more knowledgeable than me, will be able to confirm or correct that, but I suspect that the 5.1% figure is fairly constant. It seems a reasonably healthy percentage, but one would not want it to rise too far. It is important, particularly in times of economic difficulty and high unemployment, for our armed forces to consist overwhelmingly of British citizens.

Of those 8,510 forces, about 520 were Nepalese, and nearly 8,000 were citizens of the Republic of Ireland or Commonwealth countries. About 4.5% of the armed forces intake at the end of 2011 consisted of black and ethnic minority personnel. I may be wrong about this, but according to my research, there are currently no statistics stating how many non-British members of the UK regular forces currently desire to gain British citizenship. I suspect that the number is relatively low. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned a figure, but I do not know where he found it. Even if the number who will be affected is only in the low hundreds, I do not think that that necessarily means that the Bill is unimportant. It is the principle, rather than the number involved, that is important.

[Guy Opperman]

Is there not a distinction between the total number of overseas personnel in the armed forces and the number who are affected by the anomaly of the five-year rule, which by any standard is a much smaller number?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course. That is an obvious point.

I should like to hear a bit more from the Minister about the armed forces covenant. The covenant states that the Government’s aspiration is that no armed forces personnel be disadvantaged in “dealings with wider society”. Those are the Government’s words, and I think that they are rather vague, but they could extend to applications for British citizenship. Clearly, what we are doing today is entirely in accord with the covenant. Although the issue with which we are dealing is important, it covers quite a small area. What do the Government mean when they say that armed forces personnel should not be disadvantaged in “dealings with wider society”?

The covenant also refers to the Government aim of removing any social or economic inequalities between them and other citizens. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there are any other bureaucratic anomalies in regard to either recruitment or citizenship which still need to be addressed under the armed forces covenant. I suspect that what we are doing today will not be enough for the Veterans Association. It will be happy with it—indeed, it has already welcomed the Bill—but it will, quite rightly, ask for more.

What is the Government’s aim? What obstacles do they feel that they should remove in order to get rid of any inequalities between our armed forces and other citizens? I also wonder whether the aim of the Bill is undermined by the fact that the families of members of the armed forces would have to apply for naturalisation via the normal and potentially lengthy methods. I have tried to study that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked a good question about it earlier. We want to know how far this will extend. What exactly are we talking about, therefore?

Mention was made of cleaners. Those who clean also serve their country. Families are very important, too. My point is that the armed forces community is just as important as armed forces personnel. Does this anomaly not ignore the Government’s commitments in the covenant to the armed forces community, rather than simply to armed forces personnel? The Minister has many questions to answer, but he is a very capable Minister so I am sure he will address them comprehensively.

The levels of support available in the covenant to the families of armed forces personnel extend to

“positive measures to prevent disadvantage.”

What exactly does that mean? What further proposals will the Government make? As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said, our armed forces are paid well but not over-paid and their accommodation is good but in some cases it is not over-good, and there are many other areas where our armed forces feel they are disadvantaged.

Families of non-British service personnel can be based overseas, potentially causing problems in their desire for UK citizenship. The Gurkhas, for instance, have bases in Nepal and Brunei. There are, however, already institutions such as the Gurkha settlement office which provide positive support for individuals wishing to apply for a visa or indefinite leave to remain in the UK. The existence of those institutions could be interpreted as fulfilling the Government’s commitment to minimise the impacts of such irritants on military life, but I suspect there are many irritants for our armed forces personnel which the Government still need to address. The measures we are addressing this morning are only a very small part of that.

[Guy Opperman]

I appreciate entirely the point my hon. Friend is making, but the implementation of the armed forces covenant is an ongoing process addressing many different aspects. The armed forces covenant annual report, a copy of which I am holding, is some hundred pages long and addresses a multitude of different issues, of which this is, I accept, a solitary one. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a process of slow, incremental progress on a number of issues?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course. We all know that the task facing the Minister is extremely difficult and it is better to make a small step than no step at all, but I think the question still needs to be asked. What we are talking about today is just getting rid of one very small little irritant. You are the expert on order, Mr Speaker, and I am not an expert on it, but it seems to me that this Second Reading debate gives us an opportunity to get more out of the Government on how they are trying to increase recruitment and other interesting issues. On other days, there is often not time to get adequate answers.

Let us talk about the British Nationality Act 1981.

[Mel Stride]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who is an expert.

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very gracious and, if I may say so, rather perceptive remark. Does not the fact that the anomaly that we are addressing today has now come to the Floor of the House, raised in a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), mean that it has ceased to be a small matter? Instead it has become rather totemic, which is all the more reason why we should make sure the Bill has a safe passage through this House.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On Friday mornings, Members of Parliament naturally have many other things to do in their constituencies and we therefore all accept that the Chamber is not swarming with Members, but there are many people outside watching this debate on television, including many in the armed forces, and they will see this as totemic and they will be looking at Members of Parliament doing their best to try to get rid of the little irritants of service life one by one. I therefore think what we are doing today is important and should not be underestimated.

I was in the House during the passage of the 1981 Act, but I do not have any close recollection of its passage; after all, there have been so many Acts of Parliament over the years. Clearly, however, something went wrong with it in respect of the issue we are addressing. It specifies certain residence requirements for naturalisation for British citizenship. It states that one requirement is that the applicant

“was in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period of five years ending with the date of the application”.

That would seem to be entirely sensible.

Can the Minister also explain the thinking behind other requirements? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned one of his constituents who was married to an English person and has been disadvantaged by this Act. It is not only service personnel who are disadvantaged. Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain the thinking behind this provision and others?

The Act also specifies the number of days the applicant is allowed to be absent during the five-year qualifying period. The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to waive some of the residence requirements if there are “special circumstances”, however. This discretion is applied in applications involving non-British members of the armed forces. Time spent serving in the UK or overseas can count towards the qualifying residence period. However, it does not permit the Secretary of State to waive the requirement to be physically present in the UK on the first day of the qualifying period ending with the date of the application. One must assume that, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon said, there was some rationale behind that. Given that the Secretary of State appears to have quite wide discretion, I am interested to know why no discretion was given in this particular case.

[Harriett Baldwin]

As my hon. Friend was in the House when the 1981 Act was passed, can he remember the territorial extent of that legislation? I ask that because I am a little confused as the territorial extent covered under the Bill includes the British overseas territories, which would potentially mean someone living in the overseas territories could apply for UK citizenship from their location.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

You, Mr Speaker, must have immediately spotted this: I am sorry, but I misspoke as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I only arrived in the House in 1983. We have been here so long, and sometimes old men forget. We are not responsible for this Act, therefore, so that question will have to go to the Minister, and I am very happy to pass it on to him.

[Mr Chope]

Is not the implication of this that somebody who has not set foot in this country for five years will be able to become a naturalised citizen? Is that the purpose of this Bill?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Bill’s promoter is unavoidably absent from the Chamber for a few moments, but he will have to answer that question. My understanding, however, is that the answer is yes. We are creating a special dispensation today because we say, “Surely if someone has served their country for five years, they should not be disadvantaged in getting British citizenship just because they have been serving in Afghanistan or elsewhere.” That may be a controversial statement but what greater qualification is there to become a citizen of a country than to have served that country?

All armies in history have done that. The quickest and best way to become a citizen of the Roman empire was to join a Roman legion, and there was very good thinking behind that. I do not think we should be in a different position, but, again, this is for the Minister to answer. I am still not clear, however, not only about exactly how many people will be involved, but whether, if this Bill becomes law and the 1981 Act is still in place, someone who has joined the armed forces, behaved well and served for five years but has never set foot in this country will pretty well have an automatic right to become a British citizen. They will have to go through the normal processes, of course, but is that the thinking? I am not sure whether I have had an answer to that yet. I know some people watching this debate may not agree with that, but I just ask the question—I am not sure I have an answer myself. Are we now moving to a situation where someone who joins the British forces, serves overseas all that time and never sets foot in this country can become British citizen? Will the Minister please make a particular note of that question and answer it.

I ask that because the 1981 Act requires that

“on the date of the application he is serving outside the United Kingdom in Crown service”.

No minimum period of service is specified, nor is there any requirement to be present in the UK at any particular time. However, those who are not overseas or not still in service at the time of applying for naturalisation cannot benefit from the provision. These are all technical but important points.

The provisions made in the 1981 Act are, however, used sparingly, as we know. Home Office guidance sets out that criteria such as rank and quality of service should be considered when assessing applications. Quality of service is of key importance in the assessment, with applications that do not satisfy on that ground being unlikely to be accepted, regardless of whether they satisfy statutory requirements.

The amendments made by the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 give the Secretary of State discretion to waive all residential requirements where

“a particular case…is an armed forces case”,

where the applicant was a member of the armed forces on the date of the application. That does not, however, cater for individuals who have left the armed forces. I have said enough to reveal that these are complex legal areas that need to be tidied up.

