Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is important on two fronts. We have tabled new clause 2 to provide a six-month review, which would be some time in December this year or in January next year. It would look at how the Act passed by this House and the other place had operated up to that time, as well as at other factors that the Minister may have examined following the European Court of Justice’s consideration and the lapsing of the current legislation.
We will then be into a general election campaign, and my hon. Friend will know that in the event of our being elected to government, we will look at some of the wider issues as a matter of course. I hope that we can accept the Government’s understanding of the emergency and help them to cover that emergency, while also leaving scope for looking at how the Act operates in practice. If other new clauses are agreed to today, we would also then be able to consider the wider issues about which I know right hon. and hon. Members have concerns.
Bluntly, investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and into organised crime, the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria and many issues relating to attempted terrorist activity have depended on and will continue to depend on the type of access that we need through the Bill.
Dr Huppert
Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some clarification? In the event of a Labour Government —it is very hard to predict what will happen—will he assure us that if the review recommends changes to provide more privacy and civil liberties safeguards, he will want to implement them?
Mr Hanson
We are currently discussing the programme motion and the allocation of time, and I am trying to indicate to the House—including the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, Ministers—that we will support the motion, even though we are disappointed that there was not an earlier and more thorough examination of the Bill.
We recognise that, in the interests of fighting terrorism, child abuse and serious organised crime, the Government are seeking powers to meet their current obligations in the light of the judgment in April. On this occasion, the Government will have our support, and we hope that there will be an opportunity later today to consider in detail some of the new clauses that we have tabled.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
The Minister says no, but the Home Secretary brought forward the proposals on 30 January on Report, after they were tabled on 29 January. We had to table a manuscript amendment on Report, which we withdrew because we wanted to take legal advice. That legal advice led to a cross-party Lords amendment, moved by Lord Pannick, to ensure proper consideration of the proposals in Committee.
The Lords amendment is reasonable. It asks for the establishment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on the complications of the removal of citizenship and the issues raised by Members across the House. From discussions I have had with the Minister, I know he is concerned that that would lead to delay, but I hope I can reassure him. Through agreement outside this House, we could, if the Lords amendment was accepted, give a time scale to that consideration to ensure that we have detailed examination and, effectively, pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposal, so that we can take the concerns raised in another place seriously, look at what points are being made even today by Members of this House and come to a consensus on this extremely serious issue—the removal of citizenship from individuals.
I think we can come to an agreement whereby a proposal is considered and completed perhaps, dare I say it, by the summer recess. I do not want to pre-empt the Gracious Speech in a couple of weeks’ time, but it will undoubtedly include a criminal justice Bill. Measures could be introduced at that stage and looked at in detail.
Dr Huppert
The shadow Minister is talking about the process and that is very interesting, but can I press him on the Labour party’s view on the policy principle? Some of us, including some Labour Members, voted against the measure on principle. He says that it may be a positive thing to have this sort of deprivation. His party abstained, with Whips quite forcefully stopping people voting. What is the Labour party’s position on the principle at stake?
Mr Hanson
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that point in a moment. We abstained on 30 January because we wanted to ensure that we gave proper consideration to this matter, and we supported the amendment in another place to ensure that we did consider this matter. My noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon signed the amendment before the House today. We want to support the amendment today and return it to the Lords.
The Labour party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will not do anything that puts the security of the United Kingdom at risk. I want to ensure that we do not remove citizenship without a proper right of appeal. I want to ensure that people know the grounds of that removal of citizenship and that the consequences are considered. I want, with the Minister, to tighten up how the Government intend to exercise that power. How do the Government intend to ensure that what is “reasonable” is deemed to be reasonable? I want to give the Minister the opportunity to explain that. This is a serious matter that needs proper parliamentary scrutiny. We have had a very short time in another place and one day in this House to consider this matter. We need to look at it in much more detail and we need to take evidence. A large number of people outside this place have raised concerns and we need to ensure, and not just in one-and-a-half hours, that the Minister justifies the opportunity and practice over a period of time.
Mr Hanson
My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As I said at the beginning, the vote was 282 to 184 in favour of the proposal. If we reject the proposal today, we are left with no proposal. We are left with a promise of a pilot and a Bill after the Gracious Speech, following the scrutiny rightly given to it by my right hon. Friend.
Dr Huppert
A few of us are slightly confused about the procedure, and the right hon. Gentleman has been here longer than I have, so perhaps he could help us. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, the Lords would not discuss this again; whereas, if we rejected it, the Lords would have the chance to discuss it. Regardless of merit, is that not the right way round?
Mr Hanson
That is the right way round. The Lords expressed a clear view on the matter. The Lords will be able to examine the Government’s proposal when the Modern Slavery Bill comes forward. But we have a clear template today, and I want to see that enacted. If the Government accept this today, the proposal is a clear template. We have a number of proposals from Baroness Butler-Sloss, and I have gone through them today.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I have to say to my hon. Friend, with the greatest of reverence for his long service in Parliament, that the Minister for Immigration and I spent far too long in Committee on this matter through most of October and November, and we are doing so again today. There has been discussion and division on some of the measures in the Bill.
New clause 18 was published yesterday morning. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association sent a brief at 4 am today. That was the first opportunity it had to put down its views on this matter:
“The amendment on the order paper on 29 January 2014 and on that date we first had sight of the Government’s European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum pertaining to the clause. We do not attempt to address herein the complex questions of the present day effects of the UK’s declaration”,
and in the light of that it will have to look at the matter when it comes to another place. The ILPA may or may not have valid points, but we are 24 hours from passing a serious piece of legislation. We had a long period in Committee. The issues relating to the al-Jedda judgment of summer to autumn 2013, which the Home Secretary mentioned, have led to her introducing these measures. We will have to look at them in detail. This is not a good way to place such an important issue, which has the potential to impact on people’s liberty and citizenship.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman is right that we discussed some of this at great length in Committee. I share his view that there should be more pre-legislative scrutiny. This Government have done more than previous Governments, but there is much more to do. I also share his concern about amendments and new clauses being tabled only two days ahead of time. Does that mean that he and his party will ensure that Opposition day motions are never tabled just a day before debates? That would make it easier for all of us to read them.
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman politicises a point I am trying to make about process. He knows how Opposition motions are drawn up and he knows that they do not have the same impact as legislation. The proposed legislation will have the effect of depriving citizenship. If an Opposition motion is voted on and defeated one thing will happen: there will be political noise about an issue. This is about the deprivation of someone’s citizenship. We may, ultimately, make the judgment to support the Government, but this is an important point about process that I think we need to make.
