Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

As I have said, we are awaiting the results of the pilots. Once we have considered them, we will take the proper action and, if necessary, roll them out further.

[Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

13. How many foreign nationals have been released from prison since May 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

The total number of foreign national offenders released from prison between May 2010 and September 2014 is 38,256. That does not take into account offenders who have been transferred to an immigration removal centre, releases of indeterminate prisoners and those on home detention curfew.

[Sir Hugh Bayley]

Thousands of foreign criminals have been released from prison, and the Public Accounts Committee reported just two months ago that the number being deported is now 500 lower than it was in 2008-09 under the previous Government. The last Conservative manifesto said:

“We will extend early deportation of foreign national prisoners”.

What did the word “extend” mean?

[Andrew Selous]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons doubled when his Government were in power. This Government have brought the number down: from 11,135 in June 2010 to 10,503. He is of course right that we have further work to do. We have signed prisoner transfer agreements with Nigeria, Somaliland and Albania, and we are actively making sure that European Union prisoner transfer arrangements take place, notably with Poland at the end of next year. We are absolutely focused on continuing to make progress on this important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend knows, I think that the best thing for us to do is to send them back, but inevitably the difficulties that we have spoken of this morning will get in the way. That is why we are doing what we are. He is well aware that this Government are utterly committed on this issue. We would certainly like there to be more removals under compulsory prisoner transfer agreements. He may know, as may the House, that the number achieved under those agreements by the previous Government was not high, although it was at least a round number.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

13. If he will meet hon. Members and civic and Church leaders from Leicester and York to discuss how the reburial of the mortal remains of King Richard III can be done in a way which acknowledges King Richard’s close association with Yorkshire.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter, but I am afraid that I cannot encourage him by suggesting that there should be a meeting. The position is very clear. The university of Leicester applied for a licence to exhume the remains. That was challenged in the courts. The administrative court decided in May that the Secretary of State was entirely correct to grant the licence and it has been given to the university of Leicester. I understand that the intention is for King Richard III to be reburied in Leicester cathedral.

[Hugh Bayley]

I do not want to raise the matter of the licence, but I ask the Minister, in the interests of fairness, to reconsider. It is 16 and a half months since the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) said in this House that many of the points that I had raised in the debate “deserve further consideration”. On 12 March 2013 in Westminster Hall—Vol. 560 of the Official Report, column 30WH—he said:

“We would be happy to facilitate a meeting between the people”

from York and Leicester to discuss the burial arrangements. Those arrangements need to be discussed.

A commitment was given by the Government. For the past 16 and a half months, they have said that they could not act on that commitment because the matter was before the courts. It is no longer before the courts. Will the Government therefore fulfil the commitment that they made, so that there is an inclusive funeral that does not exclude people from the north of England, who have strong feelings about the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

The question is too long. There will not be much left of the remains.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area. I was speaking to the court in Cardiff about these issues only on Thursday last week. One protection is that the 26-week norm can be extended in the interests of justice in every case. Secondly, from the president downwards, there is a regular review of exactly what is happening. There will be report backs, as well as a public report back to Parliament on a regular basis, and regular reviews to make sure that vulnerable children in the sort of families he describes are not put at risk. The whole purpose is to ensure that fewer children are at risk and more children are protected and cared for better.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

3. With reference to the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice in Westminster Hall on 12 March 2013, Official Report, column 30WH, that his Department would facilitate a meeting between people from York and others with the university of Leicester to discuss the arrangements for reburial of the mortal remains of King Richard III, when that meeting will take place and which Minister or official from his Department will attend it.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, arrangements for the meeting were put on hold in the light of litigation brought by the Plantagenet Alliance Ltd. The judicial review was heard by the Administrative Court on 13 and 14 March, and I look forward to receiving its judgment.

[Hugh Bayley]

I understand the reason for the delay, but it is self-evident to me that a decision about the burial of a former Head of State of this country should be taken by the Government of the day, not delegated—as in the case of King Richard III—to archaeologists at Leicester university. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that when the sub judice rule has passed, he will consult widely—including with those from the north of England who believe that King Richard should be reburied in York—before taking a final decision on the basis of advice about where the burial should take place?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

A hearse, a hearse, my kingdom for a hearse!