Before I sit down, I wish to make a more general point about the armed forces, a subject in which I take a great interest as chairman of the Conservative party’s Back-Bench defence and foreign affairs committee. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I use this opportunity to say that I am worried about the number of personnel in our armed forces and what is happening to our armed forces. I am now ranging a bit wide of the narrow point we are discussing. It has been a turbulent time in the Ministry of Defence, with a report due on the Defence Reform Bill at the end of October. A budget cut of 1.9% for 2015 will add to the large-scale cuts that have already been taking place, including recent reductions in the number of senior military officers. Many critics have voiced fears that such reductions could leave the UK with a smaller than adequate armed service.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is exceptionally cheeky on the part of the hon. Gentleman, and I feel sure, given the puckish grin on his face, that he is entirely conscious of the fact. If he wishes to air his concerns on this matter, he needs constantly to bear in mind the word “recruitment”.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I know I was being cheeky, Mr Speaker, but I could not resist the opportunity to try to expound on what is happening to our armed forces. I will not say any more about total defence spending, but, on personnel, I will make the following point. As of 2012, there were 750 non-UK citizens serving in the Royal Navy, which is relatively few of the 33,190 trained personnel; 7,640 non-UK citizens were serving in the Army, out of a total of 94,000 trained personnel; and only 120 non-UK citizens were serving in the Royal Air Force, which is a very small proportion of the 38,000. Intake of black and minority ethnic personnel at the higher levels of the UK regular forces is incredibly low, with only 20 officers joining in 2011 out of a total of 1,070. In the context of the wider armed forces debate, this is an opportunity for the Minister to talk about recruitment and his policy on attracting—or not attracting—people from Commonwealth countries to join the armed forces.

I also hope that the Minister will say a bit about that context and how the Bill will affect the immigration debate in total. I suspect that that is what lay behind the interventions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Granting of UK citizenship in the year ending June 2013 was at a five-year high, with 204,541 applications having been accepted, with the figure having risen steadily to an average of an extra 7,000 successful applications a year. I know that the Minister cannot give too wide a discourse on the whole immigration debate, but it is important that we reassure people watching this debate that we are very conscious of not only the need to remove discrimination against the armed forces, but the wider immigration debate in this country. There has to be a balance.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the concern, which I certainly have, that one of the perverse consequence of this legislation might be to encourage the armed forces to do more overseas and foreign recruiting, rather than concentrating on trying to recruit at home? We know that it is difficult to recruit reservists at the moment—the Government are hard up against the issue of how they will meet the target on reservists—but it seems that this could be an agenda whereby we will fill our armed forces with people from overseas instead of from our own country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As is often the case, my hon. Friend makes an intervention that just needs to be answered; we do need to reassure people. We value tremendously the men and women who are not UK citizens but who serve in our armed forces, with the Gurkhas being the most famous case, but he is making a fair point. I hope that the Minister will reassure my hon. Friend, me and those watching this debate that nothing in the Bill encompasses an attitude of, “It is difficult to recruit here in the UK and therefore the proportion of non-UK citizens serving in our armed forces is going to have to rise.” I suspect that my constituents would not necessarily welcome such a position. That is not to make any criticism of those serving or to disagree in any way, shape or form about the huge sacrifices made in the past century—mention has been made of the first world war—but I know that the Minister will understand the point being made in that intervention and will want to reply to it.

Let us leave aside those wider worries about the level of recruitment in the armed forces and the wider debate about concerns about the level of immigration into this country. The year ending June 2013 did see a 14% rise in the number of non-British persons granted citizenship compared with the same period for the previous year.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Does my hon. Friend think it would be appropriate, when targeting net migration to this country, for the Government to make it clear how many of those who do come here are former members of our armed forces?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a good point, and I think I may end on it, as it allows me to sum up what I have been trying to say. There is concern about immigration into this country, but I am sure that the Minister can reassure us that the numbers we are talking about in this Bill are very small. Not only that, but the people involved have served our country and they are at a unique disadvantage. This modest but correct Bill will deal with that disadvantage, so I join my hon. Friend the Member for Woking in commending it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of why he is so well placed to introduce the Bill. It demonstrates that he understands all the things that we as British citizens consider appropriate ways in which to demonstrate that we understand what it means to be British. If Mr Speaker will bear with me one moment, I shall give an example of the sort of question that used to be in the test, which I do not think was appropriate: how many days in any given year must a school legally be required to be open? Suggested answers are 150 days, 170 days, 190 days and 200 days. Again, I will take interventions from any colleagues who feel confident that they know the answer to that question.

My hon. Friend is right. In bestowing on people the highest gift of citizenship that anyone can have bestowed upon them, which is British citizenship, we want successful individuals to be able to demonstrate that they understand the quintessence of what it means to be British.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is all rather absurd. Can one imagine such a situation when the Emperor Claudius allowed Roman legionnaires to become Roman citizens? There they were, spending five years fighting barbarians on the German frontier, and then they would be required to come back and answer questions about how many days there were in the qualification to become a tribune. All those obscure questions about the constitution are ridiculous. If someone has served their country for five years, surely that is qualification enough, without having to answer absurd questions.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Perhaps I am about to introduce a note of dissent into our discussions this morning. I think that when we bestow on people that highest honour of citizenship, British citizenship, we expect those who are so proud to take on our citizenship to understand aspects of our history and culture, and to understand the long and distinguished history of our armed forces, for example. That is why I welcome the fact that the citizenship test that this Government have introduced covers much more of the history, the culture and the spirit of democracy that we have in this country, rather than esoteric questions such as from which two places one can obtain advice if one has a problem at work. The possible answers are the national Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had prepared only a brief speech, but the debate has been so wide-ranging, and Members on both sides of the House—including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson)—have asked such complex questions, that I fear that I may need to draw on some more material.

The Government’s support for the Bill will not come as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), because he quoted my remarks earlier. I am grateful to him for presenting it. I had forgotten, until I was prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), that this was his second private Member’s Bill in what has so far been a short, but I know will be a very long, parliamentary career. He has been rather more successful in the ballot than I have been during my time in the House, and he has used his opportunities well. I know that his first Bill was very good, and I hope that this one reaches the statute book as well. I am also grateful to those who have supported the Bill.

My hon. Friend said that part of his reason for presenting the Bill was the fact that the Pirbright establishment was in his constituency and was important to a number of his constituents. The 1st Battalion the Rifles is based at Beachley barracks, on the southern tip of my constituency, and I have spent a great deal of time supporting it. I was privileged to be invited to join members of the battalion for their pre-deployment, before they embarked on their first tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2009. I was fortunate enough also to join them—all too briefly—in theatre to observe their operations. The battalion contains a number of foreign and Commonwealth members, and I have provided many of them with advice on immigration matters in my capacity as their constituency Member of Parliament. I know this measure will be welcome, and I hope it will benefit one or two of them as well.

I also draw on my own experience from the last Parliament when I was a shadow Defence Minister and I had the opportunity to visit a number of armed forces establishments and meet many people who serve in our armed forces. From that, I know what a great contribution they make to our country both here and overseas. It is right to acknowledge that some Members of this House have served in our armed forces, including the Whip who is present, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). This matter is just one small part of the armed forces covenant and the process we are undertaking, which I think is very valuable.

I will not talk about the covenant at length, as I know that would test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to refer to it briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) drew attention to the fact—indeed, it was a public service announcement—that each year we publish a thorough report that is available in the Library. That report sets out very comprehensively the purpose of the covenant with a foreword by the Secretary of State, and it also sets out a range of measures we have taken across Government policy to deliver benefits and to remove discrimination in respect of serving personnel.

I also want to refer to the embedding of the work we do with external groups as part of that process. There is a covenant reference group, the successor to the original external reference group. It includes service charities and those very knowledgeable about these areas. I recently had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the ministerial committee looking at these matters and the covenant reference group. It was held at No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister attended for a period. That close working between Government and the service charities means we have been able to deliver on these achievements, and it is one reason why this measure is supported by a number of organisations and not, as far as we know, opposed by any.

Veterans Aid says:

“We warmly welcome any initiative that removes obstacles to those who have served this country with honour from settling here legally and have campaigned on this issue. Veterans Aid, more than any other military charity, has championed the cause of Foreign & Commonwealth servicemen and women disadvantaged, through no fault of their own, by bureaucracy…This was an injustice and we applaud the Government for listening.”

I am grateful for those generous words. I worked with Veterans Aid when I was a shadow Minister and it is good that it has welcomed this move. The Army Families Federation has also welcomed it and fully supports the changes.