Mr Hanson
I will do so, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have served on Committees and whom I greatly respect, that I have had just over half an hour. The Home Secretary, for a range of reasons, talked for one and a half hours. I am trying responsibly to set out the view of the official Opposition so that Members can form a judgment.
Dr Huppert
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Before he finishes, will he comment on my amendment 74 about writing into law the end of child detention? Does he share my pleasure that this will now happen and that it will stop any future Government doing what the last Government did and detaining over 7,000 children within five years, including for 190 days? Is he pleased about that change?
Mr Hanson
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s judgment on most issues, but that could be looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) attended discussions yesterday on this matter and we will look at those matters in detail.
We are not the Government today; we are the official Opposition, on behalf of whom I say that we have severe concerns about new clause 15 and about the process and potential implications of new clause 18, but we will reserve judgment on that. The issue of the removal of tribunals is one that we need to address and to delete from the Bill. We need to look at some of the other issues before we give the Home Secretary unqualified support.
After many weeks of discussion, we have an Immigration Bill on which the Government appear to me, as a simple Front Bencher, to be in chaos on some of the key issues on which they will be judged. We must judge the Home Secretary on what she says, but there are real issues that need to be resolved. I would welcome hearing from the hon. Member for Esher and Walton why he believes that his proposal will not breach the ECHR on these matters. With that, I conclude to ensure that hon. Members have an opportunity to contribute.
Proposed Europol Regulation
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to opt into Europol. I will explain our amendment in a moment. This is a take-note motion, and I want to put on record the Labour party’s view on these matters.
Europol has also dealt with investigations into credit card fraud, making 44 arrests this year in its investigation into a massive credit card fraud network, much of which was located in the United Kingdom. In answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), yes, Europol is a good thing, and we wish to remain in it, but we also wish to discuss with the Association of Chief Police Officers the question of how we can remain in it in a way that is effective for the coalition Government and for the United Kingdom.
Dr Huppert
That is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman, although I find it odd that, if he is so keen on opting in, he want to remove the bit of the motion that says we should opt in. My point, however, is why consult only with ACPO? He will be aware that ACPO is a private company limited by guarantee, so why not mention bodies such as the College of Policing, the Chief Constables’ Council or any other such bodies? What is the obsession with only the one entity, which is just a private company?
Mr Hanson
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a case. ACPO does cover Scotland. There is ACPO Scotland and Northern Ireland ACPO—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would calm down for a moment and allow me to continue rather than chirruping from the Front Bench, he will understand why I am raising the issue of ACPO. It has made severe criticisms of the Government’s approach, which I will reflect on in a moment.
Europol’s director, Rob Wainwright, recently told the European Committee in another place:
“It is undeniable that the demands of fighting international crime and terrorism require an ever-increasing level of co-operation between the member states.”
In my view and in his, and—I am pleased to say—that of the Government and the Liberal Democrats, Europol is a welcome institution. Today, however, we are considering the four or so areas where there are extensions to Europol’s activity in the new documents, which include extensions
“to strengthen and clarify the obligation for Member States to supply data to Europol in order for it to analyse…the information;”
to establish Europol links with data already in possession of member states to consider how we can process that in an effective way;
“to merge Europol and the European Police College…into a single EU agency, located”
not in the United Kingdom as is currently the case in Bramshill in Hampshire, but in The Hague; and an increase in
“parliamentary scrutiny of Europol by the EU Parliament and national Parliaments.”
The House of Lords Committee said that it wished to retain an opt-in to the proposals for European regulation. To assuage the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Cheltenham, that is the Labour party’s position on this take-note motion. In my view, however, the question under debate focuses on the words “post-adoption”. The Government’s proposal in the take-note motion states that the House
“agrees with the Government that the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption,”.
We are saying that the Government should consult ACPO, although I accept that that potentially involves a wider consultation about why and how the post-adoption issue should be approached.
I have in my possession a letter to the Minister from Allan Gibson, Queen’s Police Medal, who is the ACPO lead on extradition and mutual legal assistance. In it, he mentions a number of the reasons why this motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was tabled to tease out from the Minister his position on a number of key issues.
The letter was sent to the Minister last week and states first and foremost:
“ACPO regards the UK’s continuing membership of Europol as highly beneficial to the national interest.”
I agree, the Minister agrees, and Liberal Democrat Members agree with that.
The letter goes on:
“ACPO supports the sharing of crime related intelligence and information between Member States facilitated through Europol…this facility has been a vital part of the development of more effective law enforcement cooperation across Europe and has made it possible to bring more offenders to justice and prevent crime.”
Again, I agree with that; I am not sure whether the Minister does, but I suspect that the Liberal Democrats do.
The letter continues:
“information exchange must be undertaken with appropriate levels of security and UK law enforcement would be keen to ensure that we had the necessary safeguards in place to protect highly sensitive intelligence and operations.”
I agree with that, which is why the Minister needs to consult in detail with ACPO on these matters to consider how we can do this without—dare I say this to Liberal Democrat Members—necessarily doing it post-adoption. In my view, they are being sold a fudge. They are being told that they can sign up to Europol, but they do so post-adoption.
I shall argue that post-adoption is an area of key concern, and one that we need to flesh out, consider in detail and come to a conclusion on. ACPO continued:
“Our view is that Europol membership is far too important to the UK to put at risk and adopting ‘a wait and see post-adoption opt in if we like it’ policy would not be the right approach.”
That is the view of ACPO, whose role is to look after, defend and develop crime-fighting potential in the UK. It continued:
“Such an approach would forfeit our opportunity to be seated around the table to influence our partners directly for one of signposting the basis on which we would rejoin, i.e. if our conditions are met.”
That is a very severe criticism, and it sets out why we need to maintain Europol membership. These are real concerns being placed on the record: in a letter to the Minister, ACPO said that it does not agree with his approach of a post-adoption opt-in. An explanation is needed, and we have tabled our amendment to explore these important issues of national security and data sharing to the satisfaction of the House, ACPO and others. We do not want to give up our seat at the table, as the proposed take-note motion proposes, in order to achieve our ends.
I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for Europol. Their policy briefing document states:
“We must not expose Britain to attack from criminal gangs. Liberal Democrats will keep Britain at the heart of international crime-fighting measures such as…the European Police Office (Europol) that the Conservatives want us to pull out of.”
[Interruption.] Sorry, I missed that comment from the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis).
