Detainee Inquiry
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend believes that. I think that is right. The problem of letting the inquiry go ahead while the police are carrying out the investigations is obviously that one could hopelessly compromise the other. We cannot have witnesses giving evidence about events when the police are in the middle of inquiries into the self-same events. [Interruption.] Well, that was the basis upon which we started, and everybody accepted that Gibson could not start until the police investigations had finished. There are sensible reasons, as my hon. Friend says, why we are in that situation.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Our country has a reputation around the world as one which protects human rights. When allegations of extraordinary rendition were made, it tarnished that image. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s inquiry into the whole issue and the support given by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice. I ask the Lord Chancellor to take on board the points that the shadow Secretary of State for Justice mentioned.
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is extremely important that we maintain this essentially cross-party approach to these matters and that the House gives its full support to our attempts to get to the bottom of these matters. As she says, it is in the interests of this country and of the Security Service that we do so.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said from the Front Bench about the cuts in welfare rights, and I also agree with the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I shall not reiterate everything that they said as time is short, but I want to address clause 12 and ask the Minister to remove it from the Bill.
Before I go into the reasoning behind that request, I have a general caveat. What I am about to say is not a criticism of police officers. In all professions and walks of life there are people who do not do their jobs properly and have mala fide motives. Section 52 of PACE, which was introduced in 1984 by a Conservative Government, gave people arrested at a police station the right to see a solicitor of their choosing. As hon. Members may remember, that particular piece of legislation came about because of several riots over the sus laws, and Lord Scarman was asked by the then Government to investigate the cause of those riots.
In those days, under the old sus laws, the police could stop anyone walking on the street without any justification and without having to show reasonable cause. Inevitably, a lot of the people stopped were young men of Afro-Caribbean origin in London and young men from working-class backgrounds in the rest of the country. As a result of Lord Scarman’s inquiry and investigation, the then Conservative Government passed that piece of legislation, which, generally, was a good one that brought us up to date with many other countries with similar economies to ours and with what we could call western democratic institutions. We would be hard-pressed to find, in any of those countries, a defendant at a police station being denied the right to free legal advice. Taking away that right will almost put us back three centuries. It is not compatible with modern, 21st-century Britain and its place in the world.
We talk about saving money, but more money is saved when people are advised properly at a police station. I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). From the prosecution and defence perspective, they talked about how such advice should be allowed. As someone who has both prosecuted and defended for the past 20-odd years, I think that access to legal representation at a police station is not only the fair, right and proper thing for a civilised society, such as ours, to do, but in the long term it saves money. It avoids unnecessary not-guilty pleas and saves unnecessary time going to court and prosecuting people. If people are spoken to by a solicitor, often—in most cases, I would say—solicitors advise their clients correctly. In my experience, if there is evidence against clients, the solicitors and lawyers tend to advise people to plead guilty. This proposal, therefore, will not save money, but waste more money. If the argument is about economy, I would have to point out that it is a false economy.
I shall give an example involving the Crown Prosecution Service. Following the Narey review, which looked into why so many cases going to court were leading to acquittals, Crown prosecutors started going into police stations, looking at cases and working with the police in order to speed up the criminal process. As a result of that direct input by lawyers at the beginning of the criminal prosecution system, the number of cases going for not-guilty pleas has been reduced and many more people now plead guilty.
I also want to mention the disclosure system, which was introduced under a fantastic piece of legislation brought in, again, by a Conservative Government—the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Prior to that, we had a system under which some police officers and police forces withheld material evidence in criminal cases, leading to many miscarriages of justice. The new disclosure regime came into being to deal with that and, as a result, everything now has to be disclosed.
Those were Conservative Government policies, which is why I am so surprised that the Government have proposed clause 12. It will not save any money, but there is a more fundamental point. The worst thing that a person can face is being arrested, detained, taken to a police station—often a very hostile environment—and having no one to speak to who understands the procedures. This proposal will remove a fundamental right.
Despite our financial difficulties, we are still a rich nation in comparison with the rest of the world. When I worked for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo, I helped to deal with criminal justice issues, and one of the first things we did when we got the system up and running was to draft—I was involved in it—the regulation of access to a lawyer for a person arrested by the police. That was 11 years ago in a country that had suffered 10 or 12 years of civil unrest. Its institutions were not working properly and it was financially not very solvent, but even there, 11 years ago, this particular provision was brought in because it was recognised that a person who is arrested and taken to a police station must have independent legal advice.