I should say at this point that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North for two things. First, she put on record her party’s support for the work our armed forces do. That is a good cross-party acknowledgment which we can never hear too often. Secondly, she formally put on record the official Opposition’s support for this private Member’s Bill, which I hope means it has a relatively smooth passage through this House and the other place. You were not in the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) referred to the citizenship test and I am very pleased to say that she passed one bit by being able to confirm that she knew there were two Houses of this Parliament. Once the Bill is finished in this one, it will wing its way to the other House, where I hope it will be as successfully endorsed and can then reach the statute book.

We had a wide-ranging discussion on the citizenship test, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you will be delighted to know—as I am sure Mr Speaker would be if he were here—that although I have a copy of the guide containing all the material used for the citizenship test, I left it in my office so I will not be tempted to draw on it at length or, indeed, at all. My hon. Friend brought her copy with her, however, so she was not as disadvantaged as I am. I know that she did slightly test the patience of Mr Speaker, but he clearly was not upset with her, as he then referred to her “racy and intoxicating” speech. I have never made one of those in this House, and the Whip is probably hoping that I never do so. However, her speech was very welcome, and I am grateful for not only her support, but that of colleagues.

A number of hon. Members raised important points about the Bill, and I wish to deal with a couple of them. First, however, I should say that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking was supported formally in his Bill by my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who appended their names to it. It is worth saying that they are fully in support of it. For the benefit of colleagues in the House, the Home Office sought the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to prepare some explanatory notes, which he gave. I hope that the notes are helpful, and I know that a number of hon. Members have drawn on them today.

The explanatory notes briefly set out the purpose of the Bill and the fact that it amends the 1981 Act. Although I was not intending to go through this at length, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) both asked for a little more detail about how the naturalisation rules work and whether they are automatic or otherwise. The notes deal with that, but I will take the opportunity to discuss it, although not at enormous length, because I know that that would test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will just set out for the House what the requirements are and how the Secretary of State uses her discretion, to the extent that she has it.

Foreign and Commonwealth personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces generally apply to naturalise under section 6(1) of the 1981 Act, and they have to meet the following requirements: five years’ residence in the UK; be aged 18 or over; and be of sound mind, a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire referred. My understanding is that the reference to “sound mind” in this context simply means that the person has the mental capacity to complete the application for naturalisation. I can reassure her that where a former member of the armed forces has a mental health problem, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, whether as a result of their service or otherwise, that would not prevent them from successfully applying for and securing naturalisation if they met the other rules. She rightly says that both in the armed forces and outside we have moved on in our understanding of such mental health conditions, and I am pleased to say that we do not, in any way, discriminate against people, be it deliberately or inadvertently, in this matter.

Applicants must also intend to continue to live in the UK, or to continue in Crown service, the service of an international organisation of which the UK is a member, or the service of a company or association established in the UK. That will be relevant when I go on to talk about the overseas territories, to which my hon. Friend referred. Applicants must also be able to communicate in English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic—I heard lots of sedentary interventions from Opposition Members when that was mentioned and, although I cannot speak it, I try to pronounce it correctly. Applicants should also have sufficient knowledge of life in the UK and, importantly, be of good character.

I will not go through the residence requirements in enormous detail, but they are broadly that the person has been resident in the United Kingdom for at least five years; has been present in the UK five years before the date of application—that is, of course, where we run into the problem; and is free of immigration time restrictions on the date of application.

Foreign and Commonwealth personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces are exempt from immigration while they are serving, which means they automatically meet the requirement to be in the UK without a time limit attached to their stay. The Secretary of State already has the discretion to overlook absences, and there are things in the rules that say for how many months someone is allowed to be outside the UK. She generally exercises her discretion in armed forces cases where the absence is caused by service overseas.

Therefore, foreign and Commonwealth personnel in the forces are eligible to naturalise as British citizens after they have served for five years. Alternatively, under the immigration rules, they might qualify for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—on discharge, after four years’ service. They cannot obtain settlement in service because someone who holds indefinite leave to remain is subject to immigration control. If the person opts to be discharged and settles in the UK after four years’ service, they can apply to naturalise after they have held ILTR for one year, thus fulfilling the five-year residence requirement and the requirement not to have a time limit attached to their stay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to family members. Partners of members of the forces can qualify for naturalisation in their own right or as the spouse of someone naturalised. They have to meet the same requirements of residence and good character, but they are subject to immigration control, so they cannot meet the requirement not to have a time limit to their stay until they have obtained settlement, and it takes the partner of a service person four or five years to obtain settlement.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

What does “settlement” mean? Say someone is married to a member of the armed forces and has been overseas most of the time. Their partner’s clock is ticking, but what is happening to their clock? Do they have to come back and gain settlement? I am sorry, but I do not quite understand how it works.

[Mr Harper]

The rules operate differently for the spouse. When serving, the service person is not subject to any immigration restrictions, so they could get naturalisation more quickly. Once they have been naturalised, that opens up some opportunities for their family member.

New section 4C of the 1981 Act, introduced in January 2010, enables a child born to a member of the armed forces serving overseas on an operational posting who would have been born in the UK but for that posting to register as a British citizen on application. Children may also register as British citizens if a parent is naturalised or settles in the UK.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred to a specific case. Obviously, I would not go into a specific case in the House, and I do not have all the details to hand either. As a general rule, there is provision in the immigration system, outside the immigration rules, for people to make an application for leave to remain on compassionate grounds. The Secretary of State and I have the ability to allow that. Clearly, we would not set out the details, but look at the application in the round, but we can grant that if the case is sufficiently compelling.

On the hon. Lady’s general point about testing the Secretary of State’s discretion, all the Secretary of State’s decisions in such matters are of course subject to judicial review. Although we do not use the powers frequently—that would drive a coach and horses through the rules—even during my time as Minister for Immigration we have allowed people to visit the United Kingdom on compassionate grounds when they would not normally have met the rules.

It is helpful to be able to operate with such discretion, which is of course the purpose of the Bill. The requirement for an applicant to have been in the United Kingdom at the start of the five-year period is unwaivable, and the Secretary of State cannot waive it however compelling the case. That is the benefit of putting the Bill on the statute book.

It is worth saying that there is already a provision, of which Members may not be aware, to waive that requirement in Crown service cases, but it applies only to those who are still in service and overseas when they apply. The Bill will enable the requirement to be waived for members and former members of the armed forces who have been discharged and have then applied for naturalisation or who have returned to the UK.

Alcohol Strategy Consultation

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister is exactly right. Those who would suffer due to the policy would be not the nanny-state elite drinking an expensive bottle of claret in their posh suburb of Leicester, but the poor. Why should we price the poor out of alcohol and why should we not trust them?

[Mr Browne]

There is a balance to be struck. We are introducing a floor involving VAT and duty to tackle the most extreme examples, while the industry is taking action by removing products such as White Lightning and Strongbow Black. I also note that Waitrose has removed its strong 8.2% cider brand. However, individuals also have to take responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we think that we are getting the balance right.

EU Police, Justice and Home Affairs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It was not at all clear from the shadow Home Secretary’s speech what the Labour party’s position is on this. Does it wish to exercise the opt-out it negotiated, or does it wish to be bound by all the measures? We are at a loss to know where it stands on the issue. I am also at a loss to see what she can object to in the approach I have just set out regarding the policies and principles we will follow in looking at every single measure. It involves exercising a treaty right that was negotiated by the previous Government. Why on earth did they bother negotiating it if they were not going to use it? The Labour party, when in government, laid the paving stones, but it criticises us for walking down them. I am at even more of a loss in trying to untangle the Opposition’s position from the confusion of today’s debate.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On the subject of the Labour party, I think that we need to reassure the public, because the shadow Home Secretary gave a series of grisly examples of murders, people being beaten up and eye sockets being staved in. The implication is that if we are not part of the European arrest warrant none of the perpetrators would be dealt with. Can we at least have a sensible debate and say that those people could be dealt with after reciprocal arrangements are made?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is correct that we have extradition treaties with other countries that are not members of the European Union, and we had extradition arrangements before the European arrest warrant came into place. However, as I set out earlier, we will look at each measure to determine whether it contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by it and whether there would be a detrimental impact on such co-operation if it was pursued by other means. I think that those are entirely sensible principles on which to base the proposals that the Government will bring forward in due course.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

My right hon. Friend makes that point very clearly. I will return to my argument, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak about later proposals.

The Opposition are of course sympathetic to attempts to widen accountability and open the ISC as much as possible. In Committee, we supported a number of amendments to do just that. We tabled amendments so that we could consider whether an Opposition Member should always chair the Committee, as with the Public Accounts Committee, and whether there should be a majority of MPs—elected representatives—on the ISC.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have some experience of that point. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. The Chair of that Committee is the sole auditor of the accounts of the security services, so he sees in great detail all the accounts of the security services. He is not vetted by anybody, including the Prime Minister. He is elected by all Members of the House. Nobody has ever suggested that an elected or appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is a threat to national security, so this is a fuss about nothing.