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
There seems to be a wonderful outbreak of agreement about the value of Europol. I am not sure that all the Members who contributed to the last debate would subscribe entirely to that agreement, but certainly those of us who are here now do so, and that pleases me very much. However, wonderful as it is, Europol could be updated and reformed. I am glad that the Commission is proceeding with that task, and that we will see a new, improved Europol in 2015. I fear that the United Kingdom will be sidelined if we do not opt into the Europol regulation.
As I said earlier, almost half the 600 investigations that Europol is currently pursuing have links to the UK, and that is a huge factor for British policing. I will not list all Europol’s other wonderful merits, but I will make a connection with the last debate. I think it will have been an enormous waste of time, money and other resources if we decide to opt out of everything, then opt back into Europol in the negotiations leading up to 2014, and then get kicked out again in 2015. That strikes me as a very bizarre way of doing things.
Two key issues, which the Minister outlined very clearly, are data sharing and the proposal that would enable Europol to force the UK to initiate investigations. I do not think that those issues are as huge as some have made them out to be, but they have prompted concern, and it is right for us to deal with that. Data sharing is extremely important, but the changes that are being made are alarming. I think that many of the other member states would agree with us, and I suspect that neither of those proposals will be in the final version. Other countries will not want to share data when doing so could be too damaging. A certain amount of operational independence is necessary, and Britain should not break that principle.
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Like him—and, I believe, the other Liberal Democrats—I should prefer simply to remain at the table in order to be in on the negotiations at the outset. I think that if we had a full voting seat and could shape the future of Europol, we would win on the two points that I have mentioned and, I suspect, many others. However, that is not an option, so I am very pleased that the motion commits the Government to opting into the regulation post-adoption as long as the provisions relating to data sharing and the initiation of investigations remain. That strikes me as a reasonable approach which will ensure that we have the benefits of Europol and can continue to play a leading role in it, and I hope that our membership continues under the existing framework in the meantime.
I suspect that the amendment was intended to probe, and to that extent I understand what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) was trying to achieve, but if he decides to press it to a vote, I shall strongly disagree with his decision. I hope that this is merely a probing amendment, for a number of reasons. First, the amendment deletes the part of the motion that
“agrees with the Government that the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption”.
I suspect that whoever drafted it—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have made such an error himself—meant to remove the words after “post-adoption”. As it is, however, I should much prefer the House to agree that we will opt in as long as the conditions are met.
Dr Huppert
It still worries me that the amendment removes that clear commitment.
I am also concerned about the role of the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but specifically does not cover Scotland, which has a separate body, ACPO Scotland or ACPOS. The ACPO logo lists the three nations that it covers, but ACPOS is a different body. There are many other police-related bodies, including the College of Policing and Policing Matters.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s intentions, and I suspect that we agree about what we are trying to achieve. His amendment serves very well as a probing amendment, but, as I have said, if he presses it to a vote I will not support it.
Europol deals with about 13,000 investigations a year, and it is a huge help to us. I am very pleased that we will seek to remain in the new, improved version.
Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The model in Northern Ireland could certainly be considered, as it has much merit.
I think that the Minister needs to reflect on the matter, because as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, he will face some challenges in Committee on those issues. The RSPCA, the CWU, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee have all raised concerns and suggested that we need to look at some further matters, so I think that the Minister needs to come to Committee prepared to deal with those concerns. I say that not least because of the cases we have heard about today. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned John Paul Massey and the recent case of Clifford Clarke. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) mentioned the death of Jade Lomas Anderson. Last week I had the privilege of meeting her determined parents with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who over many months and years has given much time to this issue, raised dog control notices. When the RSPCA says that
“This is a missed opportunity and we cannot understand why the Government has ignored the majority of the public, politicians and organisations”,
we clearly have an issue to which we should return. Not one voice from the Government or Opposition Back Benches opposed those views during this debate. In February, the EFRA Committee said that the proposals were “woefully inadequate”. I am sorry that the Government produced this Bill prior to receiving the Committee’s comments.
During our discussions today, a powerful case has been made for considering measures on dangerous dogs. The Bill is far too weak on this immensely serious issue. For example, local authorities would be allowed to prevent dogs from entering a playground but could not ban them from streets and shopping areas. There are anomalies that we need to test and look at in detail. Dog control notices could ensure muzzling of dogs in places which the public access, the neutering of dogs, and the owner and dog having to attend and complete training courses. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home says:
“We are looking for the Government to introduce Dog Control Notices which will do more to provide for early intervention and prevention.”
I hope that the Government will listen to the voices across the Chamber that have asked for that.
The other big issue is antisocial behaviour orders. Opposition Members expressed the concern—I admit that it was potentially more partisan—that the lack of criminal sanction is an error that weakens the Government’s proposals and means that antisocial behaviour will not be tackled as effectively in future. We will test that in Committee and table amendments accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South and other hon. Friends stressed that that lack of criminal sanction is key to the effectiveness or otherwise of antisocial behaviour orders. The community trigger may not be effective in this context. Three complainants are needed before a complaint will even begin to be taken seriously, and that needs further review. Coupled with that, we have cuts in the community safety budget, cuts in police numbers and, even after a heckle by the hon. Member for Cambridge, a lack of commitment to CCTV cameras to provide really good support to policing in our communities.. That shows that there is the potential for a weakening of powers.
Sadly, I will end on a partisan note. The weakening of the provisions on DNA, the reduction in CCTV, the reduction in police numbers and the cuts in the community safety budget show that this Government are not tackling crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour in a way that will increase confidence within our communities.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman listed a number of things that the Labour Government introduced that some would see as rather authoritarian. Is he really bemoaning the fact that this Government do not, for example, intend that the DNA of innocent people should be kept?
Mr Hanson
From memory, about 25,000 such people—according to Home Office modelling, not mine—could go on to commit further offences. We had a very full debate on this issue and we lost the arguments. Ultimately, I believe that the measures that Labour put in place in government on DNA, CCTV, antisocial behaviour orders, community investment and policing helped to reduce crime and will continue to help to reduce it still further.
This is not a bad Bill and we will not oppose it this evening, but it is a weak Bill: it weakens the potential for communities to receive strong support to tackle antisocial behaviour and it does not do what it could have done on dogs. We welcome and support some of its measures, but we will test them in Committee. We will ensure that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight so that we can address those issues. I hope that the Minister will listen not just to the Opposition, but to Members on his side of the House.
Police
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(11 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that all those who murder police officers are brought to justice. If there is evidence to enable that to happen, it should be presented.
