Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the Minister wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I am sorry to tell him that that answer was far too long. We need to speed up.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of his proposals for the probation service on low and medium-risk offenders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The proposals in our “Transforming justice” consultation paper are designed to deliver a criminal justice system that punishes offenders properly and helps them to get their lives back on track. We want providers of rehabilitation services to tackle the root causes of offending, and to ensure that they have the right package of support to help offenders to turn their lives around. We will announce further details of our proposals once we have considered the responses to the consultation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Lower-risk, profitable components of the probation service are to be handed to the private sector. Yet again, the Government are simply putting public money into deep private pockets and bringing additional costs into the system. Given the year-by-year decline in reoffending, why are they intent on unleashing a potentially risky and certainly costly upheaval of the existing system, rather than investing to improve it?

[Jeremy Wright]

The first point to make is that we do not think that what we propose will be more expensive than the current arrangements. Quite the reverse: we think that it will save the taxpayer money. The second point is that we intend to bring in good ideas from not just the private sector but the voluntary sector, so that we can start to drive down those all-important reoffending rates. The argument for opening up rehabilitation to other agencies, private and voluntary, was advanced by the last Labour Government during the passage of the Offender Management Act 2007: we are simply implementing their idea. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman was not persuaded on that occasion either.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I think that all scepticism should be based on reality. We should talk about things with decent facts in front of us. This is a very good forum in which to discuss the facts, so let us do that.

The Bill has been produced as a result of the requirement of the excellent European Union Act 2011 to approve the three EU decisions that have already been mentioned. Under the Act, before a United Kingdom Minister can give final agreement in the Council of the European Union or the European Council to decisions proposed on the basis of the EU treaties being used in these cases, the proposed decisions must be approved by an Act of Parliament. That is what we are doing today. Although certain proposals based on the EU flexibility clause are exempt from the requirement for an approving Act of Parliament, those exemptions do not apply in these cases. I will happily go into the details if Members want to know what they are. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is obviously keen to discuss them; perhaps we will do so afterwards, over a beer.

Under the EU treaties, EU decisions of this kind require unanimity in the Council or the European Council, which means that without the UK’s support they cannot be adopted, at least to cover all member states.

Members have already listed what the proposals would achieve. There is an EU regulation enabling the electronic rather than the printed version of the Official Journal to take EU legal effect. There is an EU decision that would set out the broad areas of work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights between 2013 and 2017. There is also an EU decision on the number of European commissioners.

Although the first two proposals may not seem to be hugely important, they are based on the flexibility clause, which gives the EU sweeping powers to adopt laws when the treaties have not otherwise given it the power to legislate. It has been used to adopt significant EU measures in the past, such as the creation of the EU bail-out fund for non-eurozone member states. It was therefore thought to warrant parliamentary control, and that thoroughly good idea was introduced by the European Union Act.

The two proposals dealt with by clause 1 are being introduced under the flexibility clause: they are article 352 decisions—flexibility decisions. As I said, the flexibility clause has been used to co-ordinate national social security systems for the benefit of all member states’ nationals when moving within the EU; to provide for measures against the counterfeiting of euro coins that apply to member states outside the euro; and for the bail-out fund. We are talking about significant measures.

The Bill deals with the EU Official Journal, which is not exactly the most exciting document in the world but, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, it contains striking elements of importance to the functioning of the single market, and to EU business and UK business in general. I have a small problem with it, because everything has to be translated into each of the official languages of the European Union. This is not a debate for now, but that approach means that everything that is said in the Official Journal has to be translated into, for example, Gaelic, and that is perhaps not the best use of money.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was recently at a European Union conference where the Irish did speak in Gaelic, and I applaud them for doing so. The great linguistic creations of humankind should be preserved, and I am glad that the Irish are speaking in their own language and insisting that it be translated.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I completely understand the cultural point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the European Central Bank uses only a couple of languages and many international institutions manage to cut down the number of languages they use, and they do so purely to keep costs down. The European Commission, the European Parliament and other European institutions do not do that and perhaps they should examine their approach. I merely wanted to make that point in relation to how difficult it is to produce the Official Journal for the very next day in written and electronic form. The Government have given political—not legally binding—agreement to the proposed regulation, with the Council supposedly ready to adopt it and the European Parliament having given its consent.

The Bill also deals with the proposed EU decision establishing a multi-annual work programme to cover 2013 to 2017 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Again, one can give a parting shot, at least, about the growth in the number of these EU agencies; there is a huge number now and, as with commissioners, one at least has to go to each member state. In 2007, the EU adopted a regulation, based on the flexibility clause, establishing the agency, which is based in Vienna. Its objective has been outlined by the hon. Gentleman, but according to article 2 of its founding regulations it is to provide “assistance and expertise” to support member states in fully respecting fundamental rights. Under article 4 of its founding regulations, the agency’s activities include: gathering, analysing and disseminating information; publishing reports; and developing “a communication strategy” and a

“dialogue with civil society, in order to raise public awareness of fundamental rights”.

In 2013, the agency will receive a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget, about half of which will be spent on staffing. According to article 5 of the agency’s founding regulation, the Council needs to adopt five-year multi-annual frameworks that set out

“thematic areas of the Agency’s activity, which must include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”.