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee deals with far more than just the finances of the security agencies, so it is not quite the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Part 1 of this Bill is a logical extension of a process that began approximately 20 years ago. The development of the relationship between the Intelligence and Security Committee and the services, based on respect but also on a clear understanding of their respective responsibilities, has been a substantial and important constitutional development, and nothing should take away from that.

The Minister without Portfolio described me as a heavyweight. It is a description I have been trying to avoid as I get older, for reasons he will readily understand, but there is no doubt that the matter we are discussing causes considerable controversy, and let me begin by saying I do not like part 2 of the Bill. Quite often we have to pass legislation that we do not like, however, because in our judgment it is necessary to do so, as the balance favours having the legislation. That is the principle on which I base my conclusion in this case, for which I will not be the darling of the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, not least because I am going back to my constituency—not to prepare for government, but to explain the consequences of the Government’s decision to close the Royal Air Force base there, which has been a source of great pride and has made an enormous contribution to the life of the community. What I will say and do is contrary to the expressed—and potential—views of the Liberal Democrat conference. I respect those views, but I think I am entitled to expect in return that my party colleagues will respect mine.

I base my views on this difficult matter on three influences: first, the fact that I have been a member of the ISC for some years; secondly, my experience as a Member of this House; and, thirdly, the fact that the law has been my trade since 1968 and I believe I know and understand it as well as any other Member of this House. I also believe that I have done as much as anyone to pursue the objectives of ensuring the protection of the citizen and the preservation of human rights.

The implication that those of us who support this legislation do so out of a slavish willingness to advance the interests of the United States has caused me some resentment, as has the suggestion that we are a cat’s-paw of the intelligence services. Not only are these claims insulting, but in my case they are palpably wrong. In recent years, for example, I have argued very strongly for an alteration in the extradition arrangements between our two countries, and 10 years ago almost to the day I and the then leader of my party were leading the opposition to the too-close association with George W. Bush and the United States in the unhappy venture into Iraq.

However, when senior officials in the current American Administration look us in the eye and tell us that their apprehension about the confidentiality of their sources is influencing the quality of the intelligence they are willing to share with the United Kingdom, should we ignore or dismiss that? If that position is then supported by American agencies themselves, should we ignore or dismiss it? When the UK’s agencies confirm under cross-examination their impression that the quality of shared intelligence with the United States has diminished, should we ignore or dismiss that? When the Americans say they are concerned about the risk to the lives of their agents or the revealing of techniques and procedures, should we ignore or dismiss that?

Do I like closed material proceedings? I do not. But do I think public interest immunity certificates are the answer? I most certainly do not. I have re-read chapter 13 of the Scott inquiry into arms to Iraq. It is heavyweight reading, but if any Members wish to become advocates for the value and validity of PII, I recommend they read it and find out the true implications.

If one wants to avoid embarrassment, a PII certificate is one of the most effective ways of doing so. If one wants to prevent a litigant from accessing evidence that might assist that person in establishing a case, PII is a very convenient way of doing so. One thing that has interested me more than anything else in this rather controversial debate has been the fact that many of the interested parties that now express confidence in public interest immunity certificates have previously been the first to criticise them.

The Bill has improved. Has it improved as much as I would prefer? Of course not, but how many times can any one of us put our hand on our heart and say that the piece of legislation for which we have voted is precisely and exactly as we would have wished? We are at a crossroads between principle and necessity, and we have to ask whether the balance that has now been struck is acceptable. That, essentially, is a question of individual judgement and it is that individual judgement that our constituents send us to this place to exercise every time we are faced with a dilemma of the kind the Bill obviously creates. Why do I say that? The balance struck is sufficient because of the developed and controlling role of the judiciary or the judge in any case and because of the palpable independence of the judiciary in these matters. We need only consider the Binyam Mohamed case, the observations of the Master of the Rolls and the extent to which the Government of the day were unable to escape the consequences of the action raised against them.

As is often the case, distinguished lawyers of sound judgment take different views of these matters. Sometimes, it seems to me that it is like a game of political contract bridge: “If you play your 700 lawyers and my good friend Baroness Kennedy, I will play my Ken Clarke and my Lord Woolf in an attempt to outbid you.” Such decisions are often as much a matter of instinct as logic.

Closed material proceedings have been described as Kafkaesque, but I doubt that those who say so have read Kafka. Others have said that they illustrate a form of Soviet-style justice, but a many litigants and accused persons in the Soviet system would be perfectly happy to swap their arrangements for those in this country, both north and south of the border. I would prefer not to have closed material proceedings, but I am satisfied that in this case the protections are such that they are justified.

[Mr Leigh]

I very much respect the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but is he satisfied, as a Liberal, with the notion that from now on a litigant will not be allowed to look at the evidence in their case and cross-examine it on the basis that it will be made available to them? After all, is that not quite a serious procedure that is quite different from the defence withdrawing a piece of evidence or not adducing it at all?

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

It is a procedure that already exists in our law. If my hon. Friend is concerned about the universal application of the principle, that argument was lost some time ago.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Since the hon. Gentleman puts the point that way, let us turn it around and ask what he would do. Would he have elements of the conduct and the sources of the security services—sensitive, and perhaps at great risk to those who provide human intelligence—exposed in our courts? That seems to me the only possible alternative, or else, as has been suggested, we simply say there is a financial cost to be borne and we will settle any case that may have the consequence of causing such sensitive information to be revealed. That is not justice, as I understand it. That is the failure of the judicial system to reflect the reality of the proceedings which are brought before us.

[Mr Leigh]

It is always open to the defendant to choose not to adduce evidence to support his case. If the state does not want to adduce the evidence, nobody is suggesting that it has to reveal the sources of agents or information. The state simply does not produce it.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

But if the case raises the kind of issues that were raised in the case of Binyam Mohamed, what does my hon. Friend think the response would be if the state said, “We’re not producing any evidence at all”? What inference does he think people would draw if no defence was mounted? Of course the inference drawn would inevitably be one of guilt.

I finish by saying this: a lot has happened since the twin towers in New York were bombed and thousands of people died. Not all of it could be described as something of which we are proud, but the one thing that certainly happened then and which was reflected in many of the speeches that were made here on the special occasion when Parliament was summoned, and much of what has happened since then, has demonstrated that things were irretrievably and irrevocably changed as a result of that. We have only to look at the incidence of proceedings being taken in this country in relation to acts of terrorism or proposed acts of terrorism to realise the extent of that change. That is why, although I have no love for this legislation, I believe it is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

I want to have a conversation with my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). We all know that the Bill is about civil cases and not criminal cases, but as he well knows, because he has been a litigant, civil cases are very important and can affect a person’s whole life. They should therefore be treated with great seriousness.

We should not approach debates where human rights are involved by saying that the litigants belong to a class of people whom we find reprehensible. It may be that they are reprehensible, but that argument is often used about minorities. It is used at the moment about Islamists and it would have been used about the IRA in the 20th century, the civilian German nationals who were interned in 1940, the Fenians in the 19th century, the French earlier than that, the Jesuits in the 17th century, the Chartists and John Wilkes. So let us not get into the mindset of, “These are unpleasant people.” They also have a right to justice.

We should sometimes imagine how we would feel if we were the litigant. Let us suppose that we felt that something terrible had happened and our rights had been infringed in some way. How would we like a procedure whereby we went to court and halfway through the defence suddenly said, “This is all very secret and we cannot share it with you” and the judge said, “Okay, I’ll adjourn that and listen to the evidence on your behalf Member for New Forest East. You can trust me. I am appointed by the state. Or perhaps we can get some barrister appointed by the state and he can hear it”?

Let us then suppose that a few hours or days later the judge says, “You haven’t heard this evidence against you, but I think your case doesn’t stand up.” What happens when he sums up at the end of the case, as of course in public he cannot adduce all this secret evidence? How would hon. Members feel if they were the litigant? Would they feel that they had received justice? What does it say for our worldwide reputation if serious allegations about torture and so on are made and a large part of the case—and the reason why the litigant did not win his case—is determined on the basis of secret evidence?

We are then told that we are putting our security services at risk. That is nonsense, because the security services are like any other defendant, in that they can choose what evidence to submit to defend themselves. Is it really beyond the wit of man to defend these cases satisfactorily, for the most part? A question of the identity of agents may arise, but nobody is suggesting that the agent has to be brought before the court of law, or to have himself or his practices identified. Surely there are ways in which the case can be defended a lot of the time. I leave that point with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East. I know he takes the rights of litigants and human rights seriously, and we are taking a serious step today—

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Leigh]

I was about to finish, but I will give way.