As I was saying, there is a clear difference between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition on the proposals before us. The settlement continues on the path that Labour has opposed since 2010, and I shall give the Minister a little hint by saying that we shall do so again today. The proposals will result in a loss of about £2 billion from policing budgets in England and Wales over three years. The Conservatives—and, by association, the Liberal Democrats—are cutting police funding by 20% over that three-year period and 15,000 police officers are being lost by 2015; 7,000 have already been lost in the first two years of this Government. That is a higher number than the experts predicted, and a higher number than Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said would be safe. This is damaging morale in the police service.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman has consistently opposed the Government’s proposals. Will he make it clear what he would suggest instead? What does he think is the right amount of money, and where would he get it from?
Mr Hanson
I will come to that in a moment. In 2010, in the debate on the policing grant, I was the policing Minister, and I stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister has just been standing to propose a 12% reduction in police funding over three years. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time, but the former Liberal Democrat Member for Chesterfield criticised that budget proposal and reminded us that the Liberal Democrats, including the then Member for Cambridge, were going to go into the election promising 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene on me again to tell me how 123 such officers have been lost in Cambridge? Is that related to the 3,000 extra officers or not?
Dr Huppert
I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, and I hope that he will answer mine. I am sure that he will be delighted to know that further recruitment of police constables has been announced, and that there will be an increase in the number of police constables performing local policing in Cambridgeshire. I am sure that he welcomes that. He will also know from our manifesto that part of the money to pay for extra police was going to come from savings from the ID card scheme. However, we had not realised quite how much of that money had already been wasted by the Labour Government before the election.
Mr Hanson
I presume that the Liberal Democrats had also not quite realised how much money was going to be spent on tuition fees or on a range of other things. Let me put it this way: that represents one Liberal Democrat broken promise among many others.
According to House of Commons Library figures, 30,000 fewer crimes were solved this year, including 7,000 crimes of violence against the person. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) cannot have heard what I said. He is heckling from the Front Bench, and asking how much a Labour Government would spend. The Labour Government committed to a 12% reduction in police funding. The current Government, whom the Liberal Democrat Minister supports, are proposing a third year of a 20% reduction in spending on policing. The Minister and the Whip—the hon. Member for Cheadle—stood for election in their constituencies, as did other Liberal Democrats, on a pledge to put 3,000 more police officers on the beat. Will the Minister now intervene to tell me at what point during the election campaign in Taunton Deane he told people that he would preside over a cut in numbers of 345 in his own constituency’s police force?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman must be—as well as many other things—not listening to what I am saying. This is the third year of a three-year budget proposal. We proposed 12% cuts; he is proposing 20% cuts. Next year and the year after, we will have a further debate—when a Labour Government are returned in two years’ time, we will have a further debate—but at the moment we are talking about a figure for the third year. I have given him a figure—a 12% reduction versus the 20% reduction. He needs to listen and to recognise that.
Dr Huppert
Rather than returning to that aspect of the discussion, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how long he thinks the delay might be before we see crime going up—his premise is that there might be a delay—and for how many years crime will have to continue going down before he accepts that it is still going down, despite what has happened since 2010?
Mr Hanson
Historically, crime levels have fallen over many years. That has been continuous since 1995, throughout my time in the House of Commons. The key question for the hon. Gentleman is how we develop that in future. Policing is, in part, about catching criminals and solving crime, but it is also about community reassurance and many other areas—dealing with floods, policing football matches, crowd control and policing demonstrations. None of those is about policing crime. Part of the reason crime is falling is that the Labour Government did good work in bringing together probation, prisons and policing to look at reducing the number of serious offenders. The number of first-time offenders going into the system fell under Labour, as did the number of offences per person. There is a range of issues; I just worry about potential difficulties arising downstream.
Again, however, the hon. Gentleman does not need to listen to me. Earlier the Minister mentioned the new head of the College of Policing, so let me give him a quotation from the head of the College of Policing, from a BBC News story on 25 January, under the headline “Outgoing Hampshire Chief Constable Alex Marshall warns on cuts”:
“Hampshire’s outgoing chief constable has warned further cuts to budgets could seriously impact police services. Alex Marshall oversaw a reduction of more than 800 posts”
in his force,
“but said more major cuts would be ‘very difficult’.”
The Minister’s Government have just appointed that person to the College of Policing, so it is not just me and Conservative and Labour police and crime commissioners who are raising those concerns: it is professional police officers as well.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me what Chief Constable Chris Sims has said. I have mentioned the former chief constable of Hampshire; let me turn to the chief constable of Kent, who has said:
“The cuts, if they are 20%, will take us back to 2001…that’s…a significant drawback into police numbers. Clearly there is a potential impact that crime will rise.”
Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, said that 2012-13 was
“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.
The chief constable of Lancashire has said:
“Let me be…clear. With the scale of the cuts…we are experiencing…we cannot leave the front line untouched.”
The chief constable of Dyfed Powys, Ian Arundale, said last year that we are approaching a cliff edge on policing. These are serious people. [Interruption.] The Minister again shouts, “Where’s the money coming from?” I have explained to him, very clearly, the difference between 12% and 20% cuts in policing. This Minister is supporting a 20% cut in policing, having gone into the election arguing for 3,000 more police officers. This Minister is taking 15,000 police officers off the streets of Britain, when he promised at the election to put 3,000 more police officers on to the streets of Britain. I will let the British people judge on that in due course and we will argue about those issues in due course. [Interruption.]
If the Minister wants to have a discussion about Eastleigh, I can tell him that John O’Farrell, the Labour candidate, will certainly be able to campaign strongly, given the 295 police officers lost because of the votes of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members today. I look forward to the Labour campaign in Eastleigh focusing on crime and punishment. I also look forward to reminding the people of Eastleigh that the Liberal Democrats proposed 3,000 more police officers, along with no rise in tuition fees and various other issues that they have broken their promises on. [Interruption.] The Minister appears to have been injected with something over the last couple of hours, because he is really quite frisky. He seemed to be hyper throughout his contribution; now that he has sat down, he still seems to be hyper. I do not know who will win the by-election in Eastleigh; the people of Eastleigh will choose their next Member of Parliament. The key question they need to ask is: who is going to stand up against the coalition Government? I suspect that neither a Liberal Democrat nor a Conservative MP will do that. Let the people of Eastleigh make that judgment.
Mr Hanson
I think the hon. Gentleman has had his fair share. I always like to give way to Members, but if he will allow me, I will try to finish and allow other Members to have their say.
