Home Affairs

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Excellent work is done by dog wardens in many local authorities throughout the country. We feel that the legislation we are introducing, which will extend the ability to deal with dangerous dogs, is sufficient to be able to cover the issues that cannot be covered at present. I know some people say, “Why don’t we go back to having the dog licence that was held in the past?” Not only is that quite difficult to administer, but, unfortunately, all too often the owners of dogs we will need to be concerned about do not bother to get a dog licence, whereas the law-abiding citizens do. Giving the police extra powers to deal with dangerous dogs so that they can deal with them in all situations, even within the private home where the dog normally resides, gives the important extension of powers to the police that will enable them to deal with dangerous dogs wherever they may be in the community.

I am sorry to hear of the experience the hon. Gentleman had during the last election campaign. Dogs and letterboxes are the major problems for campaigners. [Interruption.] Yes, I think there would be widespread support for measures on that.

The reform of the police and the modernisation of their regulatory framework has been one of the most important aims of this Government, and it still is. We have ended the tyranny of national targets, eliminated useless bureaucracy and freed up police officers’ time so they can fight crime rather than fill in forms. We have set up the National Crime Agency to fight the cancer of organised crime, we set up the Winsor review of police pay and conditions, and we are determined that the priorities of the police should reflect those of the public they serve.

With the election of police and crime commissioners, we have made local police forces more accountable to the people they serve. This Bill will provide the new College of Policing with the powers it needs to set standards for the police in England and Wales. It will also ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has the powers it needs to investigate complaints of misconduct effectively.

Although this was not specifically mentioned in the Gracious Speech yesterday, we intend to introduce measures to clarify the compensation arrangements for those whose property is damaged by riots. The law on this has not been changed since 1886, and, unsurprisingly, it is in great need of modernisation: for example, the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 does not cover damage to cars, because, of course, in 1886 there were no cars. This month, an independent review of the 1886 Act that I have commissioned will commence. It should conclude by the end of September. We shall then consult publicly, before looking to publish a draft Bill in spring 2014, with the aim of introducing it in the fourth Session of this Parliament.

It is one of the fundamental duties of Government to protect the law-abiding public from the effects of criminal behaviour, and I would like to update the House on the position regarding our proposals on communications data. The Government are committed to ensuring that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to protect the public. Existing legislation already allows those agencies to monitor who has communicated by telephone, as well as with whom, when and where. These data are used in 95% of all investigations into serious and organised crime, and they have played a role in every major counter-terrorism operation by the security services in the last decade, but terrorists, paedophiles and criminal gangs today increasingly communicate with each other over the internet using the latest electronic technology. Our proposals are simply about ensuring that we can keep up with criminals as they shift to e-mails, instant messages and the internet, rather than making phone calls. We cannot leave the British public exposed to dangers which could be eliminated were communications data obtained. As the Gracious Speech yesterday indicated, we will be bringing forward proposals to address this most important issue.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary is well aware of my position, and I thank her for giving way. Will she confirm that, as was said in the Gracious Speech, these proposals will relate only to the aspects involving internet protocol address matching, on which she and I agree, and will be coupled with the safeguards requested by the Joint Committee?

[Mrs May]

I was about to say that the hon. Gentleman was a little slow in jumping up; I thought he might have done so when I first mentioned communications data. He was a member of that scrutiny Committee, so he will be aware that it said there was a case for legislation in this area. We accepted a number of the Joint Committee’s recommendations on the proposed Communications Data Bill. As I have just explained, because this is an important area for catching criminals and for dealing with terrorists and paedophiles, it is right that the Government are looking to address the issue. The wording of the Queen’s Speech yesterday made it clear that the Government intend to address the issue and, as I say, proposals will be brought forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Once again in the Queen’s Speech we have heard grand claims, from the Home Secretary and indeed from the Prime Minister yesterday, about what their plans will do on immigration, antisocial behaviour, law and order, and justice. Sadly, however, the grand claims are simply not backed up by the reality of what they are doing.

The trouble is that we have been here before. We all remember how in this Government’s first Queen’s Speech the Home Secretary brought us the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill. She said that it would give the police

“a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 708.]

Instead, she spent £100 million on shambolic elections and only one in eight people turned out to vote, which was hardly a ringing endorsement.

Let us remember, too, what the Home Secretary said about her counter-terror legislation. She said:

“Public safety is enhanced, not diminished, by appropriate and proportionate powers.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

Instead, she brought terror suspects back to London and on Boxing day one of them ran off in a black cab and no one has seen him since. Let us remember how she promised that Abu Qatada would soon be on a plane, yet we are all still waiting. She promised there would be no cuts to front-line police, yet more than 5,000 officers have already gone from 999 response and neighbourhood teams. Time and again, the rhetoric does not match the reality.

The Home Secretary talked about the data communications Bill—that is, the missing data communications Bill. Here is what she said about that Bill less than six months ago:

“This law is needed and it is needed now. And I am determined to see it through.”

She also said:

“But Sun readers should know that I will not allow these vitally important laws to be delayed any longer in this Parliament.”

Instead, all that that the Queen’s Speech briefing says is that the Government are working with companies and

“It may involve legislation”—

“may”—it “may”; that is clearly the problem.

[Dr Huppert]

The shadow Home Secretary has carefully avoided saying what the Labour party policy is on the data communications Bill. Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Labour Home Secretary, said that if Labour had won the last election it would have introduced such a measure. Is that her position? Can she enlighten us?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself to squabbling within his coalition and struggling to get some answers. We have always said that action will be needed to ensure that the police can keep up with changing technology. However, the draft data communications Bill drawn up by the Home Secretary was far too wide; it gave the Home Secretary far too many powers and there were far too few safeguards for privacy. It was absolutely right that something had to be done, but that Bill was not the right approach. We must wait to see what approach the Home Secretary will now take, because Government Members are squabbling so much among themselves that the result is a shambolic approach to a serious issue. Time and again, that is what we see: there is strong rhetoric from the Home Secretary, and then the reality simply does not stack up.

It is the same when we come to the so-called “flagship” immigration Bill. We now discover that the Bill will not be published until the autumn, because the Government have obviously still not worked out what on earth to do about it. This is an area where we agree that action is needed. Yesterday, the Government told us that the Bill would have five central elements, but now it turns out that three already exist and will not require primary legislation, and two are merely proposals for consultation.

On jobseeker’s allowance, the Government are replicating the exact words in existing regulations. When the Health Secretary was asked about the NHS, all he could say was that he promised to examine the extent of the problem and do an audit. On private landlords, the Government cannot tell us how their policy will be enforced, because they do not know who the landlords are and they will not have a statutory register. Time and time again this Queen’s Speech has not set out the detailed proposals that we need. Instead of “flagship” Bills, all we have are proposals that seem to have been sketched out on the back of a fag packet—no wonder the Government wanted to get rid of the cigarette packaging legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I agreed with the hon. Lady on almost everything until she said that the previous Government stopped asylum cases taking years to process. She will be well aware that there has been a backlog of hundreds of thousands of asylum cases that have taken very many years, including throughout the time of the previous Government, and the situation has still not been fully rectified. Does she accept that her party’s Government did not in fact stop asylum cases taking years?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman does not have the history of going into the way that the Home Office works that I have. What happened was that initial determinations of asylum cases had been taking years and years. In ’97, there were thousands of cases that nobody had made any kind of decision on, and the initial determinations were made quickly. He is right that there was a backlog of a number of cases that had been lurking in an underground bunker. In fact, when we were first elected, the underground bunker contained thousands of cases that had not been subject to any decisions at all, and the bunker was full of poison gas. The way in which the Home Office administers cases is ludicrous and I will address the issue later.

I believe that the previous Government did get some things wrong on immigration. We allowed the development of bogus colleges which conned students and allowed people to study here who should not have qualified to do so. We failed most in not sufficiently transforming the administration of immigration that we inherited from the Conservative Government. We did not do enough to make the system work well. We started that work—we introduced e-borders and we proposed identity cards—but we inherited a mess and the Home Office did not sufficiently get it sorted.

Today’s editorial headline in The Times says that the Government are right to prioritise delivery. Although The Times appears to be giving the Government an alibi for not proposing enough legislation in the Queen’s Speech, immigration is a field in which they have failed to prioritise delivery, which is key to ensuring that our immigration system that works. From where does immigration need to operate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to be called in this debate on the Queen’s Speech. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I usually agree with much of what she says and on this occasion I agreed with large chunks of it. I will not go through every constituent in my area who has had to wait years for decisions to be made; the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made the point for me.

I was generally very pleased with yesterday’s Queen’s Speech. It contained a lot of good measures that the Liberal Democrats are proud to have championed for a long time. There was excellent news that will help us to create a stronger economy and a fairer society.

Aspiring businesses will be boosted by the legislation on the national insurance employment allowance of £2,000. That is a progressive way of helping businesses out, giving them a springboard for growth and, critically, encouraging them to hire staff. There are proposals to improve the intellectual property system. The Hargreaves proposals suggested that European Union unitary patents could lead to £2.1 billion in growth. That will be welcomed by a lot of the high-tech businesses in my constituency, although we must not go down the dangerous route of software patents. The Energy Bill, which will continue its passage, will provide green jobs. The High Speed 2 Bill will generate about 100,000 jobs. As we have heard, the £10,000 income tax threshold will lift millions of poorly paid people out of income tax and give money back to others that can be spent to grow the economy.

On fairness, the care Bill will put an end to vulnerable members of society having to sell their homes to pay for care costs in their lifetime. There will also be a new flat-rate state pension, help for carers and the continuation of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill. I hope that through cross-party agreement, that Bill will include the proposal to allow humanist weddings to take place in England and Wales, as they do in Scotland.

In government, we have fought for and will continue to fight for a stronger economy and a fairer society, but I will focus on the home affairs and justice measures in the Queen’s Speech. I will start with the contentious issue of immigration, on which I largely agree with the hon. Member for Slough. This country benefits massively from immigration. I am pleased to say that very clearly. If we were to take away the immigrants from my constituency, it would be disastrous. The hospital could not function without people who have come from overseas, universities and high-tech businesses would suffer massively, and the quality of society would be massively diminished. We should be delighted that we have successful immigration. Immigrants come to this country and make a huge contribution. I am very proud to support that.

However, our system does not work well. Under this Government, the previous Government and, I dare say, the Government before that, our border controls have simply not been good enough and we have not been able to keep track of people. We definitely want to ensure that the people who should be able to come into this country can get in easily and quickly. They should not have a struggle with bureaucracy or wait months for decisions, whether they are a wealthy businessman or somebody seeking asylum. Everybody deserves a prompt, correct decision. That is not what has happened. Improvements are being made and we will see whether they go far enough. It should be easy for talented business people, academics, researchers and genuine asylum claimants to come here legitimately. There have been far too many problems with that.

I have a constituent who had been sentenced to death in Iran for converting to Christianity. He applied for asylum under the previous Government and was rejected because, although he had a copy of the death sentence, it was deemed that there was not enough evidence that he would be at risk if he went back. Most people who are asking for asylum do not have a copy of a death sentence. That decision has been corrected and he is living in Cambridge and is very active there. The Home Office has been very helpful to members of his family.