[Mr Cox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a rule of law that if the Government are not able to defend an action and the evidence they are not able to put into court goes to the heart of the case, thus making the case unfair, they have the right to apply to strike the case out? If a case is untriable, the Government are able to strike the case out.

[Mr Leigh]

Yes, my hon. and learned Friend is an experienced leading counsel. I would have thought that there are various ways in which this problem could be resolved. The sky will not fall in. Our security services are not going to be put at risk. But there is a principle of natural justice and I think that we should proclaim it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the Secretary of State for Transport and I are looking at what should be covered by this offence, taking into account the drugs that can be identified and the levels that should be set for them. The Department for Transport is taking expert advice on what it is possible to identify within the bloodstream and within people’s bodies at the time that tests are taken.

I know that legitimate concerns have been expressed about the impact of this offence on those who take controlled drugs on prescription—for long-term pain relief, for example—but we have no intention of preventing people from driving where they are taking medication in accordance with medical advice, so the Bill includes provision for a medical defence. We will also want to take into account views expressed in response to the required consultation on the draft regulations, but I believe we must take a strong stand against those who would put other lives at risk by driving under the influence of drugs.

The Bill also delivers on our coalition commitment to ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home. Few situations can be more frightening than when someone’s own home is violated. Faced with that scenario, a person will do what it takes to protect themselves and their loved ones. They cannot be expected dispassionately to weigh up the niceties of whether the level of force they are using is proportionate in the circumstances. If the intruder is injured, perhaps seriously, in such an encounter, the householder should not automatically be treated as the perpetrator where, with hindsight, the force used is considered to have been disproportionate. Clause 30 will ensure that, in such a context, the use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable, while continuing to rule out the use of grossly disproportionate force.

I know this change in the law will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years. I congratulate them on having successfully brought this issue to the attention of Parliament and the public.

Let me now deal with clause 38, which would remove the word “insulting” from the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was added to the Bill in the other place. I respect the view taken by their lordships, who had concerns that I know are shared by some in this House about section 5 encroaching upon freedom of expression. On the other hand, the view expressed by many in the police is that section 5, including the word “insulting”, is a valuable tool in helping them to keep the peace and maintain public order.

There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions. The Government support the retention of section 5 as it currently stands, because we believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios. We have always recognised that there are strong views in both Houses. Looking at past cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as “abusive” as well as “insulting”. He has stated that

“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

On that basis, the Government are not minded to challenge the amendment made in the other place. We will issue guidance to the police on the range of powers that remain available to them to deploy in the kind of situation I described, but the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Many of us have been campaigning on this issue for years, and the Government have listened—well done.

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Finally, let me give the House notice of another set of amendments that we will table in Committee. Members will recall that on 16 October, when I made a statement on our extradition arrangements, I indicated that I would present legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed to make two key changes to the Extradition Act 2003. The first would introduce a new forum bar to extradition, and the second would transfer to the High Court the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for considering representations on human rights grounds. I have decided that we should seize the opportunity provided by the Bill so that we can give effect to the changes as soon as possible.

I am grateful to the House for allowing me to explain those key provisions. The Bill will build on our reforms of the policing landscape by delivering an effective national response to serious and organised crime and securing our borders, while also strengthening public confidence in the justice system. Its provisions are timely and important, and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Leigh]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way, but I say to hon. Members that this issue will be covered in Committee.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am aware of the points the DPP has made, but I simply ask, because this is important, that the Government undertake an equality impact assessment on the impact on different groups, in order to be sure that they are doing the right thing before this matter reaches Committee.

[Mr Leigh]

It is not clear what the Labour party’s official position is. This consultation has gone on for more than a year, and everybody knows the arguments one way and the other. The Labour party opposed clause 38 in the other place, so what is it going to do in Committee?

[Yvette Cooper]

As did the Government in the other place, and we look forward to their evidence on this measure’s impact on different minority groups.

The problem with the Bill is that it will not deal with the wider difficulties facing policing and the perfect storm of the Home Secretary’s making that we now face. At a national level, she has abolished the NPIA without any clue about what to do with its functions. We now have the National Crime Agency, the College of Policing, NewCo—the new IT company—police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels, but we have no clear view of how any of them will work together. The Bill does not set out how that clarity should be provided.

At the same time, the Home Secretary is cutting 15,000 police officers—the very people who need to do the job of fighting serious and organised crime in every community. The number of young police officers as new entrants has dropped by 50%, yet the most experienced officers are going too. Half of all police forces do not have a permanent chief constable and the officers left in the middle are facing a crisis of morale, with 95% saying that they believe that the Government and this Home Secretary do not support them.

Fewer criminals are being arrested and fewer are being prosecuted, international co-operation is being undermined and counter-terror powers are being weakened; now there is confusion over these reforms. I hope that the Home Secretary will make further improvements to the Bill, but, more importantly, I hope that she will rethink her wider policy on policing and crime before it is too late.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary who always brings a refreshing frankness to the proceedings. I do not agree with him on his last point. I think that the Government were right to move away from the idea of the Lord Chancellor sitting on the panel that makes the crucial appointments to the top of the judiciary. I do not think we would ever have been able to persuade anybody that that did not represent an excessive direct involvement of a politician in the process of choosing judges, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor is involved at the end of the process.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) described the Bill as a typical Home Office—or, in this case, Home Office and Ministry of Justice—Christmas tree, but it does not contain quite as many unwanted gifts as previous such Christmas trees. Indeed, it contains many welcome things, and I want to concentrate on those that relate to the work of the Justice Committee.

I should say in passing that I very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of clause 38, which relates to the Public Order Act 1986. I noted Labour Front Benchers’ dithering on this matter, if it is indeed dithering; perhaps they will retain their past position of wanting to keep the law as it is—I do not know. From a free speech and civil liberties point of view, bearing in mind the clear statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions about what can be done without having the word “insulting” in the law, the Government have sensibly accepted an overwhelming decision in the other place.

[Mr Leigh]

Of course, it was in the Lib Dem manifesto, and when we can agree on things, we should agree—that is what marriage is about.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is what coalition is about.

I welcome the drug-driving provisions, which I am very glad to see in the Bill, but I will turn first to family justice issues and the single family court, which I strongly welcome. There is still a problem about openness in the family courts, and the lack of it helps to feed very strong views among fathers about how private law cases are decided and among families about how public law cases are decided. That creates, or strengthens, a sense that wrongful decisions may be taken, and people do not understand the reasons for decisions. We have had some advances through anonymised judgments being brought forward, but it remains a problem.

In 2005 and 2006, my predecessor Committee argued for openness provisions of the kind that were eventually legislated for, but when they were on the statute book and we took further evidence for our 2011 report, we did not find a single witness who was happy with them. In the face of that, we were right to say that the Government cannot proceed on this basis, and they are right not to do so. However, we cannot simply abandon the issue. We have to look at more ways of spreading understanding and recognition of what goes on in the family courts and having them exposed to the pressure that public justice—open justice—applies everywhere else. There are compelling reasons why that cannot be done in the same way in the family courts, but we have to take account of the fact that the absence of transparency presents a problem.

On the delegation of functions to legal advisers, the Committee felt strongly that there must be clear supervision by a district judge of any judicial function that is being carried out by a legal adviser.

Fine collection is one area where the Committee said that improvement was still needed. We recognise that some improvement has taken place, but there certainly needs to be more. We welcome the chasing of old debts and recognise that there is potential benefit from the private sector being drawn into this activity. However, there is not merely a loss of public revenue when fine collection is not achieved; there is a serious undermining of the justice system when people see that fines have not been paid and that those involved have got away with it.

The self-defence provisions are probably not legally necessary, but they may have some beneficial impact as regards how the police view cases of this kind. Someone who has been attacked in a terrifying way—whose house has been frighteningly invaded—deserves to be treated as a victim of a crime and have the respect accorded to such a victim even while there is some consideration as to whether there was any grossly disproportionate response on their part. The underlying purpose of the change in the law must be to get that recognition. I do not think that it will actually change the way in which any cases are decided; if I thought that it would, I would worry that it had gone too far.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to deferred prosecution agreements, on which he has done a great deal of work. My Committee took evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions on such agreements. He saw them as an additional tool for prosecutors, but not in any way a replacement for bringing cases to court in many circumstances. However, there are clearly cases in which it would be to everyone’s benefit to take action that did not involve a long drawn-out court case, but that none the less provided restitution for the victims of fraud and perhaps enabled the continuance of a business under new management. The alternative, as my right hon. and learned Friend vividly described in referring to the Arthur Andersen case, can involve a massive loss of jobs and many other adverse consequences that are in no one’s interest.