There is much we can talk about, but one thing is clear. This settlement will damage policing yet further. It will damage the ability of police officers across the country to serve their communities. It is the wrong settlement—it is the third year of a very damaging settlement. I want to stand up for policing and for our communities and to fight and reduce crime. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this tawdry settlement from the Government.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter. He has been consistent in his support for the Opposition’s proposals and has joined us in Divisions. Deep down, he understands that the Conservative party’s legacy as the party of law and order is seriously being put at risk by measures that are soft on individuals who have the potential to commit rape, murder or other serious crimes, who could be prevented from committing those crimes if their DNA were on a database for a longer period. I believe that that presents a real risk not just to public, but to the reputation of the Conservative party.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I want to be clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about this Lords amendment. Does he accept that the amendment would mean that somebody accused and arrested only once for a malicious sexual offence would have their DNA kept for ever—in clear contravention of the European Court’s ruling? Is he admitting that his amendment is deeply flawed and that he is using it merely as a debating point rather than planning to insist on a vote—in other words, that he does not believe in his own amendment?
Mr Hanson
The hon. Gentleman will know that through Lords amendments, we are seeking to find a mechanism to debate serious issues such as rape and other serious crimes. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 includes rape and a range of associated issues, which we want to debate. The amendment might not have been tabled perfectly; it was done at the last minute in order to find a way to discuss the key issues. We wanted the Government to hear again, before the Bill receives its Royal Assent, arguments from people such as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and some of my hon. Friends who have real and genuine concerns. We do not want the Government to proceed with allowing the DNA of some individuals to be destroyed earlier than it needs to be, as this will potentially put at risk individuals in the community at large.
Dr Huppert
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments are carefully drafted and that he intends what they state. Does he agree that the consequence of that change would be as follows: if no parent has consented but neither has actively objected, that would count as consent—in other words, consent would be assumed even if neither parent had ever said they were happy for that to happen?
Mr Hanson
Yes; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) has dealt with this matter in Committee and throughout the Bill’s passage, and that is the position of the official Opposition.
We note the amendments proposed in the other place by the Government, and there has been some recognition that the original clauses as drafted were far too onerous, as they needed both parents to give written consent for biometric data to be taken from the child. The amendments also correct an omission, by recognising that not all children have parents, and that those with caring responsibilities needed to be included in this provision for it to be able to work effectively. However, we also note that one parent can still overrule the consent of the other in agreeing for the child to give biometric data, which, again, can cause confusion for schools. We think that, overall, this policy is still unwieldy and unmanageable for most schools.
Furthermore, we do not believe that allowing a child to override their parents’ wish to allow biometric data to be taken is sensible or correct. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that would be the case under the proposals as they currently stand. There does not appear to be any other circumstance in which a child of, for example, five years of age can overrule parental consent. Also, we note that if the parents have refused to give consent, the child is not in a position to override the parents’ wishes if the child chooses to give consent. We think that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 9 would be a further sensible step, by allowing schools to operate this policy in a more manageable way by presuming an acceptance of biometric data being taken if no contact is made by the parents or carers once they have been notified.
I welcome Lords amendment 27. It gives a more prominent role to Parliament. As I have argued previously, it would be appropriate for the Government to lay an order before the House in order to ensure that these matters are dealt with during recesses or general election campaigns. It is important that the Government lay an order before the House, but it is also important that the Government make a statement as to the purposes of the order. I seek assurances from the Minister that he will not lay any order before the House without making a statement to the House explaining the reasons for seeking an order in those exceptional circumstances.
I have concerns about Lords amendment 28. It will allow the Government to withdraw temporary extensions to anti-terror measures without any parliamentary procedure at all. The effect will be to demand that the Government must seek parliamentary approval when strengthening anti-terror measures, but that they can weaken anti-terror measures without consulting Parliament. I heard the Minister’s explanation of that. Temporary extension will be brought in only during times of exceptional risk and the individuals held under these measures will be considered a serious threat to national security. Therefore, if Parliament has had to decide that these measures are necessary in the first instance, Parliament should also get to decide that these powers are no longer necessary. There is no more important issue than protecting the public, but we must have an explanation and an order placed before the House when these powers are revoked.
I accept that our amendment is flawed and does not achieve the objective I would wish, but there are major issues in respect of the retention of DNA which the Minister should, even at this late stage, reconsider and re-examine in detail. I hope he will also answer the questions I asked about counter-terrorism and biometrics in school.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
Indeed. I strongly appreciate my hon. Friend’s support in dealing with the proposals before the House.
I will move on to the meat of the issue, because that is important for the House. Part 2 of the Bill proposes the introduction of a surveillance code covering the operation of CCTV by public authorities in England and Wales, and the creation of a commissioner to promote compliance with the code. The code will operate as a mechanism of self-regulation and will be set by the Secretary of State. Our new clause and amendments would do several things which we want to explore with the Minister to get a feel for the approach he is taking. These matters were considered heavily in Committee. Perhaps fortunately, on some levels, I was not there, so we may need to revisit some of them today. It is important that we examine the concerns about CCTV; the amendments are designed to get a flavour at least of the Government’s thinking and to place on record the Opposition’s views.
Labour Members want to ensure that the role of CCTV is strengthened and its importance is recognised. We want to ensure that the code operates in an effective way and does not hamper the development of CCTV. We want to have a presumption in favour of the police being able to set up CCTV in our communities to tackle crime through prevention and through bringing perpetrators to justice. The purpose of new clause 16 is to put in place a review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to ensure that we examine, quantify and agree on the definitive benefits of CCTV so that we know exactly the baseline.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and welcome him to his post. Shortly before the last general election, I heard a police officer from my region say on TV that his vision was to have CCTV cameras on one in three houses. He said that that would really give us a good eye on what was happening. Is that the sort of vision that the right hon. Gentleman has?
Mr Hanson
I have a vision of CCTV playing a role in stopping crime and catching criminals. Communities in constituencies such as Ashfield and mine in north Wales should have confidence that if a crime is committed, people can be caught using CCTV. It might also have a deterrent effect. We should have a proportionate response with CCTV in appropriate places where police, local authorities and, as we have discussed and will discuss, the private sector feel there is a need to provide such reassurance and support.
Dr Huppert
I apologise if I was not quite clear. Would the right hon. Gentleman be comfortable with seeing CCTV cameras on one in three houses?
Dr Huppert
CCTV clearly has a role, which is why the Bill does not make having it illegal and merely tries to regulate it. CCTV is very useful in some cases. To answer the question that the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of having CCTV cameras on one in three houses. I think that that would be a horrible, Big Brother state and it slightly alarms me that he is keen on it.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he should not put words in other Members’ mouths. What I have said is that CCTV should play a role. I do not expect ever to see one in three houses in my street or in his street with CCTV cameras, but there is no strategic need for us to put obstacles in the way of CCTV being put in place if there is a need for it.
