Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of prosecutions for human trafficking and related offences; and if he will make a statement.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

As a member of the interdepartmental ministerial group on human trafficking, I keep the effectiveness of prosecutions for that very serious form of crime under review. Wherever possible, the Crown Prosecution Service brings prosecutions for human trafficking or other related offences.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Has the Solicitor-General asked for advice on the letter signed by a dozen charities on 28 April, which predicts that when the EU trafficking directive comes into force on 6 April the UK will be in breach of the following: the protection of victims during criminal procedures, access to compensation and legal assistance, and the provision of a guardian for trafficked children during legal proceedings? What is he going to do about that?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the hon. Lady will know—I hope she will forgive me—we do not, as Law Officers, explain when and where we have given advice. Her point is very important, however. Victims of human trafficking need to be identified and it is important that they should not be prosecuted or treated disrespectfully once that is known. That is one of the points being discussed in the interdepartmental ministerial group and she is right to highlight it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred to the interdepartmental ministerial group. Is not one of the problems that there are lots of different Acts of Parliament? Would there be any merit in pulling all the different Acts together in a consolidation Act on modern day slavery?

[The Solicitor-General]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. It is possible to consider putting a number of laws into a consolidating statute, but the problem is that we tend as a House of Commons to say, “We have these laws. Do we want to spend time consolidating them when we might have other matters to deal with?” Taking such an action was recommended in the recent report from the Centre for Social Justice, however. I have discussed it with the authors and the interdepartmental ministerial group will consider it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has had a number of convictions for human trafficking, and there are cases pending. Legislation will soon be introduced in the Northern Ireland Assembly by my colleague, Lord Morrow. Will the Solicitor-General outline the co-operation across all regions of the United Kingdom to tackle human trafficking?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been considerable co-operation and co-ordination of effort, particularly over intelligence and how those offences can be disrupted. Of course, there is an issue about the new National Crime Agency and exactly how it will operate—he will be aware of the situation and the ongoing discussions. It is important that there is that co-ordination of effort, which happens across the United Kingdom and the wider world, in trying to tackle the problem.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the success rate, measured by convictions, of investigations by the Serious Fraud Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor of employers who evade the minimum wage.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Crown Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute national minimum wage cases, but the cases are investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Since 2010, three cases have been referred to the CPS by HMRC, two of which resulted in convictions, most recently in February 2013, where the defendant was fined £1,000.

[Diana Johnson]

Shockingly, there were no prosecutions for minimum wage evasion in 2011 or 2012. If the Government are really serious about dealing with low-skilled immigration and its causes, why have they not been enforcing the minimum wage legislation properly?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is important to bear in mind that HMRC has two sorts of powers that it can use: criminal investigation, which we have already discussed, and the civil powers that enable it to look at the books and then to impose penalties and recover arrears. It is for HMRC to decide on the best way forward. The hon. Lady is right that these are important matters.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Is the Solicitor-General aware that the number of relevant inspections by HMRC has been falling for the past two or three years? Does that not make the sort of convictions that he is talking about less likely in the future?

[The Solicitor-General]

These are important matters and I will pass the hon. Gentleman’s comments on to Treasury Ministers. It is important that this matter is taken seriously and that there is proper enforcement. The Government certainly consider it to be an important matter.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in rape prosecutions.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The conviction rate for rape cases has increased from 59.4% in 2009-10 to 63.4% in the current year.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer. However, in 2011-12, the CPS took no further action in nearly half the cases that involved a rape allegation that were referred to it by the police. What reasons have the Law Officers identified for that?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is difficult to prosecute some cases. Often, it is the word of one person against the word of another. It is important in those circumstances to ensure that the victim who is the witness is properly supported. In addition, it is vital to have corroborative evidence and to use it effectively. It is sometimes said that there are a lot of incorrect allegations, but recent research by the CPS shows that there are very few cases of that sort. There has been a big improvement in the conviction rate, but we cannot be complacent. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to tackle this matter.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2013

Presumption of Death Act 2013

Mobile Homes Act 2013

Antarctic Act 2013

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

Diocese in Europe Measure 2013

Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure 2013.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the establishment of the National Crime Agency.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

Although the Attorney-General and I have frequent discussions with the Home Secretary, there have been no recent discussions on the NCA, which is created by the Crime and Courts Bill. I am currently serving on the Bill Committee.

[Anas Sarwar]

Will the Solicitor-General join me in welcoming Gordon Meldrum, the former director-general of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, as the new director of the NCA? As the Solicitor-General will know, organised crime happens across the UK, irrespective of borders. Will he outline the scale of the NCA and its budget and give the House an example of why we truly are better off together as one United Kingdom?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a large and important area of the UK economy that is threatened by serious and organised crime, estimated to be £20 billion a year. It is therefore right, as he says, to have a cross-United Kingdom response. Funding for the agency is a matter for the Home Secretary. The indicative budget for the first year is £407 million.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The second most profitable crime for organised criminal gangs is human trafficking. Does the Solicitor-General agree that the establishment of the National Crime Agency will help this country fight the evil of human trafficking?