Mr Ward
Does the hon. Lady not think it quite telling that although we had intervention after intervention from those on the Government Benches last night when it was argued that existing legislation allowed action to be taken against squatters, we have had no interventions today to explain why we are wrong about clause 12 or new clause 17, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)?
Yasmin Qureshi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that observation, and I agree with him.
I shall conclude my remarks, because I know that we want to get on to the next piece of business. My fundamental plea is this: please do not take away the right to legal advice at a police station.
Kate Green
I want to ask the Minister two questions about social welfare law. I also feel obliged, even at this late stage in the debate, to speak briefly to the three amendments standing in my name—amendments 69, 70 and 71—which have not yet been debated.
My first question for the Minister follows the sensible remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) earlier about how the Government are making significant legislative changes to a number of areas in social welfare law. They include some that he mentioned, such as the introduction of the universal credit and the changes to disability living allowance. I would add to that the substantial changes to housing, child maintenance and the immigration system, where I can already report a shortage of supply in my constituency when it comes to accessing good advice. If legal aid is not to be available to take people through what will be a period of incredible complexity and confusion, what discussions has the Minister had with ministerial colleagues in other Departments to ensure adequate provision and funding for people to receive advice, at least in this transitional period? Failing to put that funding in place will cost the Government more rather than less.
My second question for the Minister relates to the additional £20 million of funding that has been made available to support advice agencies—or really, to cope with the loss of legal aid coverage in certain categories of law. That is particularly important in my constituency, because Trafford law centre stands to lose almost all its funding, given that it is currently funded by an immigration contract and an employment contract, both of which will go. It also receives Equality and Human Rights Commission funding, which is due to end, with a small and diminishing proportion of its funding coming from the local authority. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about the £20 million fund, which my law centre is understandably interested in, but which it rather suspects has already been earmarked to support agencies elsewhere? Is it a one-off fund or will it be available in future years? What is the process for deciding how the money will be disbursed?
Finally, my amendments 69, 70 and 71 deal with the transfer of Legal Services Commission staff to the civil service, which the Minister spoke about in his opening remarks this afternoon. My understanding is that the Bill is proceeding on the assumption that TUPE will not apply to the transfer. Of course, only the courts can finally determine whether that is the case, but in any event, the Bill should proceed on the basis that transferring employees will have at least the same protection that would apply if TUPE applied. In any event, what should apply is the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector, paragraph 19 of which says that
“transfers at the instigation and under the control of Central Government will usually be effected through legislation,”—
as is true in this case—
“in particular those involving Officeholders. Provision can then be made for staff to transfer on TUPE terms irrespective of whether the transfer is excluded from the scope of the Directive implemented by TUPE. Departments must therefore ensure that legislation effecting transfers of functions between public sector bodies makes provision for staff to transfer and on a basis that follows the principles of TUPE along with appropriate arrangements to protect occupational pension, redundancy and severance terms.”
I was grateful for the assurances that the Minister offered this afternoon on some of those points, and I understand that transferring employees will be offered membership of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. I accept that that is at least as favourable as the Legal Services Commission’s own pension arrangements. The terms on which members of the LSC scheme can transfer their accrued rights to the civil service pension scheme will no doubt be set out in the transfer scheme contemplated in schedule 4. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding of the position is correct?
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I, along with others, have tabled an amendment on telephone access that we will come to later. This is one of the matters on which I have had a significant number of representations from law centres and people who deal with such work. I understand her point and agree with it.
It is often not possible for family members to claim asylum because they are not in the UK. They therefore do not get the benefit of legal aid.
The UK Border Agency often requires evidence of the relationship. That is not surprising and it is perfectly proper. People are asked to undergo DNA tests. Spouses are asked to produce evidence of their marriage. That might be straightforward, but it might not be, either in law or in practice.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. At the Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary gave a completely misleading example when she said that in one case somebody was found to have family rights because of a cat. Does he agree that such things do not help in these debates?