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Every case must be judged on its own merits. We cannot provide legal aid for every possible case that can be pursued, but we will retain a system that provides legal aid in cases in which the courts and the Legal Aid Agency, which judge the entitlement to legal aid, think it is appropriate to do so.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T9. The Secretary of State has the legal and constitutional responsibility to determine where the mortal remains of King Richard III are reburied. He would be unwise, in my view, to support the claims for reburial in Leicester, in my constituency of York or anywhere else without consulting widely and setting up an advisory panel of experts, as I proposed in an Adjournment debate before the summer break, and as Mr Justice Haddon-Cave proposed in his recent judgment on the matter. Is that something that the Secretary of State will now do?

[Chris Grayling]

I am well aware of the strong feelings about that case, but we reached an agreement with Leicester university, which funded and carried out the dig, and I think we should stick to the agreements we reached.

Reburial of King Richard III

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We now come to a most interesting debate on the licensing of the reburial of King Richard III. I am sure that hon. Members will not be guilty of lèse-majesté in their comments.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

An interesting debate indeed.

I pay tribute to Richard Buckley, from university of Leicester archaeological services, who led the dig in the car park in Leicester which found the remains of King Richard III. It was a pleasure to talk to him last week, when preparing for this debate. I also pay tribute to the Yorkist Richard III Society, which proposed the dig to Leicester university and made some funding available to enable it to take place.

It is 527 and a half years since the end of the wars of the roses, a nasty, bloody civil war that tore our country apart. Although people think of it as a war between the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster, it was in fact a war between the north and the south and it was as horrible as any of the more recent civil wars of the 20th and 21st centuries. In this debate I do not want to set York against Leicester. Rather, I want to use the stupendous discovery of King Richard’s remains to bring our cities closer together, perhaps as a metaphor for the one-nation politics that all our parties nowadays stand for.

I do not hide the fact that I believe that King Richard III’s mortal remains should be buried in York. However, that is not the purpose of today’s debate. I want the Government to create a fair, independent process for arbitrating between the claims of York and Leicester, and other places, such as Westminster abbey, just across the road, where Anne Neville, King Richard’s wife, is buried. I want the Government, having created such a process, to come to decisions in a dignified way, based on historical advice, and after considering the views of all interested parties. It is the responsibility of the state to decide where, how and when King Richard, former King and head of state for our country, is buried. It is not a decision that should be delegated to a group of academics at Leicester university, as is currently specified in the licence for the dig, issued by the Ministry of Justice.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Hugh Bayley]

How could I not give way to the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on such an occasion?

[David Tredinnick]

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I called my hon. Friend in a slip of the tongue. I have known him for many years. The overwhelming opinion in the county of Leicestershire is that King Richard III should be buried close to where he has lain for more than 500 years. I hope that, in the end, he finds himself at peace in Leicester cathedral.

[Hugh Bayley]

I do not for a minute disbelieve that that is the sentiment in Leicester. Indeed, an e-petition with 7,500 signatures supports the proposition that the King’s remains should be laid to rest in Leicester cathedral. There is also an e-petition with 24,000 signatures supporting the proposition that the mortal remains should be buried in York minster, which is where Richard, during his life, gave notice that he would like to be buried. The Government must find some fair, independent process for arbitrating between parties on this question.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman believes that this should be a decision for the state—that is, in some ways, correct—but does he not think that there should be some consideration and weight given to the views of the late King’s family and descendants?

[Hugh Bayley]

The late King’s descendants—17 of them—published a statement recently supporting the proposition that their ancestor should be buried in York minster. Their voices ought most certainly to be heard in the process that I propose, as should those of the royal family, the Church of England and the Catholic Church, which I mention in deference to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who is chairing our proceedings, on the Floor of the House last week. The voices of many people with interests should be considered before a final decision is made.