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend has made a distinguished contribution to the all-party group that deals with this issue. He is absolutely right that we need to focus on this both at home and overseas, and that is what the National Crime Agency will be very well able to do.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

2. What estimate he has made of the likely saving the Crown Prosecution Service will make by introducing proportionality into the public interest test of the Crown prosecutors’ code.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The answer is none, as this is not about making savings from the Crown Prosecution Service budget.

[Jack Dromey]

If the Crown Prosecution Service is to make decisions not to proceed with a prosecution on the grounds of cost or because of concerns about the health of a victim, is it not then right that a proper record is kept of how many and why, so that victims, the public and Parliament can hold both the Crown Prosecution Service and Ministers properly to account?

[The Solicitor-General]

First, it is important that proportionality has been reintroduced to the Code for Crown Prosecutors. We have all seen examples of the schoolyard scuffle or other matters that should not be prosecuted, and where it is important to achieve a balance. On recording, the CPS keeps a considerable amount of records. Of course, that costs money and so there is a balance to be struck, but I will certainly think over the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I welcome the reintroduction of the proportionality test as part of the wider public interest test. Will my hon. Friend reassure the constituents I represent that the question of cost is but one of eight questions to be asked by Crown prosecutors when applying the public interest test, and that it will not be determined on the basis of cost alone?

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend makes the point better perhaps than even I could, but I will just make two short points. First, this is not just about cost, but about assessing cost, the likely sentence, the full circumstances of the case and the other points made by my hon. Friend. Secondly, with regard to effective case management, it is often important in a complex case to concentrate on the main and most serious suspects, and so this gives an opportunity for the prosecution to consider that.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for rape where the defendant contests the charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

Two-hundred and twenty-seven defendants were successfully prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service for burglary offences in Northamptonshire in 2011-12, at a conviction rate of 89%. No central records of a defendant’s previous convictions or non-convictions are maintained by the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Mr Hollobone]

I congratulate the Crown Prosecution Service in Northamptonshire on prosecuting 227 burglars. Burglary is an horrific crime, and I strongly suspect that most of those 227 had previous convictions of one sort of another. May I encourage the CPS to collect those data, so that we can head off more potential burglars in future?

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service is not the organisation that maintains the database of convictions, and that is unlikely to change. However, in the period 2009 to 2012, the number of defendants prosecuted for burglary offences increased by 6.4%, compared with the national fall in prosecutions of 8.9%, so he can be assured that burglary is being given proper attention.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the Crown Prosecution Service’s conviction rate for female genital mutilation.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Director of Public Prosecutions regularly briefs the Attorney-General and me on the issue of prosecuting for female genital mutilation and on the action plan that was developed following the Crown Prosecution Service round table on 28 September 2012.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I very much welcome the DPP’s action plan, which is a positive step forward. May I urge the Solicitor-General to look at the work being done in Bristol with young women from affected communities? They have been really brave in speaking out—they have even developed a two-part storyline for “Casualty”, which will be shown later this year. Does he agree that ensuring that such work is community-led as well as Crown Prosecution Service-led is an important way of dealing with the problem?

[The Solicitor-General]

I certainly agree with that. The inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which is chaired by the Home Secretary, is taking a particular interest in those sorts of approaches, so I commend the hon. Lady on mentioning it in the House, and she is absolutely right. Finding the right evidence and having the support of the community—and, therefore, support for the victim—is vital.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to that answer, has the Solicitor-General any measures in mind that would make it easier for people to report this dreadful crime? I am thinking in particular of the language barrier, which is often a factor in cases of this kind.

[The Solicitor-General]

The action plan that I have mentioned contains a number of proposals to improve the situation and to make it easier for people to come forward. The main obstacle is not so much the language barrier. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can imagine that many of these cases involve young girls from particular communities, and that there are cultural and other taboos that make this very difficult for them. The real point is the approach mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) involving getting community support. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

7. Whether he has had discussions with the European Commission on the legal status of Scotland’s membership of the EU in the event of a yes vote to independence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

2. How many successful prosecutions for tax evasion the Serious Fraud Office has completed in each of the last five years.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

It is the Crown Prosecution Service rather than the Serious Fraud Office that prosecutes tax evasion cases. The records of the Crown Prosecution Service show that in 2008-09 there were 226 convictions, and the latest figures, up to November 2012, show 349.

[Simon Hughes]

We had a major debate on tax avoidance yesterday, and I think the country and Parliament want us to be very tough on tax evasion. Can the Solicitor-General assure us that the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service will concentrate on large national and international companies, and not on the small fish, so that ordinary people realise that they are not being singled out when much bigger prizes are available from much naughtier people?