We have to fix the system. I want exit checks to be reinstated. That is a long-standing Liberal Democrat position. If we do not know who is leaving, we do not know who is still in the country. That causes frustration because there are lots of figures that suggest that people are still in this country who should not be, when in fact they left many years ago. A lot of the figures on student migration include people who have left the country or who did not come here in the first place.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The previous Government’s abandonment of exit checks has led to the appalling situation whereby we cannot tell who is in the country. I would certainly welcome it if they were put back in.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It was in 1994.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think that it was the Government before last who got rid of exit checks, but they certainly were not restored by the last Government. I believe that they are in the process of being restored by this Government. I look forward to clarification from the former Immigration Minister.

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

There were two sets of exit checks: one for those from outside the European Union and another for those from inside the European Union. The final exit checks were removed by the previous Government in 1998.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his detailed clarification and for being so well briefed. The past two Governments removed one set of exit checks each. We need to have them back so that we know who is leaving.

We must ensure that in the drive to correct our systems, we do not bring in measures that stifle our success or international standing. It is fantastic that we attract students from around the world. They come here and pay money, making this a fantastic export business. Some of them stay and contribute to our economy. Others leave and set up businesses or get elected in their own country, and have a good relationship with our country. We should be proud of that. That is a huge factor in my constituency and many others. We must not drive those people out when we correctly try to stop those who are abusing the system and who come here falsely. We need steps that get it right in both ways.

The demise of the Border Agency was somewhat rushed. We must ensure that there is not just a change of name, but a change of practice. The era of decade after decade of backlogs and of people not getting answers promptly must finally end. We all want to see that; no one in any part of the House would like those backlogs to continue to grow or even to exist at all, and we must have a system that will end them. I hope the Government will manage that, but it will be a tough task.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inordinate delays and backlogs in the immigration system have two malign effects? First, they make it difficult for those with the type of talent, expertise and entrepreneurship that he describes to have their cases dealt with swiftly. Secondly, they encourage abuse, because many third-rate, dodgy immigration advisers end up giving their clients advice just to play for time.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and I agree with everything she said. Delays cause huge harm, and she is right to pick on a number of the advisers and immigration lawyers who help out. A huge number of reputable lawyers do a fantastic job, but all of us who deal with a significant amount of immigration casework see shocking cases of people who should not be allowed to practise as they do, and who are extorting the vulnerable in a deeply unfair way. It is a huge problem that is cruel to those involved, and we must take action.

Much of what we need to do can be achieved without legislation. Some areas, however, need legislation and I look forward to proposals in the immigration Bill, which I hope will contain good provisions and send the signal that we can do the right thing. I know the Minister for Policing and Justice agreed with this when he was Immigration Minister, but there are, for example, specific issues about the status of children born outside the UK to unmarried British fathers before 2006, and to married British mothers before 1983. These are slightly odd cases because those people are not entitled to citizenship, although they are if they were born to unmarried British fathers after 2006, or earlier in the case of the mother. I hope that anomaly—I think that was the word the Minister used—will now be corrected. I also hope that a number of other proposals will be included in the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) pointed out that asylum support rates should be looked at each year, and I hope that will find its way into the Bill if legislation is required.

The idea of landlords and employers having a role is interesting. For employers the issue is clear, but we need stronger controls on those who knowingly hire people who are not allowed to work. We also need a system that makes it easier for employers. I have seen cases where the UK Border Agency has given employers unhelpful or inaccurate information about people’s right to work. Employers cannot be expected to understand all the details of the system—I do not think any hon. Member in the Chamber would claim to understand every nuance of it, although I am prepared to be corrected—and we must have a simple, clear system. If landlords are also to have such a responsibility, they too need such a system. I do not mind if a landlord has to enter a passport number and name on a computer and gets an answer—I can live with that—but if they all are expected to become experts in immigration law, we should be aware that that simply will not happen. I look forward to seeing how the system will work.

I am delighted that the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill is ready for consideration, and I am pleased that large parts of it have received pre-legislative scrutiny. That is an excellent pattern, and I hope more Bills will go through such scrutiny, and that future Governments will follow the advice, which is useful to ensure good, rather than rushed, decisions. We must deal with antisocial behaviour, which is a blight on many communities. I do not think that antisocial behaviour orders worked; they felt slow, bureaucratic, ineffective, and we know that many young people treated them almost as a badge of honour. A huge proportion—more than half, I think—were breached. The system simply did not work and was part of an effort to sound tough on antisocial behaviour. I hope that the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will work, and I will be disappointed if it turns out that they are just another example of people trying to sound tough. However, I am hopeful that the orders and injunctions it contains will be more effective and produce more effective community remedies.

I will not go through the Bill in detail, but I have one concern about the naming and shaming of offenders under 18, which I think should be done only as a very last resort, particularly now that so much information is available on line. The record of a 14-year-old who is publicly named online will be available when they are 18, 24, 34 or 44, and we run the risk of stigmatising for ever young people—who made errors and should not have done what they did—in a way that would not have happened 20 or 30 years ago. That was discussed by the Home Affairs Committee during pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am pleased at the Government’s indication that such a measure should be used only as a last resort. I hope the Minister will clarify that although one section of the law on naming is being disapplied, clear guidance will be given that that should be done only rarely.

I was happy about the criminalisation of forced marriage, which strikes me as absolutely right and was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, as well as the work on dangerous dogs. In 2011, there were 6,500 hospital admissions in England for dog bites and attacks, not counting those who were treated in A and E and sent home, or the many leaflet deliverers and canvassers who received just a small bite. The new measures will encourage responsible dog ownership, and I am particularly pleased to see the category covering attacks on guide dogs. I spent time with Guide Dogs for the Blind, and I was led blindfolded around my constituency by a guide dog, which was an amazing experience that I recommend to all Members—I see some have had the same experience. There have been a huge number of attacks on guide dogs, which are particularly damaging because of the effect on the person involved and because guide dogs are trained to look after their owner, not turn and fight off the other dog. There are awful cases of a guide dog leading its owner away while being savaged and either killed or seriously harmed, and I am therefore pleased to see protection for assistance dogs included under clause 98, meaning that an attack on a guide dog will count similarly to that on a person.

Rehabilitation has been a long-term Liberal Democrat policy and an issue that we keep discussing. The current jail system simply does not work and there are people who have been in jail but who come out and go back in again, which none of us wants to see. At times, we have seen a bidding war between political parties and areas of the press on who can sound tougher about locking people up for longer. The goal should be to ensure we do not have offences, not to punish people as toughly as we can.

Jail is expensive. It costs £40,000 to put a person in prison for less than 12 months, and many of those will reoffend. The situation is even worse for women offenders, huge numbers of whom are jailed for reoffending. Frankly, there are questions about how many women offenders should be in jail—I think it should be a far smaller number than it currently is. Between 2000 and 2010, the female prison population rose by 27%.

There is firm evidence that measures such as restorative justice and community sentencing are far more effective than costly short-term prison sentences, and that is the right way to go. It is not about being tough on crime but about stopping crimes from happening, and that is what we should see. The continued progress of the rehabilitation revolution will encourage probation services to keep reoffending rates down and shift the focus from being tough on crimes that have already happened to ensuring they do not happen in the first place.

Those are the home affairs and justice Bills in the Queen’s Speech, but I wish to touch on one that I am pleased was not included—the draft Communications Data Bill. This proposed legislation has an interesting history. Last year, the Home Office thought it was ready to be part of a full Bill, but I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, “No, I am not sure that it’s ready. Pre-legislative scrutiny needs to consider it and pull apart the details to see whether it is fit for purpose.” I served for a long time on the Joint Committee that considered that Bill carefully—it was, I think, the most detailed piece of pre-legislative scrutiny ever done in this House—and concluded that it was not ready at all. Although there was a case, as there always is, for stronger measures, it was nowhere near made. The Committee’s report was quite damning and stated that

“the draft Bill pays insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy, and goes much further than it need or should”.

That was a unanimous, cross-party, cross-House Committee. The report described some of the information coming from the Home Office as being, in one case, “fanciful and misleading”, and said that evidence for the problem it was trying to solve was misleading and unhelpful. The head of MI5 said that evidence presented on the problem relied on “pretty heroic assumptions”. It also highlighted that some of the proposals could reduce the amount of communications data available in the United Kingdom. It is a strongly written report and well worth reading.

I was therefore delighted that, after the report, and after the Home Office did not address the fundamentals—it did not manage to show how the 500,000 pieces of data that have been collected already were used, or to provide evidence of the benefits and other things—my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the proposals would not go ahead. I am delighted with that decision.

I am pleased Her Majesty was clear that most of communications data proposals would not happen. The Home Secretary had a different interpretation, but Her Majesty said that the proposal would address only the problem of matching internet protocol addresses—I am delighted Her Majesty the Queen managed to say that, which I suspect is a first. The Government will not pass legislation allowing a Home Secretary to ensure that records are kept of every website that people visit. They will not take an internal lead forcing internet service providers to monitor and collect information on what everyone does on Facebook, Google, Skype, Twitter or any other platform. We should not set a standard for the world by saying that such information can be collected as it passes through our networks. We will not spend more than £1 billion—£1.8 billion was the original figure, but we suspected that it would increase—snooping on our own citizens. That will not happen under this Government.

I am aware that the Home Secretary would like to implement that proposal, but she will not get her way. We have heard that the Labour party would have liked that, too. A former Labour Home Secretary said on “Daily Politics” that Labour would have gone ahead with the proposal, and the shadow Home Secretary has said that Labour would go ahead with a communications data Bill. She said that Labour would go ahead with collecting web log information and intercepting information on what people do on Facebook and Google. She is not in the Chamber, but if any of the shadow team would like to correct my interpretation of what she said, they are welcome to do so. The Liberal Democrats will stand firm; our position is supported by many Back Benchers and Front Benchers of the other parties in the House.

Safeguards are needed. For example, far too many bodies have access to the information. I was told off for saying in an interview that the egg marketing board was allowed access to communications data information. I had a letter saying that that was inaccurate. I apologise. In fact, the Egg Marketing Inspectorate would be allowed such access.

Evidence will be needed on IP resolution, but I believe legislation will not be needed. We need training on using the huge amount of data available, which is what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said was most useful. When I asked him how he would spend £1.8 billion, he spoke of training, more officers and better equipment.

The Queen’s Speech contains much to be glad of, and I am pleased that many measures are not in it. However, I am sorry that Australian influences seem to have killed off proposals on plain packaging, minimal pricing and the regulation of lobbying. I am sure they are separate issues, but there is very much to be proud of, and I look forward to debating the measures over the coming year.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I have just clarified it for the hon. Gentleman, but let me say this to him. The results of that policy are very clear. Just when the country needs to be united, what this Government are about is promoting division. They are about making people suspicious of one another: those in work fearing those out of work; the rich behaving as if the poor are a problem; those who lose their jobs, even in areas of low immigration, being made to think immigration is the problem.