In preparing for this debate, I consulted a number of people. I have mentioned Richard Buckley, but I also consulted Dr Sebastian Payne, former chief scientist for English Heritage, who is a member of the advisory panel on the archaeology of burials in England. I spoke to Simon Mays, the scientist responsible for human remains at English Heritage; to Wendy Moorhen, deputy chairman of the Richard III Society; to Paul Toy, curator of the Richard III museum in York; to Vivienne Faull, Dean of York minster, and to others.

The licence issued by the Ministry of Justice to Leicester archaeological services unit to excavate the car park permitted

“the removal of the remains of persons unknown”.

Richard Buckley told me that the prospects for finding King Richard were remote and that that was known by the Ministry of Justice when the licence was issued. Indeed, the licence application contained the phrase,

“in the unlikely event of finding the remains of Richard”,

so it is no surprise that the decision was taken in relation to persons unknown, rather than in relation to a former king.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentions the licence granted by the Ministry of Justice, which I would argue was granted in the fair and independent way that he has been calling for, but the application for the licence was explicit about Richard. It said that a licence was wanted for an

“excavation to investigate the remains of Leicester’s Franciscan Friary and also potentially locate the burial place of Richard III, whose remains were interred here in 1485”.

The application explicitly asked for a licence to find Richard III. The licence was clear that any remains should be deposited at the Jewry Wall museum in Leicester or else reinterred at St Martin’s cathedral in Leicester. The reason for that, presumably, is that it is archaeological good practice that remains are reinterred at the nearest consecrated ground, which is Leicester cathedral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

I am advised by various people, whose opinions and good advice I sought before this debate, that each case must be considered on its merits. There are many archaeological investigations in my constituency. The licence issued to the Leicester archaeologists contained broadly the same terms as a licence that would normally be issued to any archaeological society or group with a decent reason to dig. It mentioned “persons unknown”. If a mediaeval tailor had been found, it might have been appropriate to keep his remains in the county archaeological museum in Leicester or to rebury them nearby. In the case of a king’s remains, reburial is absolutely necessary. The remains should not be kept in a museum in Leicester or anywhere else. The state has a decision to make about what is the appropriate way to deal with the remains of a former king.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will try to make some progress with my argument.

[Chris Skidmore]

I want to declare my interest. I am a member of the Richard III Society and I have written a book on the battle of Bosworth. My standpoint is neutral, being a Member of Parliament for Bristol, neither from Leicestershire nor Yorkshire. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s discussion about an independent solution. Would he consider my compromise, whereby even if Richard is buried in Leicester his body might lie in state at York for a week? However, regardless of where Richard is buried—perhaps the Minister could respond to this point—the Richard III Society has raised £30,000 for a tomb for him to be encased in. I am keen to see whether there is support in the House for an appropriate burial in such a tomb, whether it is in Leicester or York. I am also keen for that to be privately financed so that it is not a great cost to the taxpayer.

[Hugh Bayley]

Once again, I pay tribute to the role the Richard III Society has played in this whole event. It proposed the investigation based on its own research, and the excavations were expertly carried out by the archaeologists from the university of Leicester. It is too early to agree the compromise solution the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is a constructive idea, and it is entirely consistent with my view that we should look at ways to bring together people from York and Leicester, rather than set them against each other. The idea has been considered by the Church, and the Dean of York mentioned it to me last week. It is the sort of proposition that could be considered under the process I am asking the Government to set in train.

As I say, the licence refers to persons unknown. Now that the identity of the remains has been established, it is right to reconsider the terms of the licence. Indeed, Sebastian Payne, the former chief scientist at English Heritage, described the discovery to me as a game changer. He is a member of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. The panel has representatives from the Church of England, English Heritage and the Ministry of Justice. It met last Friday, and I asked Dr Payne to seek its advice on this case. Yesterday, I received a reply from Professor Holger Schutkowski, the chair of the panel. He wrote to me, saying that

“since the exhumation was carried out under Ministry of Justice licence, it is APABE’s understanding that the final decision on re-interment rests with the MoJ and that it is open to the MoJ to vary the terms of the licence. Therefore, APABE advises that your detailed questions should be addressed to them. APABE has no views about where the remains should be re-interred or how the place of burial should be marked. APABE recommends, however, that the views of those that have justifiable close links with the deceased, be they historical, cultural or religions, require balanced consideration as, for instance, set out in recent DCMS Guidance. Consideration should also be given to the rights, Canon Law and responsibilities of the Church of England as the legal successor of the Church into whose keeping the body was given at burial.”