Yasmin Qureshi
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the criminal courts accepted many years ago that in criminal cases defendants could not cross-examine victims on matters such as sexual offences? To take away that right in the civil courts, where people are facing equally harrowing situations, is completely wrong and would be at variance with the criminal courts.
Mr Llwyd
Yes, and I wonder about the quality of the evidence coming out of that flawed process.
I was assisted in drafting amendment 93 by the Bar Council, which has said that the effect of preventing such distressing and costly consequences is worth looking into urgently. Amendments 94 to 102 relate to proceedings involving children’s welfare. As the Bar Council has said:
“It is not understood why, under Schedule 1, the provision of legal aid is limited to proceedings relating to the children, and not the associated financial remedy proceedings. The child’s economic welfare is important in abuse cases; particularly given the higher incidence of abuse in low-income households.”
Amendments 96, 97 and 98
“would have the effect of bringing within scope…proceedings leading to an order under the Children Act 1989 section 37…and…all subsequent steps in family proceedings once a section 37 order has been made. They would also ensure…that…the person against whom allegations of abuse are made is within scope.”
Amendments 94 and 95 are consequential amendments.
The Minister said in Committee that cases involving financial provision are not a priority for legal aid. I firmly believe that all private family cases should be retained within the scope of legal aid. It is difficult to overestimate the damaging effects on children caught up in untidy, bitter and lengthy disputes. Protecting the interests of children is at the heart of amendments 99 to 102. As the Bar Council has said:
“Paragraph 13 provides for the provision of legal aid for the child parties in cases which come under subsection (1)(a)-(e), but not for the adult parties,”
which, as I have said, will
“result in unrepresented adults being forced to cross-examine expert witnesses and, in many instances, the child concerned.”
Amendments 99 to 102 would have the effect of
“bringing within scope the provision of legal aid for adult parties in such cases.”
I want to talk briefly about amendment 83, my final amendment, which deals with judicial review. I thank the Immigration Law Practitioners Association for its help in briefing me on this amendment. We know that immigration-specific exclusions have been made. In their Green Paper, the Government set out a robust defence of judicial review and the need for retaining legal aid in such cases, saying:
“In our view, proceedings where the litigant is seeking to hold the state to account by judicial review are important, because these cases are the means by which individual citizens can seek to check the exercise of executive power by appeal to the judiciary. These proceedings therefore represent a crucial way of ensuring that state power is exercised responsibly.”
None the less, the Government have compromised their position in immigration cases. My amendment 83 seeks to rectify that anomaly. In explaining why immigration cases are to be exempted from legal aid for judicial review claims, the Government say that they have drawn on the response to the Green Paper by the senior judiciary, who raised concerns about unmeritorious judicial reviews, but in so doing the Government have ignored three key aspects of the judiciary’s proposals.
First, the judiciary’s proposals were advanced only on the basis that
“careful further consideration would need to be given”
before the proposals that the Minister is now pushing could be taken up. However, no consultation has been held on those proposals. What is more, the judiciary also advanced their proposals on the basis that, in principle, legal aid should be available for appeals before the first-tier tribunal. However, the Bill removes legal aid in such non-asylum appeals. Finally, the proposals were advanced on the basis that legal aid should not generally be excluded, but instead be available where a positive decision was made in favour of granting legal aid in any individual case—for example, because the judge decided that it had merit. However, the Bill removes legal aid for such immigration cases, regardless of the merit of any individual case. All in all, this is a sorry state of affairs.
The Government seek to justify the new exclusions for judicial review in immigration cases by stating that public funding is not merited in cases that have
“already had…one full oral hearing,”
yet the provisions exclude legal aid even where there has been no oral hearing. The Government have effectively reversed their position that holding the state to account was of especial importance—hence the need to retain legal aid for judicial review. As a consequence, legal aid will not be available to hold the state to account at any stage, because immigration applications and appeals are also being removed from the scope of legal aid—a Catch-22 situation, or perhaps “Kafkaesque” would be a better description.
To remind ourselves, the changes will affect cases involving non-asylum claimants who face removal from the UK, and therefore from their families, homes and communities. Such claimants include trafficking victims receiving rehabilitative care and treatment; British children and spouses facing permanent separation from their parents or partners; children who have lived in the UK for many years—sometimes all their lives—facing removal to countries that they have never seen and do not know, and where they do not speak the language; adults who have lived in the UK for many years, and sometimes decades, facing removal to countries that they do not know; and victims of torture and other trauma who are no longer at risk of persecution in their home countries, but who are reliant on professional care and treatment.