We have seen the results: a country fearful and disunited. That does not build a confident, prosperous Britain, because when people are fearful, they do not take risks and innovate—they cling to what they have. It does not build a Britain at ease with itself either, divided between rich and poor, north and south. We are a better country than that, and we can be a better country, but it requires leadership from a Government willing to change the priorities. The first priority is to build a prosperous economy throughout the regions and nations of this country.

This Government have systematically taken money out of many of our regions, which have already been hit by unemployment. They have transferred £1 billion out of the north of England in their local government settlement alone. They have hit those big cities suffering most from unemployment through their welfare reforms; for example, Birmingham will lose £10 million on council tax changes alone, and Liverpool is losing more than £7 million in bedroom tax. That is money that would otherwise be spent in local shops and businesses, promoting those local economies. That is why it is important to have a British investment bank, at arm’s length from government, that not only lends to small and medium-sized enterprises, but ensures that we invest in the different regions of our country, promoting their economic strengths and building up their capacity. It is also right that we should be on the side of people who work and who want to work, but that means actually getting people back into jobs.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is right to say that there is some unpleasant rhetoric about benefits, with some unpleasant suggestions made. Will she join me in condemning a suggestion made three or so days ago that there should be no benefits for anyone until they have paid national insurance for two years? That would clearly hit incredibly hard young unemployed people and people who are disabled. The proposal was made by her colleague, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw makes many proposals, some of which I agree with and some I do not—that is probably one we would have to park somewhere.

I was talking about jobs. There needs to be a matching of not only our jobs guarantee for young people, but our guarantee of jobs for older people who have been out of work for more than two years. We also want to switch money from a tax cut for millionaires to support tax credits for the very people are who are out working in low-paid jobs, doing the right thing. We have to protect people’s rights at work—the Prime Minister wants to negotiate them away—not only because doing so is morally right, but because the strongest and most prosperous economies work through partnership between employers and employees; they work through training and investment in employees, not through a quick hire-and-fire culture. We will never compete with developing nations on low wages; we have to compete with them on skills.

One key to doing that is housing. Constituencies such as mine are desperate for homes for those who want to get a foot on the ladder and for homes to rent, yet the builders who come to us want to build homes for commuters. When they do agree to build some affordable housing, they often buy themselves out of that commitment—the Government’s permission to renegotiate section 106 agreements has not helped—and such an approach simply builds ghettoes. If we are to build viable communities, we need to look at other ways of building the affordable housing we need. We need to look at co-ownership and at councils being allowed to build by accessing money through the use of their pension funds. I have long believed that local authorities should be able to build not only for sale, but for rent.

Getting that economy right is key to many of the things we want to do, to improving the living standards of our people and to ensuring that they have the services they need—I do not have time to go into that this afternoon. To achieve that, however, requires one thing: a Government willing to lead, not one blown about by every last opinion poll or every election setback that they see. This Government are no longer that Government. They are in office but they have no plan for the future, they have no vision of how this country should develop and they have no faith in the British people to make that development. That is why they are no longer a Government who are good enough for this country.

UK Border Agency

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The differentiation between the two units will be clear: the immigration and visa section will deal with decisions on whether people should be entitled to enter or remain in the UK; and at the point at which those cases are closed and people need to be removed, cases pass to the enforcement part of the operation. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments on bringing the agency back into the Home Office—I suggest that he has more of a policy on the issue than Labour Front Benchers. We are very conscious that it is important to work out that separation, which is why I think that this clear-cut separation will help us to ensure that we do not see the sort of losses of files, passports and so forth that we have seen previously, so we have to look at the processes, too.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It will be a pleasure for the Home Affairs Committee no longer to have to report quarterly on ongoing problems within UKBA. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her decisive action. For too long the agency has stood in the way of a coherent, fair and credible immigration policy. My concern is that in 2006 the immigration and nationality directorate was spun out of the Home Office because it was not fit for purpose, had a vast backlog and was poorly led. We now have an agency that is still not fit for purpose, still has a vast backlog and still has leadership problems. How can she be so sure that it will work this time?

[Mrs May]

We have spent considerable time looking at what the right structure is for the agency. We have had the experience of working with the Border Force. If we look at its operation today, we see that it is in a different place from where it was previously. That experience has shown that if we can create a smaller entity that has a clearer management and focus on its activities, we can make progress, and that is exactly what we are doing by splitting the agency in this way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman both for his question and for his work in chairing the Home Affairs Committee. I see the Select Committee as a partner with the Government, challenging us and ensuring that we keep focusing and improving the agency’s performance. Although it is an agency, I had not noticed in the past year any difference in the level of accountability that either he expects from me, as a result of its performance, or from this House, as is evidenced by these questions. However, I will reflect further on what he has to say.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow two excellent questions on the same issue. The Home Affairs Committee report on the UKBA published today has some astonishingly poor figures. In quarter 3 of 2012, 18% of tier 1 visas were processed within four weeks—astonishingly bad. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to try and fix that. Does he agree that we cannot have a coherent, fair and credible immigration system when the agency is performing so atrociously?

[Mr Harper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I agree: the figures for quarter 3 last year were not good, and I acknowledged that in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). I am pleased to be able to say that by the end of this month, the UKBA will be making decisions for tier 1 visas and others within the service standards that it sets out to its customers, and which they have a right to expect.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has slightly pre-empted a quotation that I was about to give. In a recent pamphlet, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester wrote:

“The ISC found no evidence that the UK agencies were complicit in any extraordinary rendition operations and concluded that, during the critical period (from 2001 to 2003), the agencies had no knowledge of the possible consequences of US custody of detainees generally, or of Binyam Mohamed specifically.”

He went on to say:

“The opposite was the case. Successive court judgments have now made clear that the UK ‘facilitated’ the interrogation of Binyam Mohamed. Furthermore, High Court judgments in February and July 2009 concluded that crucial documents were not made available to the Committee by the Secret Intelligence Service, which led to the Committee’s Report on Rendition being inaccurate”.

I see the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) shaking his head, and I regret that he is offended, but the reality is that allegations have been made about the Committee’s performance, and made credibly, by my hon. Friend. What the amendments seek to do is not to haul the Committee over the coals, but to demonstrate that there is a strong, clear case for the Chair to be elected.

The ISC thought that it had reached the truth, but it had not. MI6 had been complicit in extraordinary rendition, and it was left to the courts to expose the truth.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument with interest. What evidence does he have to suggest that the information would have been provided if the Chair had been elected by this House? We all want that information to be provided, but how would this proposal fix the problem?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman has again made references to matters connected with the Liberal Democrats in regard to which he was factually wrong, but I do not have time to correct them all. However, may I take him up on his point about our being “in a position to do so”? Let us say that after the next election there were some Labour involvement in the resulting Government. Would he then commit himself to repealing part 2, or is he in favour of it when it comes down to it?

[Mr Slaughter]

I certainly would not commit myself to repealing part 2, because it includes the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which we support.

Finally, let me deal with the new heresies that have been slipped into the Bill during its passage in the House of Commons. I have time only to raise the issues rather than exploring them; further comment must be a matter for the other place.

The first of those issues, which was raised by us in Committee but not dealt with satisfactorily by the Minister, relates to clause 6(4)(a), which currently sets as a condition precedent to the court’s ordering a CMP that

“a party to the proceedings…would be required to disclose sensitive material in the course of proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings)”.

We fear that the provision will be used in part to prevent the use of confidentiality rings, allowing the citizen's own lawyer to be excluded from receiving information. It was that eventuality that we sought to prevent through our amendment 28, which was not reached on Monday but which would have added the words

“and such disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security”.

Our second significant concern relates to Government amendment 46, which was tabled only last week and was introduced to the Bill on Monday. There has been no opportunity to debate the amendment, which adds to clause 6(7) the phrase

“or on such material that the applicant would be required to disclose'”.

That appears to allow an application for a CMP to be made on the basis of irrelevant material which is not the sensitive material that the party applying—usually the Secretary of State—fears having to disclose. It may therefore allow the court to take into consideration material that is merely embarrassing or damaging to international relations. The Government have excluded such material from consideration in the CMP, but it seems it may now be adduced to trigger the process.

If we are right about that, there are other ramifications. The gisting requirements—which, as the special advocates have pointed out in their latest submission, are already very weak in the Bill—ask the court to consider, not to require, a gist, and thus allow a case to be decided entirely on the basis of evidence that one party has had no right to challenge. In addition, a gist need only be made of material that is disclosable. That presents the possibility of a CMP being granted on the basis of non-disclosable material, and the court not even being asked to consider whether it is necessary to gist that material to the open lawyer or client.

This is not so much a bad Bill as a Bill with a bad heart. We will not be voting against Third Reading, because there is much in part 1 that we support, but we believe that even at this stage the clauses on CMPs can be improved—indeed, must be improved. We look to the other place once again to provide the necessary heart massage. We hope that the Justice and Security Act will secure an effective way of trying difficult cases with serious national security implications without jeopardising hard-won and much-prized principles of fair and open justice. We have never excluded the CMP option, but we believe that it is such an affront to the basic, open and fair principles of English common law that it must be confined to the tiny minority of cases in which proper judicial discretion and other tried and tested methods have been exhausted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

It is fascinating to follow Members’ comments on the internal dynamics of all parties, but I will not comment on them. I am not a fan of closed material proceedings, for reasons that have been expressed. I will not go through all the discussions we have had during the Bill’s previous stages.

The point has been well made that the measure does not apply to criminal cases, but there is a view that it does in some cases. We are still waiting for absolute clarity on whether it applies to cases of liberty and habeas corpus. I am sure that the Minister without Portfolio will be able to give us the latest update on that. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), made it clear in Committee that the position has changed somewhat.

Even without that, there are lots of cases where this is already in our law and which I find even more alarming, because they affect people’s liberty much more. We heard on Monday from the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about a Special Immigration Appeals Commission case in his constituency. I remember talking to him about it two years ago, when his constituent was under detention during the period of the case, which was based on closed material proceedings, under legislation introduced by the previous Government. As I understand it, two years on the constituent is still being detained under the same legislation, because of evidence he has not had the chance to see. Whatever we think about a civil case, where money is involved, I hope that everyone here would say that a case involving two years of somebody’s life—curfews and the sort of internal exile that we saw with control orders and, to a lesser extent, terrorism prevention and investigation measures—is more serious. We should not allow ourselves to ignore that.

The Bill has been on a long journey and in that time it has got a lot better. Since the Green Paper, a huge number of changes have been made to what material would be excluded. There was the incredibly important switch from the language of public interest in keeping something quiet to the language of national security, which was definitely a step in the right direction. I do not think that anybody in the House wants to see silenced information that would just be embarrassing to the Government. I am sure that Governments would be quite capable of arguing that public interest includes their not being embarrassed too often.

It is also important that we have excluded inquests. It is right that we say to a family who want to know happened to a loved one that they will definitely know the truth and that they will not be told, “Something happened, but we can’t tell you.” It was a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), but I was surprised that he, along with some of his Labour colleagues and some Conservative support, wished to bring inquests back within the scope of the Bill. I am very pleased that that amendment was not put. Had it been, I hope it would have been defeated thoroughly.