Mr Hanson
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks common sense. Perhaps part of the guidance to be issued in due course could be about such consultation. I have not yet, in nearly 20 years as a Member of this House, had anybody come to me to say, “Mr Hanson, please do not put a CCTV camera in our street.”
Mr Hanson
It may happen in Cambridge, but it does not happen in my constituency in north Wales. In fact, most people in my constituency argue for more CCTV cameras, not fewer. I have digressed, but I repeat that new clause 16 asks for HMIC to make a case for the crime fighting capability of CCTV.
The second objective of our amendments is to strip away some of the bureaucracy that we believe could act as an obstacle to the police doing their job of tackling crime and making communities safer. I would welcome the Minister giving his view on why there has been no mention yet of the private sector’s role in relation to the further regulation of CCTV.
I hope it will help the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) if I say that only a few hours ago I looked through news from the past week or so about the impact of CCTV in our communities. I pulled off the internet four examples from just the past week of real instances in which CCTV has made a difference. I worry that the code of practice that the Minister is bringing in might well have an impact on the ability of the police or local authorities to provide the necessary level of CCTV coverage.
I looked first at the Daily Mail, which, as my hon. Friends will know, is an august publication that is required reading for Opposition spokesmen on every occasion. It had a headline that read, “Masked bank robber caught on CCTV holding a sawn-off shotgun to bank customer’s head”. There was a private CCTV camera in the bank, on which the individual was caught, but helpfully for him he had placed on his head a balaclava that covered his face, so he was not recognised. However, the gentleman concerned, a Mr Trevor Hayes, was recognised pulling his balaclava off his head as he walked away from the bank, in Watlington, Oxfordshire, having been caught on a local authority CCTV camera. I should like to discuss the case with the Minister; Mr Hayes is now serving 15 years for the bank robbery, which was caused by his actions but solved by CCTV capturing him on camera. My question to the Minister is whether his code of practice will ultimately lead to less use of CCTV by local authorities.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman has given a long list of criteria—he has said that CCTV should be proportionate and respect privacy and so forth—but with which of those criteria does he disagree?
Mr Hanson
The Opposition’s new clause 16 simply says that we want Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake separately an assessment of the importance of CCTV as part of the crime-fighting capability of the police. That mechanism would say, “We recognise the importance of CCTV.” I want a clear statement from the Minister and the Government that CCTV is important and that their proposals will not add to the bureaucracy, time and difficulty of putting CCTV cameras in place.
Let us go back to basics. The Government say that they want to roll back “state intrusion”, but I do not believe that capturing a criminal who has just carried out a bank robbery is state intrusion. However, according to the logic of the hon. Member for Cambridge, CCTV cameras are not necessarily a positive thing in those circumstances. His logic is that “state intrusion” and CCTV cameras, used in a wide range of circumstances and covering different streets, might not be a positive thing.
Dr Huppert
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the correction.
That is one camera for every 14 people in this country. Let us compare that with other countries that also have interests in law enforcement. Chicago, with a population of 3 million, has something like 10,000 cameras. That is a 20th of what we have. Do we know something that they do not? Across the United States, they use fewer cameras.
The truth about CCTV is that it is not an all-or-none issue. It has its uses and its abuses, which is why we need this code of practice. It has its costs for running and monitoring the systems and it has privacy implications, which is why I absolutely support the Government’s proposals. I hope that the right hon. Member for Delyn will withdraw the new clause.
Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
It might be tempting to vote against all these things. I would love to see a reform of our entire process, so that time is not taken up on things that the public simply do not understand. However, I will not vote against the programme motion. I have seen what happens in the other place when there are no programme motions, which is filibusters. I do not think that many right hon. or hon. Members in this Chamber could claim that they have not been aware of any filibusters in this House or any efforts to waste time simply to put things off—not necessarily on this occasion, but on a number of others. I would like to see better self-government by this House and the other place, and then we could move away from programme motions.
Mr Hanson
If the hon. Gentleman voted against the programme motion along with my hon. Friends and it was defeated, the Government could, if they wished to, call an Adjournment, negotiate and then draft a new programme motion that covered some of the points raised by Government Members and us. Nothing is finalised; such a programme motion could still be put in place.
Dr Huppert
I have not gone through the right hon. Gentleman’s previous speeches on such issues to see what he has said before, but such an Adjournment would take time and would be likely to result in even less time for the debate. We need to move on, and I personally would like to move on in my speech.
I very much welcome what the Minister said about the review. It is important and I look forward to it being introduced into the Bill. However, let me talk about one issue that I have with the programme motion, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments. New clause 11, which stands in my name, would repeal provisions in the Digital Economy Act 2010 that the Government have already accepted do not work and which they have accepted they will not use. It would be helpful to debate that, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether there will be any opportunity for that to happen. Debating that issue would be helpful, partly because I and others are passionate about supporting the creative industries, and creators have problems with piracy. The 2010 Act’s approach to web blocking simply does not work. I would like a debate in this House on the alternatives. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would comment on the Government’s intentions with regard to those provisions in the 2010 Act now, if he will be unable to do so later.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Huppert
I am delighted to move amendment 2, and to speak to amendments 3, 5 and 11, which are also in my name. They reflect recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Members might wish to see its more detailed report if they have not done so already. The amendments are all about ensuring proportionality and a fair hearing.
We should clearly be able to restrict funds that help terrorists in their activities, but people who are accused of such activities should not automatically lose their regular status in this country. We have a great principle in this country whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty; it is a great British tradition and one that we should support. We should also accept, however, that errors are made in legal processes, by the court and by Governments, and that is why we should have principles of fair hearing and high thresholds before we take state action.
Amendment 2 is about errors and the thresholds that we require. How can we be sure that the courts or the Treasury are making the right decision? How much error is acceptable? Various thresholds are already used for various decisions. We have the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, which roughly equates to our saying that we do not accept even a 1% error—to the extent that we can attach numbers to it. Then, we have the civil standard, or the balance of probabilities, whereby we want to be sure that we are probably right. We want at least a 50:50 chance—in other words, with the balance of probabilities, we say that we want to be wrong less than half the time; we want to be probably sure that we are right.
If we go any lower with a threshold, we take steps—we punish people—when we say that we believe that they were probably not involved in the given situation. That is the consequence of a threshold below the balance of probabilities. None of us wants that, and none of us wants to take steps against people when we think that they were probably not involved in the first place.
