Nigel Mills
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I should like simply to expand a little further on the point I made in my intervention on the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the potential for retrospective effect. We have seen, in relation to other issues earlier this year, how concerned the public are about any possibility of compensation being paid to people who are guilty of offences and are, perhaps, now being denied their right to vote. I expect the public would be incredibly concerned if people who have been through what was thought to be due legal process now had some chance of compensation, no matter how little, because that process, despite having been believed by everyone to be right, might have been ruled technically out of order by one judge in a verdict with which no one seems to agree. I accept the fact that, as is made clear in the explanatory notes, making the Bill’s provisions retrospective, right back to 1984, is an attempt to address that.
My concern is that to some extent we are in this mess because Parliament was not clear enough about its intentions when it passed the 1984 Act. It would be helpful if Parliament was entirely clear about what we mean when we give retrospective effect and if the Minister made explicit the intention, as set out in the explanatory notes, that these powers will be restored to what we all understood them to be for 25 years so that the courts will not allow any compensation claims. The explanatory notes are clear that that is what the Bill is attempting to do.
To try to clarify the point that the hon. Member for Gedling made, if he looks at page 9 of the explanatory notes, he will see that paragraph 36(c) states:
“Unless the Bill is given retrospective effect, it is possible that a very large number of people could bring claims for damages for detention occurring before the judgment, even though that detention was in accordance with what was honestly thought to be a long-understood legal position.”
There could be a huge number of claims and a large amount of money at stake, and it would be very generous to think that some claims-handling firms would not go around trying to find people to make those claims and test the process.
I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, will he make it absolutely clear that the Government’s view, and Parliament’s intention, is that no compensation would be due? Secondly, will he address the point about whether it would be wise to add a separate subsection to the Bill that makes that absolutely explicit so that if and when such claims are brought there is no doubt that our intention is that no compensation should be due?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) have raised a number of concerns that I will try to answer, but first I wish to return to the Opposition’s general allegation about delay. It is simply not the view of senior police officers that there has been inappropriate delay in the matter. The Opposition are claiming something that does not have the support of those most affected by the judgment’s implications.
I attended the ACPO conference in Harrogate this week, which the hon. Gentleman joined for the last day, and talked with the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, the force originally affected. He said that at the time of the oral judgment his force could not believe that a single judgment in Salford could affect all the cases across the country and overturn something that had been operating since 1986. The police force affected did not appreciate at that stage the potential wider implications of the court’s decision. The High Court judge, Mr Justice McCombe, said that the consequences would not be
“as severe as might be feared”,
a view with which the shadow Home Secretary disagrees. As I noted earlier, the ACPO lead on the issue, the chief constable of Essex police, Jim Barker-McCardle, has said:
“It was only when ACPO received the written judgment on 17 June…that the seriousness of the issue became apparent.”
The chief constable of the force concerned did not appreciate the wider implications, the High Court judge said that the consequences were not severe and the ACPO lead said that their seriousness was not appreciated until 17 June, and yet the Opposition appear to know differently and apparently, with astonishing clairvoyance, saw the need for action in May. Neither the police, nor the High Court judge saw the need for action, but the Opposition apparently did. This simply is not a credible position for the Opposition to take. I repeat that the Government acted as fast as we could. In particular, once we received formal advice from ACPO that it believed that emergency legislation was necessary, we acted very fast indeed.
I say to the hon. Member for Gedling—this is an important point—that the Opposition could take a different approach. He may remember that, in 2008, when the Supreme Court ruled on witness anonymity and against the common law understanding of the issue, the then Government decided to introduce emergency legislation and we supported them. I know that we did so because I led for the then Opposition. I did not claim that the Government of the day had in any way delayed, yet that emergency legislation was introduced to almost exactly the same timetable as this legislation after the written judgment had been received. We also hope that this legislation will be on the statute books sooner than that one was, so there is no need to strike such a partisan stance on the matter, given the cross-party agreement that it is necessary to do something. I am sorry that, when we need to consider the substance of the issue, the Opposition have continued to make political points, but I hope that deals with the issue of delay.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Government felt there should be a debate about time limits. My point on Second Reading was that, if there are believed to be problems with the operation of police bail, and if the suggestion is that bail is being extended for too long a period or over-used, those who believe that to be the case should assemble their evidence and present a serious case, at which point I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will debate and consider it carefully.