The Government have the power to amend the licence; indeed, they frequently amend licences. Back in the 1980s, when the York Archaeological Trust was excavating at Jewbury, in York, the plans were changed as a result of representations from orthodox Jews, who took the view that the Jewish skeletons that were discovered should be reburied quickly, in line with Jewish practice. Four years ago, the Ministry, under the previous Administration, issued advice that, generally speaking, human remains should be reburied quickly. However, that has been found to be impractical in some cases, because it impedes archaeologists’ scientific examination of the remains. The Ministry has therefore amended quite a few licences in recent years to permit scientific examinations.

I have two proposals for the Minister. First, he should appoint an independent committee of experts to examine the historical record; the scientific analysis arising out of the dig; good archaeological practice; and the ethical and religious issues. The committee should advise him on where, how and when reburial takes place. Secondly, he and his Department should give the university of Leicester notice that it may be necessary, having taken advice from independent experts, for the Government to amend the licence and that preparations for reburial should therefore temporarily cease.

There are two other issues I would like to mention. First, the scientific tests to establish the identity of the remains are not yet complete, and archaeologists have not yet published their findings from the dig in peer-reviewed journals. In its letter to me yesterday, the advisory committee said:

“APABE understands that there is evidence ascertained through various scientific approaches that the human remains exhumed from the site of the former Leicester Greyfriars may be those of the late King Richard III. Due to the potential significance suggested by recent media presentation of preliminary scientific results, APABE believes it is in the national interest that decisions about the future deposition of these remains should await completion and peer review of the scientific results.”

I am emotionally inclined to believe the remains are those of King Richard, but the Government would clearly be foolish to set in train arrangements for the burial of the remains of a king—a head of state—if it is not certain that that is what has been found.

Richard Buckley is, of course, certain that he is right, but he has a vested interest in being certain: his reputation and legacy as an archaeologist depend on the identification being accepted. If he is right, he will go down in history, like Howard Carter, who found Tutankhamun, although Carter had the advantage that Tutankhamun was found in a casket that had Egyptian hieroglyphics on the side saying, “This is the body of Pharaoh Tutankhamun.” Unfortunately, King Richard—buried in haste after the battle, naked and with his hands tied by his captors—was found in neither a coffin nor even a shroud, and no evidence was found of coffin nails or of the pins that would have pinned a shroud together.

I mentioned that public opinion is split, with thousands of people supporting Leicester, and three times as many supporting burial in York. I have received many letters and e-mails from members of the public supporting burial in York. Most are thoughtful, well argued and based on scientific facts, but some are, frankly, inflammatory. I talked to the Dean of York yesterday, and some of the letters she has received at the minster are so extreme that she has referred the correspondence to the police. I would say to everybody: calm down. Let us all respect the memory of a former king of our country, and let us discuss, in a dignified and sober way, where his remains should finally be put to rest; we do not want to reignite the wars of the roses.

I provoked some laughter in the main Chamber in October when I said that King Richard is still well regarded in York. His reputation was trashed by that pesky playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon. History is always written by the victor, and the Tudor dynasty had a vested interest in undermining King Richard’s reputation. Of course, Shakespeare would not have got a licence from the Government of the day to perform his plays if he had told the truth about good King Richard. Long may the BBC remain free from Government licensing!

I do not have time to make the case for Richard’s burial in York, except to say it was what he requested in his lifetime. Weighed against that is the case for burying him where his remains were found, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). However, the decision should be taken on independent national advice, not delegated to archaeologists from Leicester, who clearly support the Leicester cause, and who would have found it outrageous if the decision had been delegated to a group of people from York. We need this decision to be taken nationally, in the national interests and by people who are independent of the vested interests of York or Leicester. I hope the Minister will agree.