I accept the principle of a lower threshold for interim designations. It is more akin to arrest, which takes place at a much lower threshold, but that is not the same as the permanent designation. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their proposal. They should consider taking such steps against people only when the Treasury believes that they were probably involved, rather than on the basis of anything lower.
Amendment 3 is a simple requirement. A fair hearing must mean knowing the accusations—the reasons why the Treasury believes that somebody has been involved in funding terrorist activities. The amendment includes an important safeguard for public interest in non-disclosure, so damaging information would not come out, only that which we could afford to release. Again, I should have thought that we all agree with such a position.
During the Bill’s passage, the Government have said that, effectively, the amendment’s intention will be achieved but they do not want to see it in legislation. I am always concerned, however, about the principle that we should not write things into legislation but trust in the benevolence of Governments—this or any future Government. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he clearly commit to disclose such reasons subject to the public interest requirement, as the amendment says—even if that takes place in a non-legislative way?
Amendments 5 and 11 deal with the hearing itself. Section 67(3)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 puts a heavy weight on the principle of non-disclosure. Although that is an important principle, we must counter it with the principle of a fair hearing. Currently, the balance goes far too far in the direction of non-disclosure.
In the case of AF, it was held that similar rules are not appropriate to control orders, so I find it hard to see why the courts will not in time hold the same principle on terrorist asset freezing. There are more details on that reasoning in the Joint Committee’s report. The courts have yet to take such a decision, but surely as a principle it would be better not to go through costly legal action, but to save time by making the changes now.
There is a review of the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings, and I welcome the fact that there will be a consistent approach. If the Minister will not agree to including such safeguards in the Bill, will he commit to the Bill being updated when the review is complete in order to reflect that consistent approach and to introduce a better system throughout those areas? I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s comments on all those suggestions, and I hope he takes on board what has been said.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for introducing the amendments, which represent important issues that the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered. However, the Opposition believe that the test of reasonable belief is appropriate to the circumstances covered by the Bill. Indeed, I said so in Committee.
The tests for the asset-freezing regime are strict. In clause 2(1)(a)(i) to (iii), the Treasury has to consider real issues about the involvement of individuals in terrorist activity before such powers can be invoked. Those considerations are:
“(i) that the person is or has been involved in terrorist activity,
(ii) that the person is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by a person within sub-paragraph (i), or
(iii) that the person is acting on behalf of or at the direction of a person within sub-paragraph (i)”.
If we changed from reasonable belief to a situation in which the Treasury had to satisfy the balance of probabilities, as the amendment proposes, we would water down the ability of the Treasury and, therefore, the Government to take early action on the use of resources to finance terrorist activity in relation to the items detailed in clause 2. The asset-freezing regime must be preventive to be effective. One must be able to use it at an early stage to disrupt and prevent terrorist acts, and a threshold of a balance of probabilities would not enable the Government to act when action is needed.
The balance of probabilities test is applied by the courts in the context of civil proceedings and requires one party to demonstrate to the court that it is more likely than not that a particular fact is true. If that test were applied to asset freezing, it would require the Treasury and, indeed, the Minister to be satisfied and able to demonstrate to a court that a person is more likely than not to be, or to have been, involved in terrorism. That is too high a burden at the moment, because the burden of proof would rest with the Treasury.
If the Treasury brings forward proposals under this legislation in due course, I rest assured that it will have had solid grounds, from the intelligence and information provided to it, for doing so. If the picture were unclear, and an equally plausible argument could be made for an individual not being involved in terrorism, the Treasury would not be able to impose an asset freeze. That might put the constituents of Cambridge and, in my case, north Wales, or any constituent in the country, at risk of terrorist attack.
Dr Huppert
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows of the existing power for an interim designation. It has a much lower threshold, so in emergency cases, such as those that he mentions, there would be no problem and we would be safe. I am delighted that he cares about the people of Cambridge so much, but the amendments are about longer-term designations.
Mr Hanson
Indeed, but I speak as somebody who in the previous Parliament was the Minister responsible for terrorist issues and policing. Those are serious matters, and the Government need to take action on them. There is always a balance to be struck between the civil liberties of individuals and the civil liberty of ordinary people to live their lives in peace without the threat of terrorist activity. On balance, my judgement is that we need to support the Government’s proposals in the Bill, which initially had its genesis in the previous Government, so that all measures are taken to ensure that the asset freeze can take place and action can be taken accordingly.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Cambridge; they are valid and should be explored. However, in clause 26 there is a right of appeal for designation both at an interim and final stage. If an individual feels aggrieved, he can undertake to exercise that right of appeal. However, very few people will do so if the Bill becomes law, because the Treasury will have taken steps to ensure that those individuals are rightly in the frame, for the reasons that the asset regime has been introduced, and I trust the Treasury to take those actions; that is not something we say all the time but, on this occasion, I have done so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he has raised the issues of concern. I am sure that the Minister will give, almost word for word, the exact response that I would give. I am happy to talk about the amendments in more detail, but my message to the hon. Member for Cambridge is clear: in the event of him pushing the matter to a vote, he will find not just the Financial Secretary against him, but the shadow Minister.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for his comments and for the assurances and commitments that he was able to give. I continue to disagree with him about the standard that should be required, and I still find it concerning that we are not moving towards a balance of probabilities. However, I will not press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31
Independent review of operation of Part 1
Mr Hanson
We had a good debate on this issue in Committee. It is my contention that if we are to create a post to review the operation of this Bill once it achieves Royal Assent, it makes eminently logical sense for the person who is appointed by the Treasury to review the legislation to be the same person as the one appointed by the Home Office under section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 to review terrorist legislation and its impact from the Home Office perspective. As the House will know, Lord Carlile is currently appointed to that position. He is independent of government; he has an office outside the Home Office as well as a secure office in the Home Office; and he provides an independent review of a range of issues, including control orders and other legislation under the 2006 Act. Clause 31 of this Bill allows for an individual to be appointed by the Treasury. In Committee, I tested the Minister on whether he had discussed with the Home Secretary the possibility of appointing the same person under clause 31 to review part 1 of this potential Act as is currently appointed by the Home Office to review legislation under the 2006 Act.
Whatever our agreements in Committee, there is also, I hope, an agreement that we do not want to see duplication of these roles. The role of reviewing whether a designation has been made fairly and is being operated fairly is the same as that of reviewing whether an individual’s control order has been judged and operated fairly. I accept that there are differences, as alluded to by the Minister in Committee, but in broad terms an individual appointed under clause 31 to review part 1 of this potential Act will be dealing with similar issues and similar evidence—sometimes evidence supplied by agencies within government—and undertaking similar assessments of the effectiveness and fairness of the operation of the legislation.