The position now advanced by the Government is not supported by their stated principles or by the position advanced by the senior judiciary, and would leave a powerful agency of the state—the UK Border Agency—free from effective judicial oversight when exercising powers to remove people from their families, homes and communities, including where doing so will harm their welfare, health or life prospects. For those reasons, sub-paragraphs (5), (6) and (7) of paragraph 17 of schedule 1 have no place in any legislation with any regard for human rights or humanitarian issues.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no statistical evidence to show that reports of false allegations of domestic violence are any higher than they are for any other crime where people are potentially making false allegations?
Sheila Gilmore
As far as I am aware, there is no such evidence. What the Minister has in mind is perhaps just an untoward result of his own legislation. I am not doubting that there will be many false accusations to be made here, but by ruling out legal aid for family cases and making the only route to it the ability to jump through the domestic violence hurdles, perhaps a situation is being set up, which might lead to that happening. It is an unnecessary consequence of a decision that has already been made to take legal aid out of family cases.
One might sometimes get the impression that legal aid is something for which lots of people qualify so that it has become a big problem in this country, but it is already the case that many people do not qualify for legal aid on financial grounds—even to get protection from domestic violence or to get the occupancy of their own home and the exclusion of a violent partner from it. Many people who already suffer the additional difficulties caused by relatively low incomes and small assets do not qualify, and even in cases of domestic violence the availability of assistance is limited.
The Bill could have another untoward consequence. Those advising people who have experienced domestic violence are likely to feel obliged to encourage them to take legal proceedings to establish the fact of the violence, regardless of whether such action is essential to their protection at that time. That will enable those people to jump through the hoop and qualify for legal aid for wider purposes, involving, for instance, what happens to the matrimonial home, what happens to the children and what happens in relation to other financial matters—issues that are extremely important to many women. Thus the potential for more litigation will be created. When applicants who would otherwise have qualified for legal aid do not do so, what will happen to the savings that we are told will be generated if additional, potentially non-essential, actions are brought?
In an intervention earlier, I asked a question to which I did not receive a satisfactory answer. The Minister said that a finding of fact in a family law case involving domestic violence would enable people to jump the hurdle, but I am not sure what kind of case he was referring to. An application for protection or for an injunction would be covered, but how will people gain access to the family court to secure that finding of fact if they cannot obtain legal aid in the first place? I do not agree with the suggestion that the Bill will widen the scope for qualification for legal aid.
I was concerned by some of the language used by the Minister. It reminded me strongly of things that I thought had ended. I remember that the police often used to say that women made up these stories, because it was not uncommon for women to report violence to the police and then “retract” their allegations. The police would say, “He will have his feet back under the table by tomorrow, so there is no point in doing anything.” That demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the nature of abusive relationships, and of the pressures that were frequently placed on women to go back or take their men back—pressures exerted, sometimes inadvertently, by children whose mothers tried to put their needs first, or by other family members saying, “You have made your bed and you had better sleep in it”, or “Are you doing the best thing for the sake of the children?” That is not to speak of the financial and other practical pressures that may be imposed.
Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clarke
We have recommended the extension of restorative justice from the start. The more I come across it, the clearer it is to me that it is very welcome to victims and can be made very successful. We are continuing unswervingly in that regard, and intend to make more use of the system.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the probation service in tackling reoffending. We should perhaps try to make the probation service better where it needs improving, but we will not be able to improve reoffending rates if no one is supervising the offenders or their behaviour on licence. I have seen reports suggesting that we are going to fill the so-called gaps in our funding—which are pretty small in comparison with what we are saving overall—by cutting the probation service, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it has not been singled out more than any other area. We are looking for efficiencies everywhere, but we are not bouncing away from one possibility in order to cut the probation service simply to save money.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Will the Lord Chancellor reconsider provision for citizens advice bureaux, given that last year my local CAB dealt with 14,000 of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in my constituency?