If I may, Mr Leigh, I will now give the Floor to the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. It is my job to arbitrate this modern war of the roses. We must give the Minister a decent amount of time, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) kept his remarks brief.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I have of course met my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and discussions about the court and tribunal estate in the Gloucester area are ongoing. Our aim is to achieve an estate of appropriate capacity to meet the business need, and which is also efficient and less costly to run. We continually review our estate to ensure that it is well utilised and offers the best possible quality of service and facilities that we are able to provide for our users.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Is the Ministry of Justice aware that the Crown Prosecution Service has proposed withdrawing its staff from a purpose-built joint office that they share with the police at Athena house in York, where prosecutors and police officers work side by side, sharing files, to reduce court delays and court costs in York and Selby? Will a Justice Minister meet the Law Officers urgently to put a stop to this plan, on the basis that it would significantly increase costs for his Department?

[Mr Djanogly]

That is a matter properly addressed by the Attorney-General rather than the Ministry of Justice, but to the extent that there are issues that concern the Ministry of Justice, of course we will take an interest.

Police

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. If forces choose to increase the precept, under the OBR expectation, the reduction would be less than 20%. Even if all forces froze the precept for the next three years, the reductions in police force budgets would be less than 20%. There is not a single force in the country that is facing a 20% reduction in budget. This is another way in which the Opposition either fail to understand what is going on or seek to present a different picture to the public.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the crime figures were not rising, but in York they are. According to an answer from his junior Minister, the figure for York in the last year of the previous Labour Government was 14,480; it rose in the first year of the Conservative Government to 15,199. What, therefore, is the Minister’s strategy in areas such as mine, where he is cutting £5 million from our local police force budget, even though we need additional resources to counter the increase in crime since the Conservatives came to power?

[Nick Herbert]

I did say that there were areas of concern that forces would have to attend to. Overall, the figures were clear that recorded crime is down. If other forces are working within the available resources, why does the hon. Gentleman assume that the solution is to increase resourcing in his area? Perhaps the solution is better policing, better partnership and a focus on driving down crime in those areas. The question he must ask is: if other forces and areas are doing it and have had the same level of funding reductions, why cannot his? Labour Members instantly assume that there is a need to increase spending, and it is precisely that attitude that got the country into this mess in the first place. They simply will not focus on how money is spent—only on the call for more money to be spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Communities across the country know that. They want officers on the streets. They want to see police officers doing the job in their area. It is communities that will in the end pay the price for this Government’s decision. Time and again on Monday the Home Secretary told the House not just that there was no simple link, but that there was no direct link between police numbers and crime, yet look at the evidence from the Government’s favoured think-tank, Civitas, which said that

“there is a strong relationship between the size of police forces and national crime rates...A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”

The Policing Minister sniggers. Will he snigger, too, at the HMIC, which he quoted today, which said in research published last year that

“a 10 per cent increase in officers will lead to a reduction in crime of around 3 per cent (and vice versa)”?

That is the conclusion of the authoritative HMIC analysis of all the studies and the research that have been done, and this Government decide that they want to cut 16,000 officers at a time when personal crime is already going up by 11%.

[Hugh Bayley]

Under the previous Conservative Government the North Yorkshire police received not one single additional police officer, and crime in our county almost trebled. Under the Labour Government there were dozens and dozens of additional police officers—more than 140—and crime started to come down. Now the police numbers are down by almost 100 and crime is rising again. Surely that makes the case.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right that we had thousands more police officers under the Labour Government. We also had a historic 40% reduction in crime.

The Conservative party used to get it. Here is what the Prime Minister himself wrote in the 2005 election manifesto for the Conservative party:

“Put more police on the streets and they’ll catch more criminals. It’s not rocket science, is it?”

No, it is not, yet now the Tory-led Government are doing the opposite. Once the party of law and order, they are cutting more from the police than from health, education, local councils or defence—more than from any other service. Personal crime, theft, robbery and violence are up by 11%, police officers down by 16,000—higher crime, fewer police, communities paying the price. This Government should cut crime instead of cutting police officers, and they should start by going back to the drawing board and voting against these plans today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We have every intention of ensuring that both parents have a meaningful relationship with their children, and we will look carefully at the Norgrove report in order to develop a Government approach to the matter.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

The convictions of three world-class cricketers last week shows that even cricket is not immune from corruption. In his role as the Government’s anti-corruption chief, will the Secretary of State look into the problem of corruption in international sporting bodies such as FIFA, and see what Britain can do to drive corruption out of international sport? There has also been controversy involving the Olympics and Formula 1.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but the issue of corruption in sport is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I know that he is working with his European Union opposite numbers on specific measures to tackle it, and I am following his progress very closely. The recent convictions show that there are problems that need to be tackled in the interests of everyone who believes in the value of sport—but honest sport—to a community.