The current reviewer, Lord Carlile, will finish his tenure in that role very shortly. Mr David Anderson QC will be the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation from, I think, 1 January next year. He has expertise in the European Union, in public law and in human rights. He is a Queen’s counsel of more than 10 years’ standing, and he is a recorder and a visiting professor at King’s college London. The skills that are required to review control orders under the 2006 Act are, in my view, the same as those required to review the provisions in this Bill. I am making this proposal because there could be synergy between the two posts.
I am equally interested—I know that the Minister will have a wry smile at this—in the costings and the operation of the parallel regimes in the event of the Minister appointing somebody different to review the provisions of this Bill when enacted. The Home Office supplies the reviewer with administrative facilities, office support and research support as needed. He has an independent private office in central London as well as secure rooms in the Home Office that he uses to deal with information to help him in his task. I question the need to establish a parallel regime with a separate person being appointed through a separate recruitment procedure and having separate offices inside and outside the Treasury, given that very often, and potentially even more so in this current age, the individual may be reviewing activities that impact on the same small group of people who are seeking to do harm to our citizens in the United Kingdom as a whole.
I would welcome an update from the Minister on my suggestion and on whether he has had an opportunity to talk to the Home Secretary about this matter. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider whether the person who will be appointed under clause 31 should be the same person who is appointed by the Government to review Home Office legislation under the 2006 Act?
My amendment has been unduly twinned with the rest of the amendments in the group, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). They relate to the method for appointing the reviewer—whether they are appointed as under my proposal or as under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has again drawn on the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in proposing that the House of Commons should ultimately be the appointing body for the independent reviewer.
Unusually, I think that I will find myself agreeing with the Minister. Whatever my views on a range of issues, I cannot accept amendment 6, because the post of the independent reviewer must ultimately be a Government appointment. It reports to and supplies information to Ministers, and it is ultimately funded by the Government to provide that information. It is crucial, however, that the post is independent of Ministers. It reports to them, provides them with information and is funded by them, but it ultimately acts independently of them. It advises them and can cause difficult issues for them, because of its independence. If the post was appointed and supported by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament, it would be in a very different position from an independent reviewer of legislation.
Lord Carlile was independent. Never once did he ask me for information that he could not access appropriately. Never once was he compromised by Ministers, of whatever hue, in relation to his jurisdiction and duties. He has provided a fair assessment of the operation of the legislation to date.
I hope that the Minister reflects positively on amendment 1. I suspect that he will not support amendments 6 to 10, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge, because the independence of the post is crucial. If we tie it to the Minister or to the House of Commons, we will betray that independence and do a disservice to the role. If the Minister cannot give me good news on amendment 1, I hope that he can encourage me generally on the appointment. I look forward, also, to hearing the hon. Member for Cambridge speak to his amendments.
Dr Huppert
I will speak briefly to amendments 6 to 10, which come from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I am privileged to serve. I agree with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that the key issue is the independence of the reviewer. The amendments seek to strengthen that independence, by ensuring that the reviewer is a creature not of Government, but of Parliament. Being nominated by Government and approved by Parliament would give the reviewer greater independence.
There is also a question of accountability. Who should hold accountability on behalf of the British public—Parliament or Government? Should the reviewer’s report go directly to Parliament, or should there be the potential for it to be filtered by Government? Although I accept that that does not generally happen, there is the potential for it to happen.
Mr Hanson
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that Ministers are accountable to Parliament. I rose because of his use of the word filter. When I was the Minister with responsibility for policing and terrorism, not once did I change a single word of a reviewer’s report to Parliament, even though such reports were produced ultimately by Ministers for this House. I do not expect that any other Minister would do so, because the independent reviewer would make a play of it and the relationship would be devalued tremendously.
Dr Huppert
Indeed, I was saying that I did not believe that that had ever happened, and I am grateful for the assurance that it never has. That shows exactly why amendment 6 makes sense. If no Minister would ever filter such reports, there should be no requirement for them to go through Ministers. That creates a potential filter that we hope will never be used. I hope that the Government simply agree with my position, so I will not labour the point. However, I doubt that the Minister will say that he agrees.
I will raise something that I mentioned on Second Reading, which might provide a compromise. As the Minister is aware, there is a recent precedent for Select Committees to approve independent appointments. That happened with the Office for Budget Responsibility and I hope that it will happen with other bodies. Perhaps the Minister will agree that it would be helpful for the reviewer to be confirmed by an appropriate Select Committee in a similar way, to ensure that there is certainty for Parliament as well as Government that the reviewer will perform their role properly and independently.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]
Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Julian Huppert(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues in the report, and those need to be examined. However, regarding the three points that I have mentioned—including a higher standard of proof—it is my view that the key issue for the Government and the Opposition is to ensure that we take action to stem the flow of funds to terrorists. That means that there are potentially some issues whereby that lower standard of proof would achieve that objective and is still open, as the Minister himself said, to challenge and review. On closed material, very often information crosses Ministers’ desks—I was the Minister with responsibility for policing and terrorism in the previous Government—that they are aware of and act upon, but the disclosure of which could potentially compromise the security of the United Kingdom.
There is a debate to be had—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for raising this point—about who the reviewer of this legislation is accountable to. In the Joint Committee’s report, he suggests that the reviewer should be accountable to Parliament rather than Government. We currently have a reviewer of terrorist legislation that is independent of Government but accountable to the Home Office.
We need to have some clarity on those issues, and I think that they are worthy of debate. I am not closing the book on any of them, but I do not wish to come to final conclusions today based on the Joint Committee report, which was produced only over the weekend.
Dr Huppert
On the subject of the standard of proof, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Opposition’s policy that we should be applying measures to people where we think it is more likely that they were not involved with any terrorist activity than that they were? That is the implication of what he is saying.
Mr Hanson
The official Opposition’s view is the same as that underlying the Bill that is before the House. We have always held the view that there is a need to take action, as set out in the clauses in the Bill that indicate that, when there is information, the Minister can bring forward an order and designate the individual according to a standard of proof that may not be a conviction standard of proof but responds to a level of concern that leads the Minister to want to take action. We support that.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, we will look at the suggestions that were raised on Friday in the final draft of the Joint Committee’s report. However, there are proposals in the report that I suspect I would not have supported as a Minister and that I will therefore not necessarily support as an Opposition spokesman. Nevertheless, we will give them due consideration; indeed, I may even table amendments that reflect the Joint Committee’s deliberations while ultimately allowing the Minister the opportunity to respond to them, so that there is a debate. I may not even necessarily force those amendments to a vote.