In addition to the multi-annual framework, the agency can respond to requests from the Council, the European Parliament or European Commission for it to conduct studies or produce conclusions on particular topics.

The draft Council decision before Parliament is the proposed multi-annual framework for the four years between 2013 and 2017, proposed by the European Commission on the basis of the flexibility clause. Under that decision, the thematic areas of the agency’s work in that time period will be: access to justice; victims of crime, including compensation for victims of crime; the information society, particularly respect for private life and the protection of personal data; Roma integration; judicial co-operation, except in criminal matters; the rights of the child; discrimination based on sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation; immigration and the integration of migrants, visa and border control and asylum; and racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. The Government have given political but not legally binding agreement to the proposed decision. The Council is apparently ready to adopt the proposal and the European Parliament has already given its consent.

That leaves us with the final measure, which is probably more controversial than was originally said: the retention of one European commissioner per member state under clause 2. The European commission consists of one national of each member state, so there are 27 commissioners and there will soon be 28 when Croatia comes in. Following great debate in the European Parliament and many other EU institutions and in the Parliaments of many member states, the treaty of Lisbon introduced the ratio of two thirds commissioners to member states. The logic was quite sensible: it was an attempt to stop bureaucracy growing out of control and to maintain some easier management of the bureaucracy from the top. The member states whose nationals would be commissioners would be decided

“on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States”.

The system would be agreed by unanimous decision at the European Council and each commissioner’s term would be five years.

Article 17(5) of the treaty on European Union states that the European Council, acting unanimously, can vary the size of the Commission from November 2014. As the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill state in paragraph 12:

“when the Irish people voted ‘no’ in a referendum on Lisbon Treaty ratification in June 2008 the loss of a guaranteed”

Irish commissioner in every Commission

“emerged as a key concern. Without Irish ratification the Treaty could not enter into force, and as a result EU Heads of State and Government offered concessions to Ireland”.

One of the main concessions, offered in December 2008 and reiterated in June 2009, provided that when

“the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, a decision would be taken…to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State”.

Those concessions seemed enough for the Irish people, who voted in the second referendum in October 2009 and approved that treaty.

The draft European Council decision based on article 17(5) has now been introduced and provides that from November 2014 onwards that the number of commissioners will continue to equal the number of member states. The draft decision states that it will be reviewed in advance of the appointment of the Commission due to take office in 2019, but for the decision to be altered there will need to be unanimity in the European Council, meaning that any member state can veto such a change. Having a European commissioner is a big deal for many, if not all, of the countries of the European Union, so it is highly unlikely that the change will ever be made. We will therefore continue to build on the number of European Commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

First, I apologise for not being here for the Front-Bench speeches. I was detained elsewhere, and I assure fellow Members that I shall not speak for long.

However, I have been provoked into speaking by the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), with whom I frequently agree on European matters, but on this one I disagree. It is very important indeed to retain one member of the Commission for every member state, and I see a parallel in the American Senate, where states, however large or small, have two senators. If New York, California and Texas began to get together to say, “Well, Delaware and Rhode Island will no longer have senators,” there would be all sorts of problems. I am sure that there are other ways of overcoming the problems of inefficiency—perhaps with departmental arrangements for more than one commissioner in Departments that are particularly big, as we do in our own Government: we have more than one Minister per Department.

Proportionality exists with qualified majority voting, and on many voting issues, different countries have different weights. It is important that, at the highest level, every individual country has their say, just as in the American constitution, every state, however small, has a say at the top table. It is important, too, to have the occasional bit of grit in the oyster. Small states, as well as large states, can occasionally become disagreeable, and I think that being disagreeable is part of the essence of democracy. Having a machine dominated by bureaucracy and officials who just go along with it is not healthy for democracy. I have many criticisms of the European Union, and I have been very critical of the secrecy with which the Commission operates. I hope we will always preserve a single member per state as the method of composition of the Commission, even if we make some different arrangements for how it works.

Another factor in all this is who the commissioners are. I like to think that from time to time we as the British people might appoint a commissioner whose first loyalty is to the interests of British people, and who reflects their views as well as their interests. Their views may sometimes be awkward and may certainly be grit in the European oyster. That would be right.

Once the commissioners are appointed, which portfolio is allocated to which member state? I have been told by certain MEPs that from time to time conclaves of Commission officials get together to allocate dodgy portfolios, in particular the portfolio of Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, to weaker members. I know that there is always the worry that a commissioner might turn out to be a bit of a trade unionist, a bit of a leftist. That would be very dangerous. We must have someone who knows that the market and employers come first. Above all, we must make sure that profits come first, not the interests of working people.

Who is appointed as a commissioner for each member state and which portfolio they are given are very important matters. I hope we will see to it that at least Britain has commissioners for the foreseeable future—for as long as we are in the European Union—who truly represent the views of the British people, and not just the interests of the British people as they see them. I hope also that we get appropriate portfolios, and that the small countries that might be squeezed out also have their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

It is above my pay grade to judge, but I am sure that is not true.