Mr Clarke
Only 15% of CAB funding comes from my Department, and about 50% of CABs receive no legal aid funding at all. However, I agree with the hon. Lady about the value of good CABs. Their quality varies, but the best are very good. I am anxious for us to do what we can to strengthen CABs, as are my colleagues in other Departments: we are considering what we can do to help them across Government. I am doing my best, and we will settle on some support eventually. It will not be as much as the CABs want, but I think that we will be able to help.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
That is a matter of personal opinion. As I have indicated, one would have to make a comparison with the previous 10 years. The universal jurisdiction law is a common law matter and has, therefore, presumably been available for decades. If it has been used only 10 times in the past 10 years, one would have to go back to see what happened during the previous 10 years. Perhaps one would discover that during that period it had never been used once. If that is the case, it has been increasingly used; I would just posit that.
I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members would like to speak, so may I conclude by saying that Canada is not considered to be a country that is in any way permissive towards war crimes, yet it has adopted a tack similar to the proposed British solution? Although boasting a very broad piece of legislation implementing universal jurisdiction, Canada’s law requires that all claims based on universal jurisdiction first be personally approved by its Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General before they can be introduced in any court. So I would posit that to Labour Members, and say that if Canada has done this and is doing it—
Michael Ellis
I am going to finish now. If Canada has done this and is doing it, I see no reason why England and Wales should not do it as well.
Dr Huppert
The role of the police is important. Private prosecutions are the wrong way to go about dealing with such people. If a private prosecution has to be used the state has failed to go ahead—but I would like to see it do so. Private prosecutions are an essential safeguard where the state has failed.
Dr Huppert
I shall give way once more, but then I want to conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak.
Yasmin Qureshi
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the provision has been introduced because of the arrest of one individual? We are changing centuries of our law and tradition for the sake of one person.
Dr Huppert
My position was well summarised by an Opposition Member who spoke earlier. It is a shame that there has been a conflation of two separate issues—one about Israel-Palestine and the whole sordid tale there, and the other a legal debate about what the system ought to be. I wish it were possible to have that discussion.
The DPP made it clear that he would talk to the Attorney-General, but he said five or six times that there would have to be a very powerful weight in favour of prosecuting, because the crime is one of universal jurisdiction. The public interest would have to be overwhelming. I take comfort from that, because I am concerned that at present the Attorney-General can stop any process going ahead. We do not have a functioning private prosecution system in this country, because the Attorney-General can stop any such prosecutions at any stage. Including the DPP in the provision would make it harder for the Attorney-General to do that, because straight after the DPP—a recognised independent person—said, “Yes, there is a case. This person can be prosecuted,” the Attorney-General would be faced with the prospect of saying, “Actually the DPP is wrong. He doesn’t understand this,” and trying to end it.
The provision makes prosecutions easier, and it is prosecutions that I am concerned about. I should like to hear more about how the Government will make sure that the police take stronger action. I should like to hear whether they agree with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that would weaken the role of Attorney-General in terminating private prosecutions. My remaining concern is about the fact that the DPP may decide not to go ahead because the evidence is too weak. If that is genuinely the case, I do not think that any of us would have a problem with it. However, what worries me are cases in which the DPP does not get round to making a decision because there is a pocket veto. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will report on such cases. If there are a large number of them in which a pocket veto is exercised and no proper decision is made, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and make sure that there is due process.
Nick Herbert
I will deal with some of these points as I go on.
All that the provision will do is prevent a warrant being issued in cases where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. It would not, as the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) claimed when she moved her amendment, give immunity to war criminals. That is not the case.
It has been argued that the consent requirement will lead to delay and allow someone who ought to be prosecuted to leave the country. That is the force of amendment 154. That is a serious point, which the Director of Public Prosecutions addressed when he gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee. I urge those hon. Members who are concerned about the provision to read, if they have not done so already, the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which I believe will give them a great deal of reassurance as to how he would approach the matter.
The DPP is well aware that speed is important in dealing with such applications. He explained that the Crown Prosecution Service has suitably trained staff available around the clock, and they stand ready to act immediately in emergency cases. He also had helpful advice for anyone who wants to pursue a crime of universal jurisdiction, which is that they should not wait until the suspect has arrived here, but should engage early with the CPS. He said that they
“should come to us”—
that is, the CPS—
“with whatever evidence they have, and we will undertake to look at it and to advise.”