We saw further changes in the Lords. I pay great tribute to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its sterling efforts. There are interesting questions about how the Government and the Joint Committee might work together more on some of these issues. We have had the slightly unusual case where the Joint Committee made some suggestions, the Government claimed to have satisfied them and the Joint Committee disagreed, but all this happened at a very slow pace. Perhaps there should be some way for the Committee, its Chair or the legal adviser to talk to the Government early on about draft amendments and to say, “Yes, this would achieve what we are trying to do, but with some wording differences”, as opposed to disagreeing fundamentally on whether it achieves the same thing.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As a new member of the Joint Committee, and with the Chairman in his place, I would like to say that we would certainly like a routine system that gives us time to look at the Bill and to report, not just to the Government but to the House, so that we can have a proper debate that does not get curtailed or circumscribed because there is no time to do either those jobs properly.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree. That is now firmly on the record.

As a result of the Joint Committee’s work in the Lords, we saw the switch from “must” to “may”, which gave judicial discretion. That was one of the key changes made to the Bill. As a result of our efforts in the Commons, that led to full equality of arms and the reporting and review process, which the Minister agreed to take away and then came up with. It is definitely moving in the right direction, but there is further to go. I have mentioned the clarity on the subject of habeas corpus, but there is still the issue of a renewal process, be it annual renewal or five-yearly renewal, to give the House the chance to say, “Is it doing just what its proponents want it to do, or is it going further, as many of us feared it would?”

There have been several votes on the principle of the Bill, including one in the House of Lords, when my colleagues were joined by a total of two Labour peers and one teller and five others, and lost quite convincingly. It is a shame that amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), was not taken on Monday, because it would have given the House the chance to have that vote. I pressed the same principle in Committee. I hope that the Lords will now step up and do more on this. Part 1 is a good step forward; part 2 is not. I hope that in the process of ping-pong we will be able to make further progress, because sadly it seems that it will pass through this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are still two Members left to speak. I call Jeremy Corbyn.

Police

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all those who murder police officers are brought to justice. If there is evidence to enable that to happen, it should be presented.

As I was saying, there is a clear difference between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition on the proposals before us. The settlement continues on the path that Labour has opposed since 2010, and I shall give the Minister a little hint by saying that we shall do so again today. The proposals will result in a loss of about £2 billion from policing budgets in England and Wales over three years. The Conservatives—and, by association, the Liberal Democrats—are cutting police funding by 20% over that three-year period and 15,000 police officers are being lost by 2015; 7,000 have already been lost in the first two years of this Government. That is a higher number than the experts predicted, and a higher number than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said would be safe. This is damaging morale in the police service.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman has consistently opposed the Government’s proposals. Will he make it clear what he would suggest instead? What does he think is the right amount of money, and where would he get it from?

[Mr Hanson]

I will come to that in a moment. In 2010, in the debate on the policing grant, I was the policing Minister, and I stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister has just been standing to propose a 12% reduction in police funding over three years. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time, but the former Liberal Democrat Member for Chesterfield criticised that budget proposal and reminded us that the Liberal Democrats, including the then Member for Cambridge, were going to go into the election promising 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene on me again to tell me how 123 such officers have been lost in Cambridge? Is that related to the 3,000 extra officers or not?

[Dr Huppert]

I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I hope that he will answer mine. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that further recruitment of police constables has been announced, and that there will be an increase in the number of police constables performing local policing in Cambridgeshire. I am sure that he welcomes that. He will also know from our manifesto that part of the money to pay for extra police was going to come from savings from the ID card scheme. However, we had not realised quite how much of that money had already been wasted by the Labour Government before the election.

[Mr Hanson]

I presume that the Liberal Democrats had also not quite realised how much money was going to be spent on tuition fees or on a range of other things. Let me put it this way: that represents one Liberal Democrat broken promise among many others.

According to House of Commons Library figures, 30,000 fewer crimes were solved this year, including 7,000 crimes of violence against the person. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) cannot have heard what I said. He is heckling from the Front Bench, and asking how much a Labour Government would spend. The Labour Government committed to a 12% reduction in police funding. The current Government, whom the Liberal Democrat Minister supports, are proposing a third year of a 20% reduction in spending on policing. The Minister and the Whip—the hon. Member for Cheadle—stood for election in their constituencies, as did other Liberal Democrats, on a pledge to put 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Will the Minister now intervene to tell me at what point during the election campaign in Taunton Deane he told people that he would preside over a cut in numbers of 345 in his own constituency’s police force?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman must be—as well as many other things—not listening to what I am saying. This is the third year of a three-year budget proposal. We proposed 12% cuts; he is proposing 20% cuts. Next year and the year after, we will have a further debate—when a Labour Government are returned in two years’ time, we will have a further debate—but at the moment we are talking about a figure for the third year. I have given him a figure—a 12% reduction versus the 20% reduction. He needs to listen and to recognise that.

[Dr Huppert]

Rather than returning to that aspect of the discussion, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long he thinks the delay might be before we see crime going up—his premise is that there might be a delay—and for how many years crime will have to continue going down before he accepts that it is still going down, despite what has happened since 2010?

[Mr Hanson]

Historically, crime levels have fallen over many years. That has been continuous since 1995, throughout my time in the House of Commons. The key question for the hon. Gentleman is how we develop that in future. Policing is, in part, about catching criminals and solving crime, but it is also about community reassurance and many other areas—dealing with floods, policing football matches, crowd control and policing demonstrations. None of those is about policing crime. Part of the reason crime is falling is that the Labour Government did good work in bringing together probation, prisons and policing to look at reducing the number of serious offenders. The number of first-time offenders going into the system fell under Labour, as did the number of offences per person. There is a range of issues; I just worry about potential difficulties arising downstream.

Again, however, the hon. Gentleman does not need to listen to me. Earlier the Minister mentioned the new head of the College of Policing, so let me give him a quotation from the head of the College of Policing, from a BBC News story on 25 January, under the headline “Outgoing Hampshire Chief Constable Alex Marshall warns on cuts”:

“Hampshire’s outgoing chief constable has warned further cuts to budgets could seriously impact police services. Alex Marshall oversaw a reduction of more than 800 posts”

in his force,

“but said more major cuts would be ‘very difficult’.”

The Minister’s Government have just appointed that person to the College of Policing, so it is not just me and Conservative and Labour police and crime commissioners who are raising those concerns: it is professional police officers as well.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me what Chief Constable Chris Sims has said. I have mentioned the former chief constable of Hampshire; let me turn to the chief constable of Kent, who has said:

“The cuts, if they are 20%, will take us back to 2001…that’s…a significant drawback into police numbers. Clearly there is a potential impact that crime will rise.”

Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that 2012-13 was

“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.

The chief constable of Lancashire has said:

“Let me be…clear. With the scale of the cuts…we are experiencing…we cannot leave the front line untouched.”

The chief constable of Dyfed Powys, Ian Arundale, said last year that we are approaching a cliff edge on policing. These are serious people. [Interruption.] The Minister again shouts, “Where’s the money coming from?” I have explained to him, very clearly, the difference between 12% and 20% cuts in policing. This Minister is supporting a 20% cut in policing, having gone into the election arguing for 3,000 more police officers. This Minister is taking 15,000 police officers off the streets of Britain, when he promised at the election to put 3,000 more police officers on to the streets of Britain. I will let the British people judge on that in due course and we will argue about those issues in due course. [Interruption.]

If the Minister wants to have a discussion about Eastleigh, I can tell him that John O’Farrell, the Labour candidate, will certainly be able to campaign strongly, given the 295 police officers lost because of the votes of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members today. I look forward to the Labour campaign in Eastleigh focusing on crime and punishment. I also look forward to reminding the people of Eastleigh that the Liberal Democrats proposed 3,000 more police officers, along with no rise in tuition fees and various other issues that they have broken their promises on. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to have been injected with something over the last couple of hours, because he is really quite frisky. He seemed to be hyper throughout his contribution; now that he has sat down, he still seems to be hyper. I do not know who will win the by-election in Eastleigh; the people of Eastleigh will choose their next Member of Parliament. The key question they need to ask is: who is going to stand up against the coalition Government? I suspect that neither a Liberal Democrat nor a Conservative MP will do that. Let the people of Eastleigh make that judgment.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I think the hon. Gentleman has had his fair share. I always like to give way to Members, but if he will allow me, I will try to finish and allow other Members to have their say.

There is much we can talk about, but one thing is clear. This settlement will damage policing yet further. It will damage the ability of police officers across the country to serve their communities. It is the wrong settlement—it is the third year of a very damaging settlement. I want to stand up for policing and for our communities and to fight and reduce crime. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this tawdry settlement from the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Because of his profession, he knows about these issues. I am sure he is an assiduous Member who works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. One of the public’s first concerns is whether they can see their local police officer—the bobby on the beat—walking around, and whether they can go to the local police station and report crimes and feel safe as a result. Not all of us can have a Dr Who-type TARDIS—I certainly do not—but it is important that we give that visibility in respect of both the physical building and police officers.

Where responsibility for counter-terrorism will lie is not yet settled. The Government are ring-fencing its £563 million budget, and I support that, but there is to be a new landscape of policing, and a decision needs to be made soon as to whether it will stay with the Metropolitan police or move to the National Crime Agency. My distinguished colleague from the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), will correct me if I am wrong, but I think we recommended in one of our reports that it should go to the National Crime Agency, as counter-terrorism is a national issue.

[Dr Huppert]

indicated assent.

[Keith Vaz]

Another Select Committee member, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is also present, and he is nodding in agreement. We suggested that in part because we were worried the NCA might not have enough to do, which is, indeed, the case at present. It has very few staff and it is not yet established to the satisfaction of the Government and the Select Committee. We need to have a decision on this matter soon, and we were promised a decision after the Olympics. I do not know whether the Minister wants to answer that question now, but if not, I am happy to wait until the winding-up speeches.

I am also concerned about the huge amount of money currently being spent on historical investigations. The Select Committee has asked witnesses about that on many occasions. At present we have Operations Alice, Elveden, Weeting. Tuleta, Pallial, Yewtree and Herne. We heard only yesterday from the Home Secretary that Herne—which has been under way for the past year, with a number of police officers involved, and at a cost to the taxpayer of £1.2 million—will now be taken over by the chief constable of Derbyshire. That operation deals with important issues involving undercover agents and the recent public revelations, and a lot of money is being spent on these matters. I calculate that £44.8 million is currently being spent on the police investigating other police officers who have failed to come up to scratch. A lot of money is going to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, too, to deal with past errors by certain police forces, such as at Hillsborough. In discussing the reduction of the grant to local police and crime and commissioners, we need to consider all the money currently being spent on all these operations.