The substance of the Bill relates to three measures, two of which are completely uncontentious—the e-publication of the Journal and the business plan, effectively, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Other hon. Members are right that the third measure is worth more substantial debate, as it adjusts a mechanism that was supposed to limit the size and endless growth of the Commission. There are a number of issues that that growth has raised. It was not simply the practicality of having an ever-increasing number of commissioners. Without being unkind to some of the smaller member states, we know that there is a bit of a capacity issue in terms of their ability to produce candidates of sufficient calibre for a portfolio that affects the entire continent. Moreover, in terms of public perception, it slightly muddies the whole idea of the Commission. The Commission should be, in essence, the equivalent of our civil service. It should be the servant of the Council of Ministers, the various European ministerial councils and the European Parliament, and not pretend to be a representative body.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree with that sentiment, but the reality is that the Commission and its officials act like a Government rather than a civil service. Only this week, I was told by someone who knows about these matters that when Commission officials decide on something it generally happens.

[Martin Horwood]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am bombarded with messages from across the country, and probably internationally, from people who want to know that the laws that affect them are made clearly so that they know what they are and are not caught out by trickery and underhand practices. That is a fundamental principle of why they send me here. I would argue that everybody who voted at the last election wants to sleep securely in their beds knowing that the law is fairly and properly made.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this point I agree very strongly. I am perhaps alone in insisting on having hard copy in my Select Committee meetings rather than an iPad. I can operate an iPad but I want hard copy, and I still have it. Much as we know that we are in an electronic age, paper still has its place.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, is wise and right in this instance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

There are two parts to my hon. Friend’s point. On the first part, I disagree with him. The form in which instructions are sent out is important, and it is right that people should know about it. It is a long-standing principle of our law that ignorance of the law is no excuse. If that is fair, it is also fair that knowledge of the law should be made available to people in a timely and efficient way, because it is something that might affect their lives, and that when a change to the method of notification takes place, that should be debated in this Chamber and passed into law. On the second part, I completely agree that the number of commissioners is significant.

The second point that I raised with my right hon. Friend the Minister is crucially important. It relates to the change from article 308 of the previous treaty to article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Article 352 is broader in scope. Had it been assumed that anything previously incorporated under article 308 could be transmuted under article 352, that could have allowed all sorts of laws—my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) went through a number of them—to pass into the body of European Union powers without any further scrutiny by this House. As is often the case, something that is in itself minor has set an important precedent in protecting the rights of this House to scrutinise these matters and to ensure that the interests of our constituents are protected.

I wish briefly to discuss the number of commissioners. I do not have the confidence that some hon. Members have in our commissioners, and I do not feel happy that we have one representing us. Commissioners take an oath that they will act in the best interests of the European Union. Some have argued that that is directly contrary to the oath that they have taken as Privy Counsellors, and we should be concerned about that. They are there, by design, to represent the interests of Europe, not of the United Kingdom. Perhaps because of our history and our civic traditions, our commissioners tend to take that very seriously, whereas commissioners from some other countries may simply represent the nation state that has sent them. I do not have great confidence that the person representing the United Kingdom is waving the Union Jack; they could just as well be waving that awful European Union flag.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I am one of those who have been concerned for many years about our commissioners, not just because they do not represent my view, but because I do not think they represent the collective view of our people, if there is such a thing. One possibility might be for them to be elected. We have started to elect police commissioners, but European commissioners are much more important.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

That is a brilliant idea. If they were elected, there would be less chance of their going native, because they might be able to stand for election again. At present, there is a fear that, when people go off to Europe, the moment they arrive they send out for Belgian dress so that they can appear to fit in with the ethos of the European Union.

I want to address the question of Ireland and the specifics of what it was given to persuade it—bully it, perhaps—to ratify the Lisbon treaty. That shows—I think that this strengthens the Prime Minister’s renegotiation position—that countries can renegotiate with the EU for things that they feel they need when discussions are being held in the European Councils. That is an important point. We have often heard people say, “The Prime Minister can go off to Europe, but they will not give him anything. It’s too bad: you’ve just got to like it or lump it.” Actually, the European Union, for all its many faults, is a fundamentally pragmatic body in how it gets agreement among member states. It does a lot of horse trading, one way or another, to get agreements. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) wants to intervene, but she seems to be nodding vaguely in response to that particular point.

The situation means that, if we go to the EU and say, “If you want X, you must give us Y,” or, “If you want X, you must give us A to Z in return,” that is a strong position for us to be in when the requirement is for unanimity. What Ireland has done, and what we are bringing into law, is very important and very encouraging for the United Kingdom and for the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his negotiations.

Finally, I praise the Government for the Bill, which has been proposed as a consequence of the 2011 Act. When the Act was going through Parliament, it was not universally welcomed, certainly not by those on the Opposition Benches, but even Eurosceptics on my side were sceptical about the effect that it would have. I was extremely pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) welcome the Bill and I am pleased that the Government have changed their view so that the multi-annual financial framework has to go through British law. That shows that the 2011 Act is working and acting as a proper check on what goes on in the European Union.