I want to talk about the provision for non-custodial sentences, and the requirement for a clear element of punishment in such sentences. I do not disagree with that principle, but we should remember that many offenders regard community sentences as more arduous than prison sentences. On more than one occasion, ex-offenders appearing before the Justice Committee have told us that they have committed further offences because they were sick of the requirements of their community sentence and thought that a short spell in prison would be much easier. That might seem counter-intuitive—it might not be what most of us would imagine—but for plenty of criminals, a long and arduous community sentence that places requirements on them, whether it appears punitive or not, is more exacting. They would rather be sitting in prison getting three meals a day and not having a great deal to do.

This provision must not result in our administering a measure that is not the most effective way of changing someone’s life and preventing them from reoffending. We are trying to ensure that there are no more victims of a particular person’s crimes, and to turn around the way in which they behave. We should measure what we are doing in accordance with that aim. More often than not, the challenging requirements that the provision will place on the person to face up to the consequences of what they have done—through restorative justice, for example—to face up to a victim when that is possible, and to make effective reparation to society will be more punitive in practice than a prison sentence. We need to have an understanding of that process.

That leads me to the subject of restorative justice, which has great potential; I am glad that there is provision for it in the Bill. We all recognise that it cannot be forced upon victims, but the level of satisfaction among victims that we have seen in evidence to the Committee has been very encouraging indeed. There is also a growing public view that it makes sense for criminals to be faced with the consequences of their crimes and with the harm that they have done to others, and required to change their lives as a result.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to a provision that was added to the Bill in the Lords, relating to non-custodial sentences for female offenders. The Justice Committee is embarking on an inquiry into women offenders, and we have already expressed the view on more than one occasion that more needs to be done to ensure that courts have at their disposal appropriate and effective means of dealing with women offenders. Indeed, our report on the probation service, which we produced in July 2011, stated:

“The probation service’s approach—where resources tend to be directed towards dealing with offenders who present the highest degree of risk—can fail adequately to support women offenders. The approach recommended by Baroness Corston for the provision of holistic services that address all women’s needs is still a long way from being realised.”

The Government now need to include in the Bill a reminder that more needs to be done in that respect.

This Home Office and Justice Bill provides an us with an opportunity to welcome an unusually large number of provisions. There are others that will be pored over in detail in Committee. The effective implementation of the provisions on fines and on non-custodial facilities for women offenders, for example, will add to our ability to do what we are supposed to be doing, which is using the criminal justice system to stop people becoming the victims of crime in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I want to speak in support of clause 38. It was inserted into the Bill by those in the other place, who voted 150 to 54 against the wishes of both the Government and the Opposition. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to the other place for what it has done. In passing, I say that I do not think that such a rebellion would have happened if the other place had been dominated by elected machine politicians, so once again the House of Lords has justified itself on a cross-party basis and forced the Government to see the light.

What does clause 38 do? It removes “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is a free speech reform. It has been called for, for years by civil liberties groups, gay groups, Christian groups, secular groups, right wingers and left wingers. It is opposed almost by no one, apart from the Government, until today. Sinners are always welcomed when they repent very late in life, so we should welcome the Government to the lighter side. However, the Home Secretary did not seem entirely convinced, so I hope the House will forgive me for a few moments as I try to explain the rationale for this important campaign, which has been running for years and has united Peter Tatchell and myself—quite an achievement.

[Mr Burrowes]

I, too, thoroughly welcome this change. On the issue of repenters, there is another category that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—the Opposition. The shadow Home Secretary was distinctly ambivalent in welcoming the fact that the Lords have allowed us to see sense. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that? While we may have the numbers, it is important to recognise the cross-party, cross-issue, cross-everything opposition to having “insulting” in section 5.

[Mr Leigh]

I do not want to be party political, because many Labour MPs have joined us in the campaign that we have been waging. This is not a Conservative-Labour issue. I cannot really understand why the Opposition are still equivocating when we have had such a long consultation and when the issues are not very difficult. I still hope that the Opposition, at the last minute, in winding up this debate, will get off the fence. The House, along with people who have been campaigning on the issue for years, are entitled to know where they are.

The campaign has been waged for a long time. I spoke about the issue in 2011, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—that, too, was on Second Reading. I then tabled an amendment that was exactly the same as clause 38 in this Bill—unsurprisingly, as the same people who have been campaigning drafted both clauses. It was co-sponsored by 64 Members of the House, from every party and every shade of opinion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights—a Committee of Parliament—described it as a “human rights-enhancing measure”. We had been speaking on the issue for years, so we did everything to secure a debate. I do not want to talk too much about Government bad behaviour in the past; one should not perhaps do so when they have done something right. We got the measure tabled as new clause 1—we got there first at the end of the Committee stage. However, unfortunately, after we had got 10% of the House to co-sign it, the Government then took the unusual step—I will not say any more—of using a programme motion to prevent it from being debated. Why? Perhaps they feared that we might defeat the Government—something that happens very rarely in this place.

However, we did force the Government to have a consultation, which was great. The consultation started, lasted a whole year and closed on 13 January 2012—a year ago. We were still waiting and now we have a few words from the Home Secretary. That appears to be the end of the consultation, but it would still be useful to see it, because this is an important issue. We want to know why the Government have changed their mind on this, so it would be quite nice for the consultation, a year after it was closed, to be published.

Why is clause 38 so important? It is important because it removes section 5 of the 1986 Act, which was undermining civil liberties. The breadth of cases suggests that virtually anyone could find themselves at the wrong end of section 5. They have been cited several times, but I want to go through some good cases—there are many others—to show how section 5 was being used against civil liberties and freedom of speech. Section 5 was cited in a court summons given to a 16-year-old protester for holding a placard saying,

“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.

A Tynesider named Kyle Little was convicted and fined under section 5 for saying, “Woof!” to two Labradors. Thankfully, that conviction was quashed. An Oxford student, Sam Brown, was arrested under section 5 for saying to a policeman,

“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”

Thames Valley police said:

“He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”

My friend Peter Tatchell was charged under section 5 for condemning the murder of gay people by Islamic extremists. His placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely to cause distress. Blackpool café owner Jamie Murray was told by officers that playing DVDs showing text from the New Testament was a possible section 5 offence.

The police have often used section 5 to freeze debate and stop difficult people speaking out, but in this place we should cherish difficult people. That is what this place is about: cherishing people who do not always go with what the establishment wants. In another case, animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. One of my favourite cases—I think I can end on this one, because it goes against what I normally talk about and believe in—involved an atheist pensioner in Boston, in my part of the world. He wanted to place a small sign in his window saying:

“Religions are fairy stories for adults”—

I never thought I would repeat that in this House, but that was his crime, apparently. He was told by Lincolnshire police—our very own police—that if anyone complained, he could be arrested and dealt with under section 5.

These cases are worrying. We might be tempted to blame poor on-the-spot decision making, but when there are so many, with such wide variation, and when some of them progress to the courts, it is no longer a joke. We have to conclude—and we have concluded; and now, thank God, the Government have concluded—that there is something wrong with the law.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to be on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue. What he has described is Liberal Democrat policy as well, and I am delighted that the Government have conceded on it, but has he given any thought to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which also deals with insulting behaviour?

[Mr Leigh]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that in detail when he speaks, because he makes a good point. It is important in the coalition that we try to find things for which, philosophically and honestly, we can work. One thing that is deep in our joint tradition as Liberals and Conservatives is our desire for more freedom, so it is good news that the Government are going with the grain of what the coalition is about.

I hope the House will forgive me if I go into one or two details, because in the law the devil is always in the detail. Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws

“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”

if they are “likely”—that is the important word—to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. Clause 38 simply deletes the lowest threshold of the offence—only the lowest; that is the important point—which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”. It is important to make the point that we are not removing protection from policemen for those who may feel themselves to be threatened in some way. We all know what being threatened is like: it is quite different from being insulted. The 1986 Act does not define the terms, but the courts say that we all know them when we see them, and I think that is right. A threat is when someone is “in your face” and there is fear of violence. Abuse is when there is, for instance, obscene language. That is why Lord Hurd brought in the law—he was concerned about football hooligans and concerned to protect decent, law-abiding people from feeling threatened or abused.

Insult, however, is clearly less serious and, above all, much more subjective. That is the point about the cases I read out: they are subjective. That is the problem. Most people are surprised to learn that insults are against the law in this country. They think that that kind of law would exist only in some kind of oppressive communist society, not in England and Wales, where traditionally we have given the world this concept of freedom of expression, and the freedom to insult people is an important part of traditional freedom. I believe—and we all know—that insults are minor compared with threats or abuse. An insult is a slight on one’s reputation; it can hurt feelings. Yet just because my feelings are hurt—because I feel that somebody over there has insulted me—should I attempt, or should the police attempt, to make them a criminal? I do not believe that is right.