The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds is the spokesman on good procurement in this House, and we have had many discussions about the matter. I welcome the decision of the deputy mayor of London, Stephen Greenhalgh, to take a careful look at how the Metropolitan police have spent their procurement budget. He took evidence from Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on the issue. When we commission companies to act if the public sector cannot act, we must choose only companies with a good track record. Only yesterday it was announced that G4S was going to have to hand back to the taxpayer about £70 million. We should take into account the expenditure from the police budget that goes on companies such as G4S. The Select Committee was very clear that, as a result of the big mistakes G4S made, it ought to have handed back all its management fee of £57 million plus all the other money it ought to have spent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North became an internet hit with his famous “humiliating shambles” soundbite. He will always be remembered for uttering those words on the Select Committee—and for many other words uttered, too, of course—because it was, indeed, a humiliating shambles. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds has said, we ought to be very careful about dispensing public money to private companies that do not come up to scratch.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the need to carry people with us. The Minister, who has responsibility for security matters, is an avuncular type who seeks consensus. We will see that when he comes to the Dispatch Box. I will not say he is the most courteous of the Home Office Ministers as the others might get upset if I were to do so, but he does not pick a fight. The current Home Office policy is, in effect, picking a fight with the people who have to implement the changes, however. Now is not the best time to be cutting police officers’ pensions, forcing them out under rule A19 and cutting their pay retrospectively—although I perfectly understand why we might need to make changes for new recruits.

I remember my last conversation with Paul McKeever on this subject. He passionately supported treating police officers with the respect, courtesy and dignity they deserve. My only real row with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), was about police pay. He was quite robust with me when he asked me not to go on a demonstration under the last Labour Government in support of the police who were having their pay cut. I said to him then—and I say to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers now—that we must carry the work force with us. If we say we have the best police service in the world, the only way to express our admiration for what the police have done is to treat them with proper respect—to have a dialogue with them, to stop cutting their pay and conditions, to speak to them because they know best day in, day out. As we have seen recently in Manchester and other parts of the country, they lay down their lives for us. They go out in the morning and they do not know whether they are coming back at night, unlike all of us in this Chamber today. If we do not carry them with us, the world-class brand reputation that we currently have will be damaged for ever.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and I agree with the vast majority of what he said, as is so often the case.

I want to begin by joining many other Members in paying tribute to Paul McKeever. He was an impressive man and it was a great pleasure to work with him. He had a real sense of energy and great commitment to his cause. He was a great man, and it was a huge shock when I heard he had passed away. I look forward to working with his replacement, Steve Williams, and I hope he will bring similar energy to the task and articulate the police officers’ case for a long time. I also want to pay tribute to all the other police officers and the police staff, who do such a great job.

The report is detailed, and anyone who wants to know how complex Government funding formulae can be should take a look at it. There are some charming delights, including hyper-accurate figures that do not necessarily equate with reality—but that is how the formula works.

The key issue is the total sum and how it is allocated. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), outlined well that the sums are what was agreed in 2010. I share his pleasure at the fact that the cuts that have had to be made since in other areas of public expenditure have not been passed on to the police. We would, of course, like to spend more on policing. As with so many areas of the public sector, it would be great if there was more money to spend on everything, so this is a very easy thing to say. Would I like more money in Cambridgeshire? Yes, please.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) read out a number of quotes from chief constables saying that they would have more money—that is a shock! I would be concerned about any chief constable’s future if they were to say publicly, “I don’t want any more money. Frankly, I can’t think of any way I could possibly spend that extra cash.” We would all like to see more money in this area, but we know that we are in straitened times. We know that there was no money left when this Government took office and that of every £4 being spent £1 was being borrowed—that simply could not continue.

The right hon. Gentleman argued in favour of 12% cuts as opposed to 20% cuts. It is worth highlighting the fact that those figures apply to the amount of money that goes from Government to the police and do not take account of the amount generated locally, so the actual effects are rather smaller than that. Disappointingly, what he did not do was to answer my repeated question about where he would get the money from. If I had an extra spare billion quid, I, too, would love to spend it on a range of things. We could have a fascinating debate about how to spend it. He simply said that he was going to spend it without saying where he was going to take it from, and that is a cheap thing that should not be done by an Opposition.

I used to be leader of the opposition on Cambridgeshire county council. I insisted that we put together a costed budget and take it through the same scrutiny process as the administration’s budget, and Councillor Kilian Bourke has done that incredibly well this year. It would be fantastic if the Opposition in this place were to provide fully costed proposals and subject them to the same scrutiny as the Government’s proposals, so that one could see where they are just coming up with fanciful sums. I was disappointed not to hear that answer from the right hon. Gentleman.

We also have to deal with an issue about the future. It is fantastic that crime has fallen almost everywhere in the country, and everyone in this House should celebrate that, but it is easy to sound the alarm and to say, “It is a bit worrying. In the future it might go up.” It might do, because nobody knows exactly what will happen, but if someone does not put some sort of time scale on how long they think this will take—this was the point of my question to the right hon. Gentleman—they can keep saying that for ever. They can keep worrying people for ever that things might get bad. If they want to make a genuine prediction, they need to have some sense of when they would accept that they have not seen the level of crime going up.

Times are tight, so we have to prioritise spending on policies that reduce crime and achieve the goals of the police. The key is how we spend the money we do have. I am pleased that we are cutting spending on a list of things that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned about that. I am pleased that money is being saved by not having CCTV cameras across the entire country, with so little regulation. I am delighted that we are spending money on an excellent commissioner on surveillance cameras, who will make sure that CCTV is used only where it is useful and genuinely proportionate. I am extremely pleased that we are cutting the money that was spent storing the DNA of innocent people—in some cases, people who had never been even accused of any crime. I am very pleased that we are saving money in respect of internal exile without trial and on identity cards. I wish that we had saved more of the money that went on identity cards and that it had not all been blown.

I would still like money to be saved in other areas. I am very concerned about the increasing spread of Tasers. I am in favour of Tasers as a replacement for firearms—as a step downwards. However, if we believe in policing by consent, having more and more non-firearms officers with Tasers risks escalation. There are huge concerns about the use of Tasers, which, as hon. Members will know, have been misused in a number of cases.

This Government have made proposals in their draft Communications Data Bill and plan to spend £1.8 billion on them. They have already spent £400 million and the previous Government spent a huge sum on all their attempts to have the intercept modernisation programme—billions of pounds that could have been spent on more useful projects. I hope that no party in this place will spend money willy-nilly, without looking at how it is being spent and what the benefits might be.

In order to have better prioritised spending, we could do a lot about transparency. We need to be careful that the move to police and crime commissioners does not reduce that transparency. We could also learn a lot more, and I am pleased that the College of Policing is being established. The Liberal Democrats have a policy to go slightly further and have an institute for policing excellence, which would be linked with universities, to try to find out the best things that we could do. I hope that we will see a strong link between the College of Policing and universities, in order to find out what is happening, because we have many expert researchers. For example, Professor Larry Sherman, at the institute of criminology in Cambridge, is a world expert on how to police effectively and efficiently to achieve the goals that we want. Such an approach would allow us to find out how police time is spent and make sure that it is actually used effectively and efficiently. I am in favour of visible policing, but that is not measured by how many police officers are on the books; it is also about how much time those officers can actually spend out on the streets, rather than having to do all the bureaucratic work they have been doing when I have been to visit them over the past few years. They spend far too much time struggling with IT systems and with paperwork, whereas we would like them to be out on the streets delivering visible policing, just as they would.

We could make improvements in a number of other areas. I still believe that this country’s drugs policy does not make the best use of police time. It sucks up vast amounts of police time for very little benefit. We spend more than any other country in Europe but the incidence of drug use is among the highest. There are better alternatives, such as the Portuguese model. Earlier this week, I was talking to the chief superintendent in Brighton, Graham Bartlett, at the launch of “Breaking the Taboo”, a film by Sundog Pictures, which I recommend right hon. and hon. Members have a look at. He is doing some extremely good work in Brighton, reducing crime by having a far more enlightened, semi-Portuguese approach, and I recommend that to many.

There is also a lot to say about the police’s role, not just in detecting crime, but in stepping in much earlier. I have spoken in this place before about a police officer who was in my patch when I was a county councillor. He was then PC Nick Percival, but he has been promoted significantly since. He had a very effective approach, which he developed, whereby he used e-mail to chat to people and tell them where he was. People got the visible policing by getting a weekly e-mail from him saying where he had been and what he had been up to. He also focused on working with young people, who were often bored during the holidays, and set up a brilliant scheme of giving vouchers during the holidays to children who were seen by a police officer or a police community support officer playing well. Whichever class got the most vouchers got a £15 voucher for the local shops. The effect in the area was that kids were playing on the grass hoping a police officer would see them. That made for a better relationship between young people and the police, and it reduced the amount of crime. In his first year on that beat, PC Percival reduced the amount of crime and antisocial behaviour by 50%. He did not detect very much and he did not arrest many people, but he halved the crime rate. That is the sort of thing we want to see.

Far more can be done about information sharing with other agencies: We could get non-confidential information shared between hospitals and the police, a matter that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has examined before. We could provide public access to local crime statistics, so that local knowledge can be used. We could get neighbourhood watches more involved—more plugged in—and we could share some of the information with universities.

We could also share information and co-operate on a broader scale, too. I am very concerned about some of the Home Secretary’s proposals on opting out of co-operation arrangements with the European Union. On that, I do share the concerns of the right hon. Member for Delyn. I do not always agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers, but it has said that opting out of those arrangements would lead to

“fewer extraditions, longer delays, higher costs, more offenders evading justice and increased risk to public safety.”

I hope that the Home Office will reflect very carefully on that advice.

Good policing and policing by consent is not always just about the total amount of money—we should not always just throw more money at a problem. For example, stop and search was a huge issue under Labour. From 2008, an officer in the west midlands was 28 times more likely to stop and search a black person than they were to stop and search a white person, and there are similar figures for Greater Manchester and the Met. An officer was 10 times as likely to stop Asian Britons as they were to stop a white person. That was a big project. It was a bad project. It put a lot people off and it created a lot of hostility, and it was expensive. The level of stop and search under terrorism legislation fell by 90% between 2010 and 2011 under changes that this Government made. We restricted it, and that saved money and improved relationships. We do not want to do things that cost the police time and money, and turn young people against the police.

One key measure is that crime is down, and I hope that that will continue for many years to come. I hope that the money will be spent effectively. There was some discussion earlier about the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and I am delighted that so many hon. Members have read it. I only wish more of them adopted more of it. Its section on crime started off by stating one simple aim:

“We will focus on what works to cut crime.”

That is what we said then and that is what we will do now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Before I begin my contribution to this important debate, I pay tribute to a WPC Fiona Bone and WPC Nicola Hughes, both of whom were officers in the Greater Manchester police force, which is my local police force. They went to attend a routine burglary call at short notice, and they were both shot. It is a perfect example of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said about police officers who, perhaps unlike any other professionals, do not know what they are going to face when they leave home. We therefore owe them a great duty of responsibility to ensure that their best interests are looked after.

The Minister says that crime is falling. We agree: it is falling at this moment in time. If I understood him correctly, he is, in effect, trying to take credit for that, but crime began to fall just before 1997, when a Labour Government came to office. When we did so, the morale of the police force was at an all-time low. The Labour policy of increasing the number of front-line police officers; introducing thousands of bobbies on the beat, police community support officers and neighbourhood policing units; the record investment in rehabilitation centres for people addicted to drugs and alcohol; the fact that we funded various youth services and increased the number of drug rehabilitation centres; the policies of diverting young people from the criminal justice system: collectively, all those things led to a significant fall in crime. While crime was falling, no Opposition politician at the time, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, who appeared on television or radio or in the print media, ever acknowledged that crime was going down. In fact, every time they appeared on radio and television when Labour was in power, they argued that crime was rising. I am glad that finally that mindset has changed and that they recognise the true state of affairs.