Without the Act, none of the three things under discussion today would have required legislation, but, because of it, they all do. As a result, crucial issues, such as the future number of European commissioners and renegotiations such as that which took place with Ireland to get it to support the Lisbon treaty, have come before this Chamber. Although in this instance the Bill has turned out to be uncontroversial, it could have been very controversial. I think that we are now secure, thanks to the Government, in having a better check on the accretion of powers to Europe. I might like to reverse them, but at least we are now checking them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

1. Whether she plans to reintroduce the gambling prevalence survey; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

I welcome the recent announcement by the Responsible Gambling Trust of a major research project into gaming machines. A new approach to collecting data on gambling prevalence and trends in problem gambling has been adopted by the Gambling Commission; this will be cost-effective and has the potential to provide more frequent information than the old gambling prevalence survey.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Compulsive gambling ruins lives and destroys families. The most addictive form of gambling is on fixed-odds betting terminals, or gambling machines, which are described as the crack cocaine of gambling. Are the Government seriously concerned about gambling addiction, and what are they going to do to address the problem?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, the Government are seriously concerned about problem gambling. This is one of those quite tricky areas where common sense suggests that it is a major problem but there is a lack of evidence to back that up. I very much hope that the major research project that is being undertaken will give us the necessary evidence and, absolutely, once the problem is proved to exist, the Government will act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Yes, we do. It will be important to consider the opportunities that GPS-based technology, in particular, gives us in the monitoring of offenders not just to enforce elements of a community order, such as an exclusion order, but to act as a deterrent for those offenders who might be minded to reoffend.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T2. The Association of Child Abuse Lawyers has expressed great concern about drastic changes to the rules on legal costs that are due in April next year. They believe that those changes could have serious implications for the victims of childhood abuse. Is the Secretary of State aware of those concerns and what does he propose to do about them, especially in view of recent events?

[Chris Grayling]

It is nice to get a serious question from the Opposition. These are sensitive issues and we have had to take difficult decisions about the legal aid system. We have the most expensive legal aid system in Europe and, given the financial challenges we inherited, no change was not an option. We will, of course, continue to review the impact of the changes we have made to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I will not be afraid to reconsider some of those issues if it proves that what we have done has created a major problem.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as proposed by the Government. The scheme is due to be considered formally in Committee on Monday, but the concerns are serious enough to be properly aired in the Chamber today. They received a full airing in the other place on 25 July, and I believe that the Lords were wrong to approve the proposals. Significantly, the Minister in the Lords was the only speaker to support the proposals. The previous Government had the good sense to withdraw a similar proposal and I urge the current Administration to do likewise.

I am also grateful for information received from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Communication Workers Union, both of which have members who are particularly affected by the proposals. I make no apologies for taking up the cause on behalf of the trade unions and the thousands of employees they represent. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has also provided information, for which I am grateful too. I should add that one of my trade union memberships is with the CWU.

Let me return to the origins of the scheme. In a House of Lords debate in December 1962 on the “Report of the Working Party on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence”, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, told peers:

“For the innocent victims of such crimes we all feel sympathy, but we feel that sympathy alone is not enough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1962; Vol. 245, c. 305.]

That principle should be maintained. In 1964, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was established, later becoming the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—the CICA—which administers the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

In October 2010, the then Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), told the House that the scheme was underfunded. As a result, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, which has resulted in the current proposals, which exclude innocent victims of crime from the scheme, denying them financial compensation. Before that, in 2009, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), now the new Lord Chancellor, showed his caring side, saying:

“And law abiding, decent people are asking—who’s looking after me? Well, my message to them is that a Conservative Government will start looking after you.”

Withdrawing the proposals will enable the Lord Chancellor to match those words with deeds. To withdraw compensation from these innocent victims of crime goes against the very purpose of criminal injuries compensation and ignores the view held by successive Governments for decades that victims of violent crime deserve more than just words.

The scheme uses a tariff system that is split into 25 bands. The Ministry of Justice has proposed removing the first five bands—which currently include all claims valued under £2,500—from the new scheme. According to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority annual report for 2010-11, 48% of all payments made by the CICS fell into bands one to five. That represents 17,700 victims a year on average. By way of example, under the new scheme someone who has suffered a minor disfigurement of the face will no longer be entitled to any compensation, and someone who suffers temporary partial deafness will also be denied compensation.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to our attention. I should like to declare an interest as someone who has a scar right across his face. The wound was inflicted without provocation and the person was convicted for it. I believe that it would be an outrage to take away the possibility of compensation from anyone who was entitled to it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.

It is unacceptable to say these injuries are not life-changing, as the Minister in the Lords did. Many victims say that they are. They suffer flashbacks, nightmares and panic attacks, for example. Moreover, many of the awards in tariffs 1 to 5 are for permanent physical disabilities such as corneal abrasions, speech impairment, or a “continuing significant disability” to a finger—very important for those who do manual work such as filling shelves or delivering letters. Nor are the awards “penny-pinching” amounts, as the Minister claimed. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. To a shop worker on the minimum wage who has to take weeks off work because of a fractured hand, £2,000 compensation is a substantial amount that would help to pay the debts accumulated during the period off work.

As well as removing the first five bands, the Government propose to slash compensation for claims between £2,500 and £11,000 in bands 6 to 12 by up to 60%. Those seven tariff bands represent 42% of criminal injury compensation payments under the CICS. Injuries covered by those bands can include the loss of a finger, two collapsed lungs or the partial loss of an ear, and they account for 13,000 cases a year. The Lords Minister stated that shop workers would still be able to claim for mental trauma of six weeks or more, but that is incorrect. To qualify for the level 6 tariff, a person requires diagnosis by a psychiatrist, which does not occur for several months, until courses of anti-depressants have been tried.