That is why we have garnered support over the years so quickly. I think virtually everybody who has looked at this issue now supports us. I mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but those supporting us also include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers—that is important, because we were always told that the police were worried about this—the current Director of Public Prosecutions, as has been mentioned, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice, Liberty, The Daily Telegraph, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association. The list goes on and on. Virtually everybody is off the fence and supporting us. We now just want the Labour party to come on board.

There is nothing party political about this issue. There is nothing in what we are arguing about that runs contrary to traditional Labour belief. After all, despite the Whips in the other place, the Lib Dems in the Lords voted for the amendment, now clause 38 in the Bill, by 29 to seven; Conservatives voted for it by 49 to 30; Labour peers rejected their own Whip and voted 23 to 16; and not a single Cross Bencher voted against it.

Frankly, I believe that this change is not due just to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has come on side, as the Secretary of State said earlier. I believe that the Government comprehensively lost the arguments in the Lords. The Lords can be very good on these issues. The Minister was assailed from all sides. Even the Labour spokeswoman, Baroness Smith of Basildon had a difficult time. She suggested outlawing insults might be

“a useful tool which…enables the police to address homophobic and religiously offensive issues.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1126.]

She cited a case in which section 5 was used to convict someone who peppered people on a train with foul-mouthed verbal abuse. From all sides in the House of Lords, it was pointed out that such behaviour is well beyond the scope of mere insults. It falls clearly into the realm of threatening and abusive behaviour; it would be untouched by clause 38. Under pressure from all sides, the Baroness was good enough to concede that she was open to looking at the evidence and was not opposed to change. We want to see a similarly open-minded attitude from the Labour party in this House.

The Minister in the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach talked about balancing free speech with the right not to be caused alarm or distress. We all agree with that, but what does it mean in detail? Do we all have to be vulnerable to prosecution for insults so that the police can have maximum flexibility to decide whom they will or will not prosecute? I do not think that the Minister’s arguments held up. He said that the “insulting” limb of the offence gives the police

“the flexibility they need to respond to hate crime and to defuse tension quickly in public order situations.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1130.]

Agreed—but the present law was just too flexible.

What we are doing today is right. It is interesting that one of the many Conservatives to rebel was Lord Hurd, the Home Secretary who brought in section 5. At the time he did so, he made it clear that it was not intended to undermine civil liberties. No doubt he has seen what the rest of us have seen: section 5 has undermined civil liberties. He wishes to put it right, the Government want to put it right, and I welcome what the Government have done today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on leaving in the Bill the Lords amendment in clause 38, as it is wholly in accordance with the proud heritage of upholding free speech in this country. I thank Ministers for listening to those of us in this House, and many outside it, about the detrimental impact of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, as currently drafted. In this country, we have traditionally enjoyed great freedom of speech—we certainly have in this Chamber—but many people have felt that section 5 has curtailed it and undermined wider civil liberties, and that it needs addressing. As Liberty says in welcoming this amendment and discussing the need to remove “insulting” from section 5,

“the mere fact that this is a criminal offence is enough to stifle freedom of expression.”

It also states that

“section 5 can have a chilling effect on peaceful protest.”

In responding to the Secretary of State’s introduction to this debate, the shadow Secretary of State expressed reservations about the Government’s proposal to include clause 38 and invited examples of the detrimental impact of section 5 to be provided in Committee. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to whom I pay tribute for his lengthy and persistent campaign on this issue, has cited some of the examples, and I wish to add a few more. I make mention of the couple who used to own a hotel but lost the business as a result of a prosecution under section 5, which arose from a conversation with a resident—a customer—who asked their views on a particular subject and then, when she did not like them, reported them.

[Mr Leigh]

The point is that this was not a threatening situation; it was simply a talk, over the breakfast table, in a bed and breakfast.

[Fiona Bruce]

That is absolutely right. Ultimately the case was thrown out by a judge, but the strain of enduring the prosecution process proved too much for that couple and they could not keep that business going.

I am particularly concerned about the arrests of individuals under section 5 for expressing views relating to their faith, because I am a committed Christian. Another case was that of Jamie Murray, who runs a café in Blackpool. He had displayed texts from the New Testament on his café wall but received a visit from two police officers who said that they had received a complaint and were investigating a possible offence under section 5. The complaint was simply about Bible texts. Bible texts can be found outside many churches across this land and inscribed on buildings. There are Bible verses on the floor of the Central Lobby in this place and I can even see scripture engraved on the door behind the Speaker’s Chair. However, section 5 is apparently so broad that police in Lancashire thought it banned the Bible. The obvious problem with section 5 is that the word “insulting” is too vague and too subjective; what one person might consider insulting may not trouble another at all.

Incidents such as those I have mentioned frighten people; even where the person does not end up with a criminal record, they create a chilling effect. I now know of church ministers who fear a knock on the door simply for preaching historic Christian truths at their own pulpits. That cannot be right, which is why clause 38 is so welcome. The wording of the current provision needs to be trimmed back; as the recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, it

“constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said that

“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

A gap will not be left in the law; the word “abusive” should cover the issue satisfactorily.

I could cite many other instances, not necessarily involving faith aspects: the concerning issue of the 16-year-old man threatened with prosecution for peacefully holding a placard that said, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”; the animal rights activists who displayed models of red seals, with the red representing blood; the street-preaching pensioner with Asperger’s who was convicted and fined under section 5 for holding a religious placard—Peter Tatchell, while not agreeing with his opinions, has fully and publicly expressed his right to express them. All or any of those cases, or the views expressed within them, might be regarded as controversial, but what hope is there for free speech if someone can dial 999 every time they hear something controversial? What a colossal waste of police time.

Many groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has already stated, have expressed concern about section 5 of the Public Order Act, and I am delighted to note the support received in the Lords from so many worthy Members, including a former chief inspector of constabulary, a former Lord Chancellor, a former DPP and the chair of Liberty.

I also pay tribute to those outside the House who have campaigned on the issue, particularly those who have spearheaded the “Reform Section 5” campaign, with which I have been associated since its launch last year. It is a joint initiative of the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society; how many other causes could unite such implacable foes?

We are all familiar with the statement attributed to Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I know that that sentiment resonates within this House, and that is what clause 38 is all about. history has shown that, if societies do not take opportunities such as the one presented by clause 38 to underline and reinforce the importance of free speech, other precious liberties can begin to slide away. Once we cross a Rubicon and allow infringements of free speech, how many other freedoms disappear? I am sure that we all support the campaign of the Chinese journalists for free speech in their press; we should equally support clause 38 and free speech in this country. The United Kingdom has been a beacon of free speech to the world. This is a chance to underscore that reputation.

The publicity it has generated means that the debate on section 5 has been followed not only by a wide cross-section of society in this country but by people around the world. I hope that, through clause 38, we can give them something to celebrate and that Opposition Members will join us when we come to vote on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

As a former Lord Chancellor, as well as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will surely wish to join me in paying tribute to the judiciary, who will be the first people to be televised giving verdicts in the high courts. I am sure he will agree that that will help to explain the decisions they come to.

Returning to detailed points in the debate, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) congratulated the Government on clause 38. Having been a Member of the House for 15 years, I have to say that this is the first time I have ever heard him do so for any Government, and I look forward to many more such occasions in the coming months and years.

[Mr Leigh]

Don’t get too excited.

[Damian Green]

As my hon. Friend says, I should not get too excited.

The shadow Home Secretary asked how the NCA would work with police and crime commissioners. The PCCs have a national role in tackling the sort of serious and organised crime whose pernicious effects are felt in every community in every street in the UK. They will be key strategic partners for the NCA. Keith Bristow has already spoken with the newly elected commissioners as part of the central PCC briefing that the Home Secretary hosted in November. He and the wider NCA will obviously continue to engage with them, including through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the tasking element, as did many other Members. She asked whether direct tasking by the NCA director general would cut across the authority of police and crime commissioners. I do not believe that there will be any conflict. Fighting serious and organised crime is a shared concern of the NCA and the PCCs. Tasking by the NCA will be used to fight the kind of cross-boundary serious and organised crime that is more difficult for individual forces to tackle, and to which PCCs must already have regard under the strategy policing requirement to which they, as well as just chief constables, must sign up.

The right hon. Lady also asked about the framework document. It will be a joint statement of intent by the Home Secretary and the director general of the NCA, setting out how they will work together. The final NCA framework document cannot be produced until after Royal Assent; it will be published and laid before Parliament in due course.

There was much discussion of the self-defence clause. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). We are not changing the fundamental premise that people can use only force that is reasonable in the circumstances as they believe them to be. What we are saying is that when a person is attacked by an intruder in his or her home, in the light of all the terror that that brings—greater, probably, than the emotions that would be aroused in someone defending commercial premises—it may be reasonable for that person to use a greater degree of force than is permitted by the current law. Householders should not be treated as criminals if they have used force that was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be, even if that force turns out to be disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) asked why the provision was limited to householders. It is attacks by intruders in the home that cause the greatest public concern. A home is supposed to be a haven, a refuge, a place where people have every right to feel safe, and that is why we believe that householders deserve special protection.