We have been told that a 20% cut in the police budget will save money and decrease the budget deficit. However, figures show that that is not working. The deficit is £7 billion higher than it was in the same period in the previous financial year, which shows that austerity measures, which have been criticised by the International Monetary Fund, a conservative institute, are not working. Let me help the Minister: we should make cuts if, in the long run, we save money—to use a modern phrase, we should make smart cuts. What often prevents people from committing crime is the sight of a police officer, and what reassures people is the sight of a police officer. Many Members while knocking on doors in their constituency have heard their constituents say that they want to see more visible policing, as they are reassured when they do so.

Government cuts have already led to cuts in the number of police officers. For example, in the north-west region, in March 2010, police numbers were 19,649. In September 2012, they were 17,708, with a reduction of 1,986 police officers. Those cuts will continue for the next year, so by 2015 there will be 2,951 fewer police officers. I am sorry, but no one can convince me that that will not have an impact on policing and crime.

[Dr Huppert]

May I put to the hon. Lady a question that I put to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson)? Let us say that next year crime is still coming down, and the year after that, it is still coming down. At which point will she accept that crime is, in fact, continuing to come down and looks like it will keep going for a while?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Let us see what happens in the next few years, because many austerity measures are under way. The cuts have only just begun to hit, and, in the next few years, they will really hit people. Everyone knows that because of economic difficulties certain crimes will rise, including lesser crimes such as breaking into vehicles, stealing small items and selling them for quick money.

Although crime is falling, fewer crimes are being resolved. This aspect has not been touched on. In the north-west, at least 2,296 fewer offences of violence against the person have been solved. Previously, a much higher number of such offences were resolved. In the coming years, once the cuts in police numbers are implemented and the full impact is felt, a rising number of crimes will be left unresolved.

The Minister boasted that recruitment was not a problem and that the Government were doing everything they could to encourage recruitment and create a better police force, but that is not the impression that I get from police officers on the front line. Let me tell the House about Police Constable Turnbull, who came to see me in my constituency office. He said that he had joined the police force many years ago, full of hope and with a high level of dedication to duty. I know that he will continue in that way, but he said that morale in the force, especially among younger police officers, was at an all-time low. Officers are unhappy with all the cuts that are taking place.

In particular, the constable talked about the police pension, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East referred. New recruits know the terms and conditions on which they are coming in, and can decide whether to join the police force on that basis, but to take away people’s pension rights retrospectively, when they have spent 10, 15 or 20 years contributing towards their pension, is plainly unfair and will not help police morale. Morale affects performance—if people are happy, they perform better; if they are demoralised, their performance may be affected. I hope that will not happen, because we have an incredibly good police force, one of the best in the world. Sometimes we do not give the police enough credit for all the good work that they do.

I conclude by quoting two senior police officers. Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester, said that 2012-13 was

“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.

Things will only get worse, not better, so imagine what it will be like next year and the year after. Steve Finnigan, chief constable of Lancashire constabulary, has already been quoted, but it is worth reminding Ministers of what he said. As the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on police performance management, he was asked whether he would be reducing front-line policing in order to meet the Government’s budget cuts. He replied, “I absolutely am.” He has also said:

“Let me be really clear. With the scale of the cuts that we are experiencing . . .we can do an awful lot of work around the back office . . .but we cannot leave the front line untouched.”

Finally, I ask the Minister to consider this. Labour’s plan for cuts of 12% over the Parliament is a proportionate response to deal with the deficit. This is confirmed by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, who said that this, as well as the work of the previous Government, would deliver front-line services without a great deal of impact on them. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), I ask the Government to re-examine their proposed course of action and to consider the Labour proposal.

Police Integrity

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my statement. On his first point, yes, I would still expect individual officers to seek that permission before taking a second job, but a public document would make it clear which officers had second jobs, alongside other things. He and I have a slight disagreement on police and crime commissioners. Each individual PCC is required to publish information on their interests so that the electorate in their area know where they stand and what their interests are—just as we require others who are elected to register their interests appropriately. It is appropriate for that to be done at local level, rather than maintaining a central register.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I, too, welcome this statement, which implements not only the recent Home Affairs Committee report, but the Liberal Democrat policy motion on empowering the IPCC, which was passed last year. I especially welcome the commitment that the IPCC will cover private providers. As Nick Hardwick, the former chair of the IPCC, said,

“if it looks like a police officer, talks like a police officer, walks like a police officer, the IPCC should investigate it.”

Will the Home Secretary confirm that she has spoken to Dame Anne Owers and the IPCC about resources, and that it be well-resourced enough to deal with serious cases and also look at private contractors?

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman feels that in that very full question he has covered all elements of the relevant Liberal Democrat motion and brought it to the full attention of the House, just in case we had not previously noticed.

[Mrs May]

In other circumstances, I might say that I was now worried, Mr Speaker, but we are in coalition, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is important that private companies working for the police are included, but that will require changes to legislation for which parliamentary time would have to be made available. I am sorry, but with all the banter I have forgotten the second point.

[Dr Huppert]

Resources.

[Mrs May]

Yes, I have sat down with Dame Anne Owers and talked about this issue. We must do more detailed work on exactly what resources will be required to enable the IPCC to do what we are asking, but we have started those discussions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first comment, as I indicated in my answer, there are some issues that still need to be addressed in relation to the operation of the UK Border Agency. I am happy to look into the case that he has raised. If he provides the details, my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will look into that with care.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Home Secretary will be well aware of many of the long delays, and I, like many Members, have a number of constituents waiting for responses from the UK Border Agency. This is causing great concern for businesses and the universities in Cambridge, as are some of the over-bureaucratic controls that they feel they are being forced to apply on academics and students. Will she come to Cambridge to meet university and business representatives in order to discuss the details of how that is working?

[Mrs May]

I understand that the Immigration Minister has already agreed to come to Cambridge to meet representatives of the university on the issue. I met representatives of the Russell group and Universities UK when we were developing our policy on ensuring that we can drive out abuse of the student visa system. We have a student visa system that ensures that the brightest and the best students—those who are coming to an institution that is genuinely providing education, to study a genuine degree course or educational course, and are intending to be students and not to use the visa to work—can come to the UK, while we are driving out abuse. I am pleased to say that tens of thousands of people who were coming here or would have come here to work rather than to be students will not do so, as a result of the action that this Government have taken.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that not all parts that were under the NPIA are going into the NCA. Other sections of the NPIA are effectively going into parts of other organisations—some will come to the Home Office; the College of Policing that we have set up will look at standards and training. It is not possible simply to take the two budgets, add them together and say, “Where is the money going?” The money for the National Crime Agency will come from the precursor agencies, but as for other bodies, we will obviously have to look carefully at its budget at a time when forces and others are having to take cuts.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I want to say again how well regarded SOCA is. When the Home Affairs Committee looked at drugs policy around the world it was clear wherever we went that there was huge respect for SOCA, its brand and the work it does to counter narco-trafficking. One recommendation in the Committee’s report on drugs was that we should try to preserve the badge of SOCA—perhaps as a serious overseas crime arm or something—so that we would not have to explain to lots of countries why we had changed its name. Will the Home Secretary look at that idea?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the good work that SOCA does, and I recognise that there is a brand issue. SOCA is being brought into the National Crime Agency and there will be a serious organised crime command within that agency. What the international parts of the NCA are called, and how they are configured with other commands in the NCA, are currently under discussion.

The National Crime Agency will be a visible, operational crime-fighting agency. It will have four commands—I have just referred to that issue—that will allow it to lead the national response on organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will fulfil the coalition commitment to create a dedicated border policing command, ensuring a joined-up response to those who seek to enter the UK illegally or in order to do harm. It will be home to the national cybercrime unit, bringing together existing capabilities to keep the public safe from online threats.

The NCA will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of organised crime affecting the United Kingdom, underpinned by strong powers and duties to ensure it can share relevant information across law enforcement bodies. Part 1 of the Bill will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task and co-ordinate the law enforcement response to organised crime. Individual police forces will continue to play an important role in tackling criminal gangs, but the NCA will ensure its resources are used in the most effective way.

To ensure the right operational response at the right level, the Bill also provides for co-operation and tasking between the NCA and police forces. I would expect agreement to be reached locally about which agency is best placed to take action against a given criminal group. Where—exceptionally—agreement cannot be reached, the Bill provides the necessary backstop powers for the NCA to direct the provision of assistance or that a particular task be undertaken.

The NCA will be operationally focused with an experienced crime fighter at its head. The Bill provides for clear governance arrangements, with an operationally independent director general answering directly to the Home Secretary for delivering the agency’s strategic priorities. Keith Bristow, the NCA’s first director general, has made it clear that to undertake his role effectively he will need an open and responsive relationship with police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Bill will ensure this by requiring that the devolved Administrations and key figures in law enforcement are consulted on the NCA’s annual plan and its strategic priorities. From the director general downwards, NCA officers will need to be equipped with the necessary powers to do their job, so the Bill provides for NCA officers to be designated with the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer.

Given the vital crime-fighting role that NCA officers will have, it is inconceivable to me that their work should be disrupted through industrial action. Although my preference is to reach a no-strike agreement with the relevant unions, the Bill includes a back-stop statutory prohibition on industrial action. Few would wish to contemplate the police being able to strike, and I am pleased that in the other place no one argued against applying the same restrictions to operational NCA officers.

Before moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I want to touch on a possible future role for the NCA in respect of counter-terrorism policing. The House will be aware that the other place voted to remove what was clause 2 of the Bill, which enabled counter-terrorism policing functions to be conferred on the NCA by order. The debate in the other place was about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be given to such a decision, not whether the NCA should take on counter-terrorism policing in the future.

I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing. I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.

I also recognise the points raised in the other place about possible future decisions on counter-terrorism policing and sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the original clause, as drafted, provided strong protection for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to counter-terrorism policing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to reflect on the debate in the other place before deciding how best to proceed, and I am sure that the House will want to come back to this issue during the later stages of the Bill’s consideration.

As well as establishing the NCA, we need to ensure that both the NCA and its law enforcement partners have the powers they need to fight organised crime in all its manifestations. In combating fraud and other economic crimes, the Bill confers on the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service the ability to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with organisations alleged to have committed economic wrongdoing. These agreements will enable prosecutors to impose tough financial penalties and other sanctions on organisations for wrongdoing as an alternative to protracted court proceedings with uncertain outcomes.

To support the fight against immigration crime, part 3 of the Bill extends to the UK Border Agency’s financial investigation teams certain surveillance and property interference powers available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997, as well as asset seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under the law as it stands, there is an artificial distinction whereby these powers are available to Border Agency staff investigating customs offences, but not to those investigating immigration offences.