Over the past five years, 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs. On average, 12 postal workers are attacked by dogs every day, amounting to about 5,000 being injured every year in dog attacks. Many are never able to return to their job, owing to the physical and psychological effects of the attack. Many are scarred and receive facial disfigurement for life. Many have lost fingers through dog bite amputations and many others have sustained dog bite injuries leading to painful lacerations and puncture wounds, nerve, ligament and tendon damage, fractures, serious infections, disability and disablement. I was bitten by a dog while delivering leaflets during the last general election campaign. I was not seriously injured—I required only a plaster and an anti-tetanus injection—but it was a disturbing experience.

That group of workers who suffer the disproportionate majority of violent dog attacks now needs the support of the law, the enforcing authorities, the judges and the courts in dealing with the problem. It also needs the support of the scheme, which in many cases is the only remaining avenue for obtaining personal injury compensation. Many postal and BT workers have suffered personal injury through violent crimes, as defined by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, caused by irresponsible, reckless and negligent dog owners who are usually uninsured and often do not have the financial means to pay any compensation and cannot therefore be obliged in law to do so. I understand that this is known to lawyers as the doctrine of the man of straw.

The injuries to postal workers may be physical or mental, or both, and in some cases they have resulted in near death. However, the proposals remove the right to claim for injuries resulting from an animal attack. As a result, postal workers will have nowhere to go for effective compensation. Dog owners are unlikely to have third-party insurance, and may have no assets from which to recover a civil litigation claim or pay a criminal compensation order. The current scheme is the last resort for victims of dog attacks, and it will be removed under the proposals. All of the public will lose the prospect of compensation for dog bites, not just postal workers.

No one asks to be a victim of crime. Reducing, or removing altogether, the amount of compensation available to those people will send a clear message that the state does not view their injuries as serious or important. The Government propose to retain awards at their present level for injuries resulting from sexual offences and physical abuse, but that accounts for only about 8% of victims of all crimes who will be unaffected by the changes.

The Government misrepresent the current cost of the scheme. In the consultation, it was claimed that the scheme was not sustainable, and that it had historic liabilities of nearly £400 million. The Minister inflated that figure to £532 million by including possible claims yet to be lodged with the authority—presumably for crimes not yet committed, which seems odd, to say the least. However, examination of the authority’s accounts shows a stable and sustainable scheme, and that view is supported by the impact assessment.

Closer analysis shows that the average annual cost to the Ministry of Justice of existing tariffs is £192 million. It has varied very little, between £171 million and £214 million over the past four years. The cost for 2012-13 is estimated at £181 million under the current scheme rules. Even if I supported the Government’s deluded economic policy, I would have to point out that reducing the scheme’s budget by £50 million will do relatively little to reduce the Government deficit. It is a small sum in the scheme of things.

Historical liabilities have been reduced to 73 cases, estimated at less than £150 million, most of which the authority says should be cleared by 2014. Almost all these cases involve children who were seriously injured before the tariff scheme commenced in 1996, and whose ongoing needs could not be established until they reached adulthood. Neither is the CICA lax in exercising its responsibilities, with over half of claims refused. In 2011-12, of 58,000 applicants, over 30,000 claims—52%—were disallowed.There is therefore no immediate financial imperative to make these drastic cuts, which will impact so seriously on some of our most vulnerable people who most need support.

To add insult to injury, under the new scheme victims will be asked to pay up to £50 up front to obtain their initial medical evidence. Making victims pay this amount when they may be off work or still emotionally and mentally scarred from their attack could prevent genuinely injured victims from bringing a claim. Victims of violent crime who are eligible for compensation under the new scheme and who are unable to work owing to their injuries will also suffer as a result of changes to the scheme. These victims will be worse off because of changes in the arrangements for future loss of earnings, which will now pay only statutory sick pay, which is currently £85.85 a week. If someone were to work a 37-hour week on a minimum wage of £6.08 an hour— £225 per week—before they were injured, they could be worse off by £139.15 a week, which could result in serious financial hardship.

Changes to the scheme also fail to take into account the current employment market. The new scheme states that to be eligible for a loss-of-earnings payment, the victim will have to have been in

“regular paid work for a period of at least three years immediately before the date of the incident giving rise to the injury”.

The scheme offers exemptions if the person had a good reason for not having been in regular paid work—for example, because of age, care responsibilities or full-time education. In the current climate, however, it would not be unusual for someone to have been moving between temporary jobs, or to have had a period of unemployment in any three-year period. The new scheme will prevent someone from receiving a loss-of-earnings payment under such circumstances, even if they are now in regular paid work.

The changes to loss-of-earnings provisions will affect not only those who have been injured but relatives eligible for dependency payments after the loss of a loved one. The dependency payments, which are awarded to someone financially or physically dependent on the deceased, will be reduced as a result of these changes, and may not be enough to support the dependant.

Some of the most vulnerable people in our society are, of course, children, yet this new scheme will do nothing to protect children who are victims of certain violent crimes. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on the possibility of extending section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to make it a criminal offence in England for an owner of a dog to allow it to be out of control on private property, such as on the owner’s own property. That consultation closed on 15 June, and no response has yet been published. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice has proposed removing the right of compensation from those attacked by animals, unless the animal was

“used deliberately to inflict an injury on that person”.