I am grateful to many Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for their support for the restorative justice proposals. A number of interesting details emerged, which I shall certainly consider. I share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady—and, I think, of the wider House—to develop the idea of restorative justice so that it becomes much more important to the way in which we continue to cut crime and prevent reoffending. I know that it is one of the key elements that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary wants to introduce in order to continue our success in that regard.

The right hon. Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), among others, mentioned family visit visas. The current family visit visa appeal right no longer serves its intended purpose. The appeal right for visitors is an anomaly: no other types of visit visa, such as business and tourist visas, attract the full right of appeal. People who are refused visit visas may reapply as many times as they like, and may provide further information in support of their applications. The expenditure on family visit visa appeals constitutes a disproportionate use of taxpayer funding for the benefit being sought. Removing the full right of appeal from family visitors will save £107 million over the 10 years following enactment.

Inevitably, questions were asked about the efficiency of the system. Of course the system can always be improved. In 2011, however, 79% of family visit visa applications were granted at the initial decision-making stage, 2% were granted as a result of an allowed appeal, and a further 2% were granted after entry clearance manager reviews following the receipt of appeals. That demonstrates that the majority of people are able to follow the application process, and are successful.

I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on his successful campaign following the tragic incident of drug-driving and its effects in his constituency. He asked various questions. We aim to improve any devices that meet the requirements for testing at a time as near as possible to the commencement of the new offence, which is planned for 2014. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) asked about medically unfit drivers; I am happy to tell her that that specific issue will be the focus of a meeting tomorrow.

I look forward to exploring those and other issues in Committee, along with the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is the Minister responsible for crime prevention. I believe that the Bill will greatly enhance the national response to serious and organised crime, while delivering a swifter, more transparent and more effective courts and tribunals system, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 February.

3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Damian Green.)

Question agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department by virtue of the Act,

(2) expenditure incurred in making payments to persons who select judges or who select selectors of judges, and

(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Damian Green.)

Question agreed to.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the imposition, on persons liable to pay sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction or treated as sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction, of liability to pay amounts in respect of costs of collecting sums of that kind,

(2) the charging of court fees by virtue of the Act,

(3) charging by the National Crime Agency for the provision of services or facilities,

(4) provision about functions in relation to regulation of bailiffs and enforcement agents, and

(5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Damian Green.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers take every opportunity—as I have today—to make clear that we have a very good offer to make. The only people whom I ever see quoted in the media saying that the UK is closed for business seem to be people from the education sector. I have pointed out to them directly, and will do so again, that there is a great offer for our university students. They should help us to sell and market Britain abroad, as I take every opportunity to do.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of policing levels in the east midlands; and if she will make a statement.

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

I congratulate the chief constables and police officers of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire on rising to the challenge of cutting crime with reduced budgets. The latest recorded crime statistics show a 15% reduction in recorded crime in the east midlands in the two years to June 2012, with officer numbers down 6% in the past year.

[Mr Leigh]

Clearly the new police and crime commissioner will have a very challenging role in the current environment. Should not we as a Government show a degree of humility in admitting that very serious errors were made in the way in which we publicised last week’s elections, show determination to make the system work, and explain to people that replacing anaemic police authorities with a single identifiable head is the right way forward?

[Damian Green]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend’s second point, but less with the first. The police and crime commissioners, including the very good commissioner who has just been elected in his own county—[Hon. Members: “The Tory candidate lost.”] Unlike the Opposition, I am being non-partisan about this.

The new commissioner can build on work that is already under way. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that forces expect the proportion of officers working in front-line roles to increase from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. That 15% fall in crime in the east midlands is the biggest percentage decrease in all the regions of England and Wales, which demonstrates that the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but on how well it deploys its resources.

Scrap Metal Dealers Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 9th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Browne]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to read out in full all the amendments in the group, which would have meant my not being called to action for quite a while, as there is a substantial number of them. I shall speak principally to new clause 1 and the other Government amendments relating to the heading “Licensing regime”.

The group relates to the licensing regime in the Bill, and in it the Government wish to create one new clause and to add 17 amendments to the Bill. Unfortunately, in our view, the amendments have been diluted by a significant number of amendments tabled by other hon. Members. I do not propose to address all the non-Government amendments separately, but we take the view that, as a whole, they do not add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) is seeking to achieve. We are therefore minded not to support them.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

From what the Minister says, there already appears to be a difference of emphasis. As a victim of scrap metal crime myself, like many others, I am strongly in favour of this Bill. These amendments—this applies to all private Members’ Bills—have a sensitive life. I urge the Minister to ensure that this Bill becomes law, even if he has to make some concessions on the amendments. He has to give more time, because out there, the churches and many members of the public want this Bill to become law.

[Mr Browne]

I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I visited a church in my Taunton constituency a few weeks ago and I was told about the theft of metal from the church roof and the damage it had done. The church was very supportive of the proposals brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as are Members on both sides of the House. We are keen to see Parliament pass the Bill and for it to come into law. It is obviously not a Government Bill, and my hon. Friend may well be keen to permit a degree of flexibility, but the Government want to see achieved the objective that we both share—to pass this legislation into law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The whole point of the Bill is that it provides flexibility. The key aspect of it is that it allows co-operation and collaboration with internet service providers to ensure that we respond to the changing nature of criminal operations. Criminals are changing their tactics, and the legislation needs to move with them.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

13. What progress she has made on the matter of deportations and article 8 of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules that I laid before the House on 13 June has come into effect today. It introduces clear new rules to protect the public from foreign criminals who try to hide behind family life as a reason to stay here. In respect of the most serious offenders, only in exceptional cases will the public interest in deportation be outweighed by other factors.

[Mr Leigh]

Notwithstanding the excellent work that my right hon. Friend has done, does she not agree that the only real solution to the problem is to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998? Given that it is our Liberal friends who are blocking such action, may I, in the privacy of the Chamber, suggest this course of action to her? Why do we not all vote against House of Lords reform tomorrow, and end the sad, unmourned life of the coalition? Then we can have a general election and a Conservative Government, and we can repeal this hopeless Act.

[Mrs May]

rose—

Family Migration

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

We have indeed discussed the issue with the Ministry of Defence, and the current rules will continue for the time being for both serving UK personnel and foreign and Commonwealth personnel. We are considering how we can revise what are called the part 7 rules, which relate to foreign and Commonwealth personnel serving in Her Majesty’s forces, and in the coming months we will consider very carefully what arrangement should apply in future. At the moment, transitional arrangements mean that the current situation will pertain for those personnel.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I warmly commend the Home Secretary for her statement today. It shows that we can come up with good, strong, Conservative statements and be popular with the British people. Our Liberal friends, take note.

May I say to the Home Secretary that the reality must match the rhetoric? We gave a solemn promise at the last general election that we would get immigration down to tens of thousands, and there has been far too little progress. Will she recommit herself today to appointing officials of sufficient quality and in sufficient numbers to achieve that aim? Otherwise, there will be a huge democratic deficit.

[Mrs May]

The figure of tens of thousands continues to be the aim that we are working towards. My hon. Friend is right that, as I indicated in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the figures to September 2011 have still not shown a fall. If he looks at the subsequent student visa figures through to March 2012, however, he will see a significant fall in allocations. That should have an impact on net migration figures in due course.

My hon. Friend tempts me down a route that I will not go down, but I make fairly and squarely a point that I should have made in response to an hon. Friend earlier: these proposals have been put forward by the coalition Government.

Abu Qatada

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I have answered questions about the European Court, the treaty and the advice and guidance given by the European Court on the dates. On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, Abu Qatada is in detention at the moment. If he and his lawyers apply for him to be let him out on bail, we will vigorously oppose it. It is the case, of course, that he had been on bail prior to his arrest on Tuesday. The bail conditions on which he was held were among the most stringent ever applied to anybody here in the United Kingdom. Those bail conditions were tighter than the control order regime that I know the right hon. Gentleman supported.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to the Home Secretary’s answer to the Father of the House, the fact is that the Brighton conference process is designed to weed out trivial cases. It would not affect a serious case like this one. If one believes in the European Court of Human Rights, that Court should deal with this case. I think we all have to be honest and the Home Secretary has to be honest about it. Is she personally prepared to argue for the supremacy of this Parliament, which would mean that we must repeal the human rights legislation and create a British Bill of Rights?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend will recall that I have made my own views on the Human Rights Act absolutely clear. The Conservative party, of course, went into the last election saying that we would bring in a Bill of Rights. The Government have established a commission to look at the whole issue of a British Bill of Rights. I suggest that my hon. Friend waits for that commission to report.