It has also been argued, and we have heard this evening, that there is a risk of political interference, given the likelihood that the DPP would consult the Attorney-General.
Nick Herbert
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way; time is short.
I raised such a risk in questioning the DPP, but he made it clear in his evidence that
“the decision is the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, taken independently.”
He added that consultation between the DPP and the Attorney-General, which is regular,
“acts as no inhibition on the independence that I would bring to the decision. At the end of the day, the decision is mine, it is independent and it is reviewable.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 124-130.]
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, the DPP also said that there are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute in a case that has satisfied the evidential threshold.
The necessity for the provision has been questioned on two grounds. It is said that the sort of people whom it is designed to safeguard are already covered by immunity. Although this is true of some of the visitors against whom arrest warrants have been sought in the past, it is not true of all. Immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies to certain Ministers, and warrants have been sought against Ministers not covered and those who are not Ministers at all.
Oral Answers to Questions
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(14 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend has been assiduous in holding the offender learning contract to account in Reading prison, and the Skills Funding Agency has completed an investigation into the allegations made against The Manchester College in respect of its education contract there. The report of that investigation is being finalised, and I am not able to comment on it until it has been completed, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must get the heads of learning and skills in the prisons much more clearly in charge of the direction of the skills training in their institutions.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
3. What the evidential basis is for his proposals on the future of universal jurisdiction.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be issued does not affect in any way the principle of universal jurisdiction or the Government’s commitment to that principle in the future. The reason for making this change is that at present a warrant can be issued where there is no realistic prospect of a viable prosecution.
Yasmin Qureshi
As the Lord Chancellor will know, universal jurisdiction is an ancient civil right: it is the right of an individual citizen to take court action against somebody suspected of committing a war crime. In the last 10 years, only 10 such applications for arrest warrants have been made, and only two of them were successful. As the Lord Chancellor will be aware, these arrest warrants are issued by the chief district judge for the London petty sessional area. In light of the fact that only two of these applications have been successful, why are the Government considering abolishing this ancient principle?
Mr Clarke
It is not being abolished. First, universal jurisdiction is not as old as suggested, but we welcome the application for, and enforcement of, universal jurisdiction here just as much as the previous Government did. The trouble at present is that the test for issuing an arrest warrant is so low that it is possible for a warrant to be issued when there is not the faintest chance of any serious prosecution going ahead. While I understand the feelings behind some of the applications, there is no doubt that publicity is being sought rather more than a prosecution, and the likely targets are people such as Israeli or Sri Lankan politicians coming here whom dissident groups want to be arrested. The DPP can act promptly, and we will enforce the law when there is a genuine case for a prosecution. Indeed, one Afghan warlord has been successfully prosecuted in this country and is currently in prison.
Police
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(15 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
Well, I think it is important that up until the Olympics the pledged sum remains in place in order to ensure security. Such decisions can be taken afterwards.
The Metropolitan police will continue to receive a national, international and capital city grant, recognising the unique duties they perform. It will be worth £200 million next year, although it will be reduced in subsequent years on the same basis as the police main grant.
The Government’s absolute priority is to ensure that the England and Wales police service retains and enhances its ability to protect and serve the public. Understandably, there has been much focus on the impact of the settlement on police numbers. Given the need to reduce public spending, we cannot guarantee the number of police and staff, which had reached record levels—almost 250,000 people—and neither, of course, could the previous Government.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister says that the number of police officers will be reduced. Recently, he is supposed to have said that there is no link between the commission of crime and the number of police. Does he still stand by that statement?
Nick Herbert
I did not say that; I said there was no simple link, and there is not.
All parties agree with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that police forces can make savings of over £1 billion a year while maintaining police availability. However, that will mean smaller police work forces in order to support the £1 billion a year of savings HMIC says can be made, which I do not think the Opposition have understood. That is why I regard it as so unacceptable that the Opposition should campaign on the issue of police numbers when they are committed to cutting spending by over £1 billion a year, which will lead to a reduction in police numbers.
The challenge for the service is to improve efficiency, drive out waste and increase productivity so that front-line policing is prioritised and the service to the public is maintained or improved.