This would create a scenario in which a child who has been mauled by a dog will be denied compensation, even though a criminal offence may have occurred—if the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is extended—and the child will have sustained life-changing injuries.

While the Government are retaining all awards for sexual offences, the decision no longer to cover the cost of private medical care may prevent a victim of child abuse from receiving counselling and support quickly. While these services are available on the NHS, private funding would prevent any delays, and prompt treatment can be vital in such circumstances.

It is the Government’s intention to cut the lower standards to provide better protection and support for the most seriously injured victims. There is, however, no evidence that this has actually happened. Even those with the most serious injuries will suffer as a result of these changes. The Government should show common sense and compassion and withdraw these proposals.

Alan Turing

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing the debate. I hope that Members will bear with my voice; I am a little croaky this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman gave a very good overview of the life and work of Alan Turing, including the infamous and famous Turing test, which we all love when we log on to websites and have to type the characters. It is a nice testimony to Alan Turing that every part of our lives these days is touched by his influence. We also heard very good contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Woking (Jonathan Lord).

The word “genius” is overused—it is a little clichéd, as is “hero”. Nevertheless, it is correct to use them when talking about Alan Turing, and the millions of lives that have been saved as a result of his work. Sadly, the state’s behaviour towards him is, to say the least, shameful and needs to be put right.

I first came across Alan Turing’s work when, many years ago, I moved to a place called Milton Keynes—more specifically, to Bletchley—to take up a job with the Inland Revenue. Every morning, I walked past this huge expanse of an estate, with a high fence around it. It all seemed very strange. Curiosity being what it is, I started to inquire about what the place, Bletchley Park, was and, as Members will know, once one starts to inquire about such places, one soon develops a bookshelf lined with every book going on the subject—code breakers, Enigma and so on. It is a fascinating story, and a testimony to the incredible work done by many people, but especially by Alan Turing.

We have heard that the mission to decrypt the coded messages from the Enigma—the German military typewriter-like cipher machine—was hugely important. Turing had the ability to pit machine against machine. He produced the prototype anti-Enigma bombe, which he called Victory—I think that began in the spring of 1940—and the bombe machines effectively turned Bletchley Park into a cipher-breaking factory.

As early as 1943, Turing’s machines were cracking an estimated 84,000 Enigma messages each month—two a minute. No wonder the Prime Minister of the day called the information that came from them, “ultra”. It was ultra-important and, as I shall explain, ultra-significant.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise for joining the debate late. I want to mention Alan Turing’s partner, Tommy Flowers, who made a massive contribution to the Enigma work. He was a General Post Office engineer, who put electronics into telephone exchanges. I had the privilege of meeting him in the last year of his life. We were trying to get him an honour, but he died too soon. He was the person who used the electronics and the valves. I give all credit to Alan Turing, genius that he was, but the beginning of computing would not have happened without Tommy Flowers either.

[Robert Flello]

I was going to mention the Colossus machine that Tommy Flowers worked on, and I will come on to it in a moment.

Turing personally broke the form of Enigma used by the U-boats that were preying on the crucial north Atlantic merchant convoys, which were full of essential supplies for Britain. Churchill’s analysts stated that Britain would soon be starving if the supplies could not get through. Turing also searched for a way to break into the torrent of messages suddenly emanating from a new, and much more sophisticated, German cipher machine. The British code-named the new machine “Tunny”, and many people have said that the Tunny teleprinter was the forerunner of the mobile phone networks that we all enjoy today.

It is probably worth pausing here. The computing power of the mobile phones that many of us have on silent in our pockets or squirreled away somewhere, is much more advanced than that of the machinery that Alan Turing, and indeed Tommy Flowers, were putting together. Even more remarkable is the fact that the likes of Tommy Flowers used GPO telephony valves, wiring and systems deliberately because they did not want to draw attention to the fact that they were building the code-breaking machines. They were constrained, therefore, because they had to base their work on the sort of equipment that was available in any telephone operating system, and that is testimony to the importance of what they did.

Turing’s breakthrough in 1942 yielded the first systematic method for cracking the “Tunny” messages, which enabled the allies to get detailed knowledge of the German strategy—and that, without doubt, changed the course of the war. It was also the seed for the sophisticated Tunny-cracking algorithms that were incorporated into Tommy Flowers’s Colossus, which was the first large-scale electronic computer. With the installation of 10 Colossus machines by the end of the war, Bletchley Park became the world’s first electronic computer facility.

Turing’s work on Tunny was the third of three strokes of genius that he contributed to the attack on Germany’s codes, along with designing the bombe and unravelling the U-boat Enigma. It has been argued that his work shortened the war by not up to two years, but anything up to four. If Turing and his group had not weakened the U-boats’ hold on the north Atlantic, the D-day landings could have been delayed by a year or longer, because the north Atlantic was the route that ammunition, fuel, food and troops had to travel to reach Britain from America.

Any such delay, of course, would have put Hitler in a stronger position to withstand the allied assault. Fortifications along the French coastline would no doubt have been stronger, Panzer armies would have been moved into place, more V2 missiles would have rained down on southern England, and on the ports and airfields, thereby supporting the invading troops. Each year of fighting in Europe is estimated to have cost an average of 7 million lives, so it would not be far off the mark to quantify Turing’s contribution as 21 million lives saved. That gives an indication of the magnitude of his work.