Police (Public Trust)

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I know that he has a lot of experience in this area. In response to his question, I think it is important that when the Government undertake their review, the whole issue of the relationship and building trust between the police and the public is examined. I have touched on discipline already; I will touch on some other issues shortly. I think that my hon. Friend came in just a few moments after I began the debate. I refer him to the words of Sir Robert Peel that I quoted at the outset; perhaps he can read them in Hansard. It is an important point that, of course, the police are themselves members of the public. However, on the question of policing by consent, perhaps we need to look at Bramshill, Hendon and other places where our police officers—from junior officers to senior officers—are trained. We should remind officers that they are policing by consent and that there must be a relationship with the public that does not exist through the warrant card alone but through trust and mutual respect.

As I said, there should be no special treatment for police officers. Police officers are not above the law; they are subject to the law, as we all are. Some officers forget that and as a result public trust in the police ebbs away. [Interruption.]

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Since there is a Division in the House, I must suspend this sitting. We are running behind time already, so I suspend the sitting for a maximum of 15 minutes, but I give fair warning to all Members that if the two Front-Bench spokesmen and the initiator of the debate, Mark Pritchard, are back before then, I will start as soon as the three of them are back in their places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

Order. Four Members are trying to catch my eye. As a result of the Divisions, the debate will end at 4.23 pm. I will call the Front Benchers to speak for the last 20 minutes, which means that we have just under 50 minutes. I hope that colleagues will bear in mind that that means that we need speeches of 10 or 12 minutes if we are to get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)]

If the matter is not before the courts, it cannot be sub judice. What the hon. Gentleman has raised is a matter for debate. If we have time and he wishes to speak, he might be able to make a contribution.

[Mr Watson]

Thank you, Mr Bayley. I would not dream of attempting to transgress the rules of the House on sub judice. I simply seek to get the facts, and not enough of the facts are in the public domain.

The Minister has it in his power to cast light on this sorry tale. He could review the Metropolitan police advice to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thus be confident in his own mind about whether the DPP was given all the evidence required to bring appropriate cases. If the Minister wanted to, he could ask an external police service to investigate the conduct of the inquiry by the Metropolitan police. I would like him to acknowledge whether that is an option he is considering taking. He could, if he wanted to, talk to the Prime Minister about the potential for a judicial inquiry into the conduct of this case.

Members of Parliament, senior police officers, senior members of the military, the heir to the throne and leading celebrities have been the target of criminal activity on an industrial scale by News International journalists, and that has not been adequately investigated. So in today’s debate on trust in the police, I would like to say that I have absolute confidence in the police’s ability to get to the truth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

1. What his plans are for the budget for the probation service in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the funding of the probation service in 2010-11.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

For 2010-11, the budget for the probation trusts will be £850 million. Budgets for 2011-12 are not yet set, and will be done through the spending review process to take place later this year.

[Hugh Bayley]

Last Sunday, on Sky News, the Justice Secretary said:

“let’s have fewer people in prison”,

and that there are

“some things we can do to stop people re-offending when they come out”.

Did he have the probation service in mind? Will the Minister give me a categorical assurance that there will be no cut in funding for the probation service, because it will be impossible to carry out that policy if there is?

[Mr Blunt]

It would be very nice if the country was in an economic position that allowed me to deliver such a categorical assurance to the hon. Gentleman but, as he knows perfectly well, I am afraid that I cannot do so. He also knows that part of the Ministry of Justice’s contribution to the £6 billion target was a £20 million reduction in the probation service’s budget. However, that budget had been added to by £26 million in mid-year by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is now the shadow Justice Secretary.