On the Proceeds of Crime Act, we need to ensure that our ability to seize money and assets derived from criminal conduct is not undermined by legal loopholes. I can therefore announce that we will table amendments to the Bill that will restore the civil recovery scheme to the position it was commonly understood to be in prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Perry. In its judgment, the Court held that the scheme only applied to property within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This judgment significantly weakened the reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it is right that we should take action to prevent those who engage in criminal conduct here from being able to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the UK courts.

As well as strengthening enforcement at the border through the NCA and UKBA, the Bill will ensure that we can make the most effective use of resources by closing a long-standing loophole in the immigration system. Part 3 of the Bill removes the full right of appeal against refusal of an application for a visa as a family visitor. I know this provision has caused a number of hon. Members some disquiet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Let me say to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have raised this issue that analysis of a sample of 363 allowed family visit visa appeal determinations in April 2011 showed that new evidence produced at appeal was the only reason for the tribunal’s decision in 63% of those cases. In only 8% of cases was new evidence not at least a factor in the allowed appeal. If people have new evidence, they can make a fresh application. It will be heard and considered, and a decision will be given to them in far less time than it takes to go to appeal. A system of appeal is about appealing against the original decision, not appealing against the original decision plus bringing forward extra evidence.

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I really think I have answered questions about this issue, which I am sure will continue to be a matter for debate during the Bill’s progress.

Just as we are bringing the law enforcement response into the 21st century, so this Bill will ensure that our courts and our laws can meet the challenges of today’s society. Part 2 will enable the courts to deal robustly with wrongdoing and will ensure confidence in the system of non-custodial sentencing. For serious offenders —particularly those who use violence—a prison sentence will usually be the appropriate punishment, but where a custodial sentence might not be appropriate, the public must have confidence in the alternatives. A community order that is not perceived as a credible sanction or a fine that is not paid simply brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.

The provisions in part 2 will change that. For the first time, the courts will be required to include a punitive element in every community order. They will also be able to impose a new electronic monitoring requirement, which makes use of global positioning system technology to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. This will protect the public by deterring crime and assisting with detection. Alongside that, the Bill provides for courts to defer sentencing after conviction to allow time for restorative justice. We know that around 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice conferences are satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), whom I was about to commend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I commend him for the campaign he has led on this issue, following the death of his constituent Lillian Groves. He has been resolute on this issue, and I am pleased that we have been able to find a vehicle through which to bring forward this new offence so quickly. The Bill introduces an offence of driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body in excess of the specified limit for that drug.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. Much depends on what the aim is and how the specified limit should be set. Will she confirm that the aim is to set a level for drugs that is equivalent to the current legal alcohol limit in the blood of 0.08%, and to measure the drug concentration that would indicate the same level of impairment? Is my understanding correct?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are currently considering the controlled drugs to be covered by the offence and the limits that should be set for such drugs for driving purposes. As a Government, we have taken a robust, zero-tolerance approach on illicit drugs through the drugs strategy. As we consider the detail of this policy, we will want to send an equally strong message that people simply cannot take illegal drugs and drive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Like the Home Secretary, I have always questioned whether there was a case for removing this measure in the first place. If she has carried out further analysis and believes it can be removed while maintaining protection for groups that might be discriminated against or where the police need to have the flexibility to respond effectively, we would be keen to see that evidence before we get to Committee. It is important to ensure that we protect freedom of speech, but it is also important to ensure that we can protect vulnerable groups from unfair discrimination.

[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.

[Dr Huppert]

Has the right hon. Lady seen the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighting the fact that there has been no prosecution using this provision that could not have been achieved in other areas? There is a big difference between insulting and abusive action, and if there is no risk to prosecutions free speech can be safely defended in this case.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I want to support some of the many excellent provisions in the Bill, and in particular the inclusion of drug-driving as an offence on which the police can act at the roadside in a proportionate and simple manner. There have been many such cases of which I have been made aware and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on having campaigned on the issue with great success.

I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to go slightly further and consider road traffic offences more generally, including the laws on those who drive while medically unfit. Of course, the problems caused by drug-drivers and those who drive while medically unfit are incredibly similar from a public safety point of view. In both cases it is an offence to drive, but the law is not effective in preventing the problem.

Arguing for the drug-driving offence in another place, Lord Henley recognised that although being unfit through drugs is an offence, it is not prosecuted often enough because of the difficulty the police have in trying to prove that the driver is sufficiently impaired. That has hampered the police in taking drug-impaired drivers off our roads and the new provision will give the police a proportionate power to do so and punish them appropriately for endangering the public.

I do not consider those who drive while unfit for medical reasons in the same category as drug-abusing drivers; nor do I believe that they should necessarily be punished as severely as they might be under the Bill. Drugged and drunk drivers have made a decision to incapacitate themselves, whereas those driving while unfit for medical reasons might not have done. The effect on our roads is the same, however, as that driver is incapacitated while driving a vehicle that can kill.

The police should have the power to take a licence away or prevent someone they believe to be unfit to drive from doing so until it can be established otherwise. We know that 1,100 casualties and 50 deaths are caused every year by drug-driving, but I cannot quote the number of casualties on our roads caused by people driving while they are medically unfit—for example, because their eyesight is impaired—because we do not record the figures. In my short time as a Member of this House, however, several tragic cases have been brought to my attention.

One such case was brought to me by one of my constituents, whose niece, Natalie Wade, died on the way to buy her wedding dress, mown down by a driver who categorically knew he was unable to see appropriately to drive but continued to do so. He refused to recognise his obligation to report that to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is what we require medically unfit drivers to do. Hon. Members might also be aware of the case of a lady called Cassie McCord, who was killed by a driver with impaired eyesight who had been stopped three days earlier by the police. The police were unable to prevent him from driving, he continued to do so and she died when he ran her over only three days later.

We do not stop such people driving but we need to avoid these preventable deaths. The very least we could do is allow the police to do their job, and when they recognise that individuals are clearly unfit to drive for whatever reason—drug-driving or medical impairment—we should allow them to act.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point and she is absolutely right to say that we must focus on the level of impairment, not the cause. If it is a question of road safety, we must focus on a solution whereby people who are unfit to drive for medical reasons or because of drugs or alcohol that they have recently consumed should be unfit because they have reached a threshold of impairment, not because of the cause of that impairment.

[Rebecca Harris]

Someone who is apprehended by the police because their driving is impaired by alcohol can have their vehicle taken from them at the roadside, and the new provisions will go a long way towards ensuring that that happens more often with drug-driving and that we can prosecute drug-drivers more readily and more easily. If a person fails a roadside sight test, however, such as that which one needs for a driving licence, it is impossible for the police to take their keys and require them to have an eye test. Perhaps we could extend the scope of the Bill—I hope in Committee that we can take the provision one step further and consider those who are medically unfit to drive, for whatever reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). He has obviously campaigned hard on that issue and I commend him for his efforts. I am glad that the measure will be contained in this legislation.

Earlier today, the Home Affairs Committee held a conference to launch our new inquiry into leadership and standards in the police. I am pleased to see three members of the Committee here this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). We listened carefully to some of the leaders of our police service, including Hugh Orde, Bernard Hogan-Howe and the new chief executive of the college of policing, as well as leaders from abroad, such as the commissioner who heads the Royal Canadian mounted police and the former president of Interpol. It is clear that in order to get effective leadership, there must be effective structures. I am therefore glad that, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, we at last have a body for the head of the NCA, who was appointed 15 months ago.

At that conference, it was interesting to hear the acceptance from all sides of the police service of the need for the Government, the Opposition and those in the police service to sit together and talk about the future of policing. With the Bill, we have an opportunity to streamline a number of the structures that have operated in policing for a number of years. The Labour Government can be praised for the resources that they gave the police, but we would be the first to admit that we did not really spend the necessary time examining the structures and ensuring they were fit for purpose.

What the Government have proposed is a revolution in policing—the abolition of SOCA and the National Policing Improvement Agency, the creation of the College of Policing and police and crime commissioners, and the abolition of police authorities. When on taking office the Home Secretary announced the changes, she talked about uncluttering the landscape. We will probably have more organisations rather than fewer at the end of the process, but I would be the first to accept them if they were fit for purpose, acted upon Parliament wanted and did the job effectively.

My first concern about the new landscape is that it is not complete. We thought that by now we would have a Constable—perhaps “Dedham Vale”—but instead we have the tail-end of a “Guernica”. The good intentions are there, but it is not complete. I thought that after two years, we would have the end of the landscape and the jigsaw would have been completed, but it has not. I urge Ministers to come rapidly to a conclusion about how the landscape will look in the end. The Home Affairs Committee, including its members who are in their places, has scrutinised and monitored what the Government have been doing, but we cannot decide on the structures. That has to be up to the Government. All that the House and the Committee can do is scrutinise and monitor what the Government are doing and give our recommendations on whether the system will work.

We need a conclusion on whether responsibility for counter-terrorism will remain with the Met or form part of the National Crime Agency. Why? Because we were promised a review of that at the end of the Olympics. The Home Secretary specifically said that she would not make a decision until the Olympics were over. I urge the Government to make progress, because it is not in the Met’s interests, and certainly not in the interests of Keith Bristow and his new colleagues at the NCA, that they should delay.

Like the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I would probably be minded to move responsibility for counter-terrorism into the NCA. It would fit well there, as the NCA will be a national organisation dealing with national and international issues. However, I know that there is resistance to that from the Met. I have discussed it with a number of officers, who feel strongly that responsibility should stay with the Met, because it has within it the expertise needed to deal with the matter.

It is also important that we know the name of the new chair of the College of Policing. Perhaps the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will tell us that. It has a chief executive, and we heard from him today. He has ambitious plans for what he hopes will eventually be a royal college of policing. Professionalism is vital to the future of our police service, but it is also important that the Government get on and appoint the chair. I know that someone was recently nominated, but that person has not been appointed, for a variety of reasons. If there is a shortlist of additional candidates, I urge the Minister to interview them, as I think he will be doing this week, and then let the Home Affairs Committee have the name of whoever is going to be in charge of the organisation, which is vital for the future of this country’s police service.

It is also important that we deal with the issue of appeals. I do not know whether the Minister will remember this, but when he was Minister for Immigration, he promised in a debate in the House a meeting with myself and colleagues who had an interest in immigration. Actually, I think I put it to the Home Secretary that she should meet us, but she passed it on to him. He, of course, has now left the post, and I hope he will pass the message on to the current Minister for Immigration.

Those of us who deal with a lot of immigration cases want the issue of appeals dealt with. That is not just Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in his place, and I reckon that he has many immigration cases at his surgery on a Friday evening. The last thing he wants is for us to be in limbo, having to ask people to apply again because there is no right of appeal for family visitors.

I put to Ministers a simple solution. I know that things have to change. I do not accept that there is abuse in the system, but it is a lengthy system and I know that they want to save money. I and others have suggested in the past that we have an administrative review of the decisions made by entry clearance officers. New evidence necessary to ensure that a case can be dealt with satisfactorily could go to somebody in a hub in London—it is quite possible for cases to be reviewed in London. I say to Ministers that the change will affect the settled British community, the diasporas that the Prime Minister and other Ministers feel strongly about bringing on-side. Unless we do something about the problem, British citizens trying to get relatives over for weddings and other family events will suffer.