The hon. Member for Cambridge helpfully detailed the post-war work that Alan Turing did, and I will not delay Members by rehearsing it, but it does bring me on to the appalling circumstances of his arrest, prosecution and sentencing. One has to take stock and question why a man who had done so much to save lives—possibly 21 million, perhaps more—was treated in such a way. When one reads the books, it feels like an underhand way of investigating Alan’s life. Reading them, despite the benefit of history, I started to wonder why he was treated in such a way.

As has been mentioned, the former Prime Minister officially apologised in 2009 for how Alan Turing had been treated—I draw right hon. and hon. Members’ attention to that apology; it is worth looking at—but the campaign has rightly continued since then. Numerous commemorations and international events have been held throughout the centenary year. The Google doodle was mentioned, Royal Mail has issued a commemorative stamp and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) drew attention to the work done with Manchester city council involving the Olympic torch and so on. Many events have taken place to recognise the fantastic work done by Alan Turing.

However, we are always brought back to the cul-de-sac that is the 1952 conviction. Hon. Members have given it a lot of thought, and work is going on in the other place on a private Member’s Bill. On legal precedent, are we as a Parliament not about setting legal precedent? Is that not our job? Is it not what we do every day in this place? We come up with new laws, improve laws, change laws and, where they are wrong, correct them. The posthumous conditional pardon in November 2006 of the soldiers shot at dawn was the right thing to do. It was absolutely correct. I am sure that even if that does not set a precedent, it might give us a clue about how to get around the issue.

I hope that Lord Sharkey’s Bill in the other place will find its way through Government time to be considered. I also hope that when the Minister replies, he will confirm that when a private Member’s Bill comes forward in this House, it will be looked on favourably by the Government. I certainly hope so. Whatever we do after this debate, one thing is certain: we must find a way to recognise and in some way pardon Alan Turing for what happened, so that we can hold him up as the hero he was.

EU Criminal Policy

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very simple point of order on the documentation for this debate. Page 2 refers to the Chairman of the European Select Committee. There is no such Committee; it is the European Scrutiny Committee. I think it is an important distinction.

[Mr Speaker]

It is an important distinction, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it. I suspect that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the Committee, will be even more grateful to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). He and the other members of his Committee are quite right to have brought this matter before the House. Although I start from a different position on the European Union from him, I think it is vital that the House has every opportunity to discuss issues concerning Europe. I commend him on working hard to ensure that on Thursday afternoon there will be a debate before the European Council meets.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little harsh on my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) when he accused him of being complacent. I have known my hon. Friend since he was 11-years-old —we were at school together. There are many ways to describe him, but “complacent” is not one of them. However, if I may digress for just one second, Mr Speaker, I used to try to avoid being in class with him, because our names were adjacent on the register, and when they were read out in quick succession—“Slaughter”, “Vaz”—it was usually my hon. Friend leading the cheers.

Anyway, back to the European Union and away from our school days. I was heartened by what the Minister said about this measure. It is important that we deal with such measures on a case-by-case basis, for the very reasons cited by my hon. Friend. The European arrest warrant, which began as a good idea, is now out of control, with hundreds of requests being made by certain EU countries—I am sure that when he gets to speak, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) will make reference to that fact. That is something that we need to guard against, so a cautious approach to the extension of criminal policy is extremely important. We have our own criminal law, and that is how it must remain, but we need co-operation with our European partners in a number of areas. I do not accept that the list read out by the hon. Member for Stone is definitive. It is a good list for us to work on in regard to co-operation on those issues with our European partners, although not necessarily in regard to legislation. The Government should bear that in mind when they approach those issues.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As my right hon. Friend will have heard, there is a difference of view between the Chair of the Justice Committee and the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on whether this constitutes a degree of legislative creep towards an objective of unifying the legal systems in Europe. If one of them is right, we can be happy that there is no creep, but the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee seems to think there is a degree of legislative creep involved. Which one does my right hon. Friend agree with?

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with both of them, because they were each making different points. We must be fair to the Chair of the Justice Committee, who is also the Chair of the Liaison Committee, because he was disputing a point of debate, not a point of fact, as to whether he had met any chair of a justice committee in any other European country who agreed with the view of the hon. Member for Stone view that one criminal law was being sought for the whole of the European Union. I have attended quite a few meetings in the European Union, and I have certainly never heard anyone say that they wanted one criminal law for the whole EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

6. When he expects to announce his proposals on the reform of probation services.

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

The first stage of our work to look at the future of probation services in England and Wales is nearing completion. This work requires careful consideration and has been taken forward with valuable input from trusts and other key probation stakeholders. For example, I met Probation Association chiefs last week and this morning I had meetings with the probation trade unions. We expect to announce our probation reform proposals alongside those for community sentences early in the new year, and we will then consult widely.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Given that probation staff are experiencing major cuts in their budgets, will the Minister explain how he expects them to do more with less? Are not Government policies going to cause serious damage to the probation service?