Such points were made, it seems to the Government, at a very late stage and only when the High Court judgment came in, so we do not think it appropriate to amend the emergency legislation. That does not preclude sensible debate about the matter in future, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition did not raise them before that point, either. The House did not appear to be aware of a concern—if, indeed, there is widespread concern, and I do not presume that there is—about the operation of police bail.
The Government certainly do not have a closed mind to the issue, and of course we should pay the closest attention to a proper case, should one be made to us, but we will not arbitrarily and in a rushed manner set limits on the operation of police bail without proper evidence, proper understanding of the problem, proper consultation and proper consideration of the impact of such limits. That is a responsible position to take.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the Government’s response to the Lords Constitution Committee report, which he correctly said we received just this morning, and in particular our response to its conclusion that there is an issue of constitutional principle regarding the separation of powers and the rule of law, because Parliament is introducing emergency legislation when an appeal is pending to the Supreme Court.
The Government do not see that the decision to legislate in advance of an outcome to that appeal raises any constitutional issues. The sovereignty of Parliament means that it is entirely open to Parliament to legislate at any time in response to a court judgment, and that is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of retrospection, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) was also concerned in relation to compensation claims. The hon. Member for Gedling wanted in particular to know whether the retrospective nature of the Bill meant it went back only to the original judgment on 19 May. That is not the case, because the High Court judgment itself applied to all cases going back to 1986. The Court, owing to its different understanding of the Bail Act, stated that any cases prior to 1986 may have involved unlawful detention, so this legislation must go all the way back as well. That is why if hon. Members read clause 1(3) they will see the following wording:
“The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are deemed always to have had effect.”
That is particularly important because we need to create legal certainty. As I said on Second Reading, it is important that we do not permit what might otherwise be the bringing of a rash of legal cases.
Vernon Coaker
The Minister is providing helpful clarity in responding to what the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and I said. Without having the legal support that the Minister does, it was not immediately obvious to me that that was the case, and I was worried about it. His reply will give a sense of relief to all sane people throughout the country.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, although I did it almost all on my own without the legal support that he claims. Nevertheless, that is the effect of the Bill, and that is important because it means that there is no doubt about the matter. Any claim based on what the High Court has said since the May judgment would not succeed because Parliament is stating clearly that the original understanding of the legislation should apply. I am happy to put on record that the Government’s, and I believe Parliament’s, intention is not to allow compensation claims that may have arisen as a consequence of this judgment. It is expressly our desire to prevent such claims, which would be improper and unwarranted in the circumstances.
The hon. Member for Gedling asked me a specific question about the Home Office’s preparedness for legislation—that is, did we prepare on a contingency basis before ACPO came to us with its formal request on the necessity for emergency legislation? ACPO presented its case to me on the morning of Thursday 30 June, and I made my oral statement less than two hours later. The Home Office had already studied the judgment, considered possible legislative vehicles, and prepared instructions to parliamentary counsel that were sent on the same day in time for a first draft of the legislation to be received later that day. We acted explicitly and swiftly. Of course, the drafting was not complicated because this is a straightforward Bill that simply restores the status quo ante.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was merely our aim that the Bill should receive Royal Assent next Tuesday or whether it would receive Royal Assent next Tuesday. Of course, that is a matter for the other place, but it is very much our hope and expectation that we will have Royal Assent on 19 May once the other place has considered the Bill. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I should have said 19 July. There is always a danger in reading things without my glasses. As I have said, the Bill will take effect once Royal Assent is received. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions.
Vernon Coaker
This is a hugely important issue not only for the police but for the confidence of the public in ensuring that we are doing as much as we can, as swiftly as we can, to protect them from the people they need protecting from. Notwithstanding our difference about the delay, it was helpful for the Minister to clarify some of those specific points, and I thank him for that.
Nick Herbert
For the record, may I correct what I said about when the Bill will receive Royal Assent? I should have said 12 July, not 19 July. That was written in larger writing, but I could not see it.
Vernon Coaker
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has got it right this time?
Nick Herbert
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not need to detain the House, because there is broad agreement about the importance of this legislation and the substance of it. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised during the Bill’s passage. There will, of course, be a further opportunity to consider any issues when the other place debates the Bill on Tuesday. I hope that the fact that questions have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House indicates that there has been proper scrutiny of the Bill. It is a short Bill, but important questions were nevertheless raised about it. The Government are grateful for the support of the official Opposition and hon. Members on both sides of the House for this important legislation, which will simply restore 25 years of previously understood legal and police practice, and enable the police to do their job. I commend the Bill to the House.