[Dr Huppert]

It is always a pleasure to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about these issues. There is a problem when more information is required in a case, and I understand the Government’s advice that people should reapply. Would not an alternative approach be for entry clearance officers to be able to specify what extra information they would like and make a decision once they have received it? I have seen a number of cases in which they asked to see specific documents part-way through the process.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree, and my biggest regret from when I was the Minister responsible for entry clearance 10 years ago is that I did not introduce that approach. I left it to the system, and I was wrong to do so. If we had a system that allowed new information to be accepted, we would be able to save the taxpayer a huge amount of money and save those who are seeking to bring people into this country a lot of anguish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will explore those issues once I have dealt with the limits.

A decision needs to be made about whether the levels should be based as far as possible on the scientific evidence of similar levels of impairment to that caused by alcohol or whether there is a case, as the family believe, for zero limits for some of the most serious substances. As I understand it, the Government have set up the Wolff panel to consider the detail. They themselves are finding this a highly complex and difficult area and are taking a bit more time than originally envisaged to do this work, but I would be grateful for any guidance that the Minister could give in his winding-up speech about the timing of the panel’s report.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a fascinating balance. I have seen comments from the Wolff panel suggesting that alcohol is far and away the most dangerous substance that people can take, so although I support the aim in the Bill of reducing impairment, perhaps more work still needs to be done on drink-driving as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)]

I shall concentrate on one aspect of the Bill: clause 30, which deals with self-defence and which has been touched on already by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). The clause introduces important practical changes, but I wonder whether it concentrates too much on where things are happening and not enough on what is taking place.

The title of clause 30 is “Use of force in self-defence at place of residence”. It has been suggested that the result of the provision is that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but I wonder whether an individual grappling with a burglar at 2 am is worrying about where he is, rather than what is actually happening. In other words, is his concern the defence of his own person, rather than the defence of his property?

I hope that my examples will demonstrate the importance of that point. Imagine a person who runs a petrol station in a rural area and lives in a house 100 yards away. If he is attacked in his home, the new law will apply, but if he is attacked at the petrol station just as he turns out the lights and is about to lock up, or while he is walking from the petrol station to the house, it will not apply. Someone who works as a night watchman is protected by the new law while they are at home, but when they arrive for work, the provisions will not apply. A vicar is covered if the burglars come to the vicarage, but if he goes to investigate a light in the church at night and behaves in the same way there, the new law does not apply.

We have heard an interesting example involving a farmer. If a farmer hears a noise downstairs in his home and goes to investigate with a shotgun that he has taken from his gun safe in his hand, the new law will apply, but if, after he has been shooting legitimately, he is wandering back through his farmyard and goes to investigate a noise where all his expensive machinery is kept, and is then boxed in by the same people and reacts in the same way as in his home, the proposed law will not protect him.

Leaving aside the obvious point that we are asking people to remember that the law is different depending on whether they are at home, just outside their home or at work, notwithstanding the fact that they could be attacked by the same person in the same way and in the same early hours of the morning, a different test will apply if ever someone who is alleged to have breached the new law by behaving in a certain way is tried alongside someone who dealt with another member of the gang, but happened to do so in an outbuilding. The person who confronted one of the burglars in his home may rely on the new law, but his brother or son who behaved in exactly the same way towards another member of the gang in the outbuilding will not be protected at all.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman is setting out an interesting argument. Does he accept that anyone who uses only proportionate force, given the circumstances as they believe them to be, will always be protected?

[Simon Reevell]

The point of the clause is to put in place the new test, but that test applies only in a dwelling.

The clause gets even more bizarre when we consider proposed new subsection (8B), which deals with the corner shop with a flat above. A shop owner who comes downstairs from the flat and meets a burglar in the shop premises will be fine, because he will be covered by the new definition, but the person who lives next door and has to step out on to the street before going into the shop to start their work there for the day, and who encounters exactly the same circumstances when locking up for the night, will not be covered. If those two people meet the burglar while the premises are open, the shop owner who lives on site has the advantage of the new law, because the shop is part of the building in which their flat is located, but his assistant does not, so a different test will be applied to two people in exactly the same circumstances and encountering exactly the same villainy—and, indeed, the same villain.That cannot be a sensible revision, and the reason is that the focus is on the place of residence as opposed to what the problem really is, which is self-defence.

If this was reconsidered, and if instead of the test relating to the dwelling it related to whether the person was a victim of a criminal enterprise, all the examples I have given would be neutralised, because in all of them the person concerned would have been a victim of a criminal enterprise, whether it was in the church, the petrol station, at home, walking from one to the other, at work as a night watchman or outside as a farmer. If that were the trigger, the person concerned could rely on the new test, but as it is drafted, all those contradictions apply.

Subsection (6) makes it clear that this would not be a retrospective provision, and I understand that, but the amount of publicity generated by this clause means that to a lot of people out there the law has changed already. It would be ridiculous to have somebody waiting to face trial in circumstances where once the legislation was passed, a prosecution would never be brought, because the test would have changed. In whatever form the section appears in the Act, it needs to be introduced as soon as possible so that people do not rely on it before it is available for them to rely upon.

I should have said at the beginning, and so I say at the end, that I draw attention to the fact that, as a practising member of the Bar, I have an interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak. This is a large Bill, and it has been noticeable that most of the debate has focused on a few specific parts of it. That is a tribute to the fact that the rest of it is clearly less contentious and rather more successful.

I wish to highlight a few concerns that I have. I welcome the creation of the National Crime Agency in part 1, but an important question is how we can keep the SOCA brand internationally. I look forward to the Home Secretary’s work on that. I have a couple of concerns about how the NCA is to be inspected and made transparent. The Bill allows for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the NCA but allows discretion as to whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission will examine it. It seems to me that the NCA will be fundamentally a policing body and should be subject to the IPCC in the usual way. I hope that that will happen through primary legislation.

Similarly, the NCA is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In many cases, of course, it would be inappropriate for it to be subject to FOI, but a number of other organisations, such as the police, the immigration services and Customs are not exempt but provide information where they can. It would be in the interests of transparency for a similar provision to be made in this case.

I do not have time to go through the details of much of the Bill, but I am aware that clause 30 has received a lot of interest in the House. It is clear that the current law allows force to be used against a trespasser if that force is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as they were considered at the time. That is an important defence, because people can make errors of judgment in the heat of activity. However, the Bill takes it a lot further, as it will mean that somebody can use self-defence even if they use a disproportionate level of force given the facts as they believe them to be at the time. It will not allow grossly disproportionate force, but it will allow people to be disproportionate.

I absolutely understand that in many cases, someone who has tried to defend themselves should not be arrested but should be treated as a victim while the matter is examined. However, it seems to me that people should be sensible and use only proportionate force, and that we should not allow disproportionate force. We need a change not in legislation but in how the police interact with people in such circumstances.

There is some extremely good stuff in schedule 15 to the Bill about restorative justice—an issue core to Liberal Democrat thinking for a long time. A lot of research backs up the role of restorative justice, and I pay particular tribute to Professor Larry Sherman who has done a huge amount of the fundamental research showing how effective it is. I am pleased that the Government are putting money into restorative justice but they may need to make rather more than £1.5 million available, particularly if it turns out to be successful and very popular. We know that restorative justice reduces reoffending and is far more satisfactory to victims than prison is. I am also pleased with progress on community sentencing.

There has been a large discussion about family visit visas and there is a problem with the incredibly high appeal rate—the figure I have seen was something like 60%. It seems that there are two possible solutions: the first is to have better decision making by UK Border Agency, and the second—the option the Government have chosen to adopt—is simply to stop appeals happening. We need the Border Agency to be much clearer about the information it requests and give people the opportunity to provide extra information that was not initially required. That could solve the problem in a far simpler and less draconian way.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment—it may be a written answer—on the specific issue of citizenship for the children of unmarried British fathers when the child was born before 2006. The former Immigration Minister has highlighted that the anomaly would be changed when there was legislative opportunity, and I wonder whether it might be possible to include that in the Bill. If not, we will have to wait until the next one.

I am delighted that the House of Lords voted to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. That is in line with Liberal Democrat policy and we have already heard many instances of where that provision was unreasonable. I hope the Government will reflect on section 4A of that Act, which has similar provisions about insulting behaviour. There are other steps that I hope the Government will consider or review to try to protect freedom of speech, such as, for example, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which was used so inappropriately in the Twitter joke trial.

In the last minute remaining, I want to consider drug-driving. I am strongly in favour of a drug-driving offence that mirrors that of drink-driving. There is definitely a problem with people who are incapable of safely driving a vehicle being in a situation where they could cause serious to harm to others. That is right and I accept that the current position requires too high a level of proof. However, one should not use this measure as an excuse to deal specifically with illicit drugs; it should be tailored to existing levels of impairment. In fact, alcohol seems to be the most worrying issue.

A specific issue has been raised with me by Napp Pharmaceuticals, a company in Cambridge that is concerned about the effects of the proposed legislation on patients taking legitimate, prescribed medicines, in particular to manage chronic pain. There is significant evidence to suggest that their ability to drive may not be impaired compared with other drivers, but the patient would have the onerous burden of proof to show that they should be allowed to drive. Napp Pharmaceuticals is concerned about the consequences of that and would rather stick with the approach of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that.

Ibrahim Magag

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The issue of the passport has not been discussed openly in public, but given the right hon. Gentleman’s position I shall be happy to talk to him about it on Privy Council terms. As for his second question, when one TPIM subject absconds, the agencies take appropriate steps to look at other TPIM subjects.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the whole concept of internal exile without trial is abhorrent? Labour should never have introduced such a Stalinist, authoritarian approach, and she was right to get rid of it. Someone who has committed a terrorist offence should be tried, convicted and jailed, not exiled indefinitely without trial.

[Mrs May]

As I explained in my response to the shadow Home Secretary, one of the purposes of the extra resources that we provided for the Security Service and the police following the introduction of TPIMs was to improve their ability to identify opportunities for prosecution. As was pointed out by the independent reviewer, the best place for a terrorist suspect is behind bars.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Over the past two to three years, European Union and British migration, emigration and immigration have been, roughly speaking, in balance, and the increase in net migration has come from those from outside the EU. We have seen falls in all categories in terms of the number of people coming into this country. The hon. Lady refers to the numbers of students coming into the country. We have tackled the abuse in the student visa system that grew up when the previous Government abolished one of the tiers in the point-based system and we saw a significant increase in students who were in fact people coming here not to be educated but to work. We are tackling that abuse, and it is good that we have a Government who are willing to do so.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Capita has a contract with the UK Border Agency to clear the migration refusal pool and make sure that people leave the country when they are supposed to. However, as the Home Secretary will be aware, people who are allowed to stay have also been contacted and told to leave, including British citizens. Is this a problem with Capita or with the UK Border Agency’s continuing problems with its record keeping? What action will she take on the agency?

[Mrs May]

If my hon. Friend has specific cases that he can cite in relation to this, I suggest that he raise them with my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and we will look at the processes that have been followed.