[Mr Blunt]

No, Government policies are going to improve the probation service. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the probation budget, he would see that the position of probation has been substantially protected relative to the demands being placed on the overall budget of the Ministry of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

Perhaps it is not a complete coincidence that Mr Sebert Cox, the chairman of the Probation Association, is also the chairman of the Durham Tees Valley probation trust. I had the pleasure of discussing these issues with him last week. Like the hon. Member for Luton North, the hon. Lady will have to contain herself until we come forward with our proposals early in the new year.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I recently launched a consultation on improving judicial diversity and appointments. The proposals include the following measures: first, looking to prefer the candidate from an under-represented background where candidates are essentially indistinguishable on merit; secondly, limiting fee-paid judges to three five-year terms; and, thirdly, introducing flexible working for the senior judiciary. Our aim is to deliver a judiciary that is reflective of our society, in which public confidence is enhanced and which retains its world-class quality.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Given the recent mess that the Mayor of London made by using incorrect reoffending statistics, how can we be sure of the impact of payment-by-results models for probation if reoffending statistics are so unreliable?

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

The hon. Gentleman is being a little harsh on the Mayor of London, who is a keen supporter, as am I, of the Heron unit in Feltham, to which he was referring, which does extremely good work. The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the importance of getting proper research and analysis to inform payment by results so that we in the Ministry of Justice and the taxpayer end up paying for outputs that deliver and not simply for inputs, which is how the position has been characterised in the past.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will come to that, because we need to learn lessons across the House about the appropriateness of how we have legislated in recent years. I have sat in this place and seen bad law produced as a result of rushing things—it happened under the last Government and it is happening under this one—and a lack of judgment about how much consideration each piece of legislation needs.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will, but I would like to press on, because others want to speak.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is there not a hint of short-term populism in what the Government are doing? Does my hon. Friend think that even the Government might come to regret it if they press their case?

[John McDonnell]

I went through 13 years of new Labour, so commenting on short-term populism might not be the most appropriate thing. I would not say: “A plague on all your houses!”, but let us all learn a few lessons.

Access to a Lawyer

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Indeed they do have systems that are below par, which is why we are keen for the measure to proceed across the EU. We will decide at a later date whether Britain opts in, subject to the negotiations that will take place. If my hon. Friend listens to what I have to say a bit further, he will hear how we propose to look at that process.

This is a good, practical idea that has delivered some notable results, provided that it does not put suspects at risk of less-than-adequate criminal proceedings. Such instruments of mutual recognition were never intended to operate on their own. It was intended that they should be supported by a series of criminal procedural rights, enforceable at EU level, that would build on the rights already guaranteed by the ECHR and provide additional reassurance that the rights were being given practical effect in all member states. These standards will not only protect British nationals when they are arrested elsewhere in the EU but will provide greater trust and confidence among the courts of all EU states that judgments handed down, which they may be expected to recognise, have been made on the basis of sound procedural standards.

Standards of procedural rights are high in the UK. The right of access to a lawyer, both before and during police interview, has been provided in England and Wales and Northern Ireland since the mid 1980s. A similar right was provided for in Scotland last year. However, despite the fact that we see value in the Commission tabling such a measure, we have considerable concerns about the detail of the directive and the impact its drafting would have on the UK’s criminal justice systems.

The procedural rights directives are intended to draw on the jurisprudence of the ECHR and to flesh out what those rights mean in practice. Certain provisions of the Commission’s proposal, however, go far beyond the minimum standards that stem from the convention. While there is no problem in principle with going beyond the standards of the convention if there are good practical and policy reasons to do so, we do not see such reasons in this case. On the contrary, we think that there would be some quite adverse and costly impacts on the ability effectively to investigate and prosecute offenders were the Commission proposal to be adopted.

Examples of that include the fact that the directive as drafted by the Commission may require access to a lawyer to be provided in some stages in the investigatory process where currently a lawyer is not provided, such as at a police search of a property or where a person’s fingerprints are taken when they are booked into a custody suite. We do not consider it necessary or proportionate to provide a lawyer in those situations.

In addition, the directive requires that a person should always be able to meet his lawyer face to face, whereas we provide, in some minor cases, for telephone access, which detained persons often prefer as it can mean that they are held for a shorter period as it is not necessary to wait for a lawyer.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister has covered the point that I want to make. We permit defendants to telephone for immediate advice from a lawyer. It is quick, cheap, easy and very accessible for defendants.

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is exactly the case, and if it is to be under threat we should be concerned.

The directive also requires absolute confidentiality of meetings and communications between a lawyer and a suspected or accused person. While confidentiality of such discussions is of course a fundamental principle, there are some limited circumstances in which confidentiality should not be guaranteed. The most obvious example is where the authorities have reason to believe that the meeting or correspondence is being abused to further criminal activity. In such circumstances, which are exceptional but none the less extremely serious, the communications ought not to be privileged and the authorities might need to monitor them.

We also believe that member states should be allowed to derogate from other rights set out in the directive, in certain exceptional circumstances. For example, it might not be appropriate to allow a person in custody to contact a particular individual if the police might have reason to believe that he will ask that person to conceal or destroy evidence. The ECHR case law has been clear that restrictions can be imposed on access to a lawyer for an accused person if there are compelling reasons to do so.

We do not think that the drafting allows enough discretion for judges to decide case by case whether evidence should be admissible if it has been obtained in breach of any of the rights set out in the directive.