[The Solicitor-General]

I can certainly give my right hon. Friend the assurance that from top to bottom the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who has given us a target of increasing prosecutions fivefold, and all parts of Government will tackle this issue hard. From the point of view of the Attorney-General’s office, my right hon. Friend may be interested to know that we have been referring cases where sentences are unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal. It has recently been established that seven years’ imprisonment should be the starting point for significant tax fraud cases.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Tax fraud is estimated to cost the Government £3.3 billion. What steps are the Serious Fraud Office and the Department taking to address that?

[The Solicitor-General]

The Crown Prosecution Service, with the police, is working extremely hard on tax evasion cases to ensure that as many as possible are brought to court. As I mentioned, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has set the target of a fivefold increase in cases. The figures I read out show that since 2008-09, there has been a major increase in the number of convictions.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support victims of child abuse in the prosecution process.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Crown Prosecution Service takes all allegations of child abuse very seriously. Supporting victims of child abuse is vital to successful prosecutions. The CPS works closely with the police and voluntary sector agencies to ensure that proper support is provided to victims at all stages.

[Anas Sarwar]

In the past two years, reports of child abuse have shocked the entire country. Currently, at least 13 inquiries are taking place, including three BBC inquiries into Jimmy Savile, a Department of Health investigation into Broadmoor, a CPS inquiry, and inquiries into child protection in Rotherham and Rochdale. What discussions has the Minister had with other ministerial colleagues to ensure all that work is pulled together, and to ensure that all victims of child abuse receive the support and protection they deserve?

[The Solicitor-General]

The Director of Public Prosecutions is working closely with all other authorities and took a personal lead in September by holding a round-table to consider how child sexual exploitation offences can be tackled. Witness care units are important and new Crown Prosecution Service guidance on child sexual exploitation is due in the new year. A great deal is being done, and special measures are being put in place to help witnesses give evidence.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is probably aware that a small team is looking into the history of cases of child abuse complaints in Northern Ireland. One member of the team is an ex-senior inspector in the Metropolitan police who explained to me that, looking back at cases from 1920, believe it or not, one stark fact is the astonishing lack of support for victims, including from the Crown Prosecution Service. Would my hon. Friend be interested in meeting him at the right time to consider whether there is anything from his expertise and research that would be of help?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer, which I will certainly take up. He is right to say that support for witnesses is crucial to enable them to give their evidence in a confident and effective way. That is why the witness care units, the use of the voluntary sector supporters and the other work going into special measures at court to make it easier for witnesses to give evidence are all important. I look forward to the meeting.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the steps taken by Keir Starmer and Nazir Afzal to try to reorganise how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with these matters. However, the fact remains that in relation to Rotherham there have been no prosecutions this year in the whole of south Yorkshire, despite 600 victims having been identified in the past few years. Does the Solicitor-General share my concern? Can we please see more prosecutions of the perpetrators?

[The Solicitor-General]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it depends on the police investigating cases thoroughly and then on the Crown Prosecution Service reviewing them to see what evidence is needed. A full review was carried out after the Rochdale case, which was particularly concerning. That was last autumn, since when the CPS has been working on the new guidance, which I hope will lead to more prosecutions. I accept the need for more prosecutions in this area, but we want to establish best practice, and that guidance will be out soon.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

On another form of child abuse—female genital mutilation—there have been no prosecutions whatsoever in this country since it became illegal. Does the Solicitor-General share my hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions’ robust new action plan will lead to more progress in this area?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, I certainly do. I have personally raised and discussed this subject with the DPP and was delighted that he held the round-table last September, which led to the robust action plan that my hon. Friend mentions. That is about improving the evidence available, identifying what is hindering investigations and prosecutions, exploring how other jurisdictions deal with these cases and ensuring that the police and prosecution work together closely on what are very difficult cases.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

5. How many prosecutions for human trafficking there have been in the most recent period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase prosecutions for human trafficking.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Crown Prosecution Service charged and prosecuted 64 cases where human trafficking was the main offence between 1 April 2012 and 2 January this year, and has prosecuted other human trafficking cases using other legislation. The CPS is working with law enforcement and other agencies to improve investigation and prosecution and to encourage victims.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Those figures sound a little better than the ones previously published that suggested to me that out of 25 European countries Britain had fewer prosecutions for human trafficking specifically than all bar Malta, Slovakia, Estonia and Finland. What effect does the Solicitor-General believe the relatively low level of prosecution for specific human trafficking offences has on the potential for future human traffickers?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course, it is very important that we prosecute cases of this kind, but I make the point to the hon. Lady that the figures I read out and which are often quoted relate to cases where human trafficking was the main offence, but quite often with human trafficking, as she will know, the main offence is a violent assault or a rape, and it is the more serious offences that are flagged. In another 111 cases, in addition to the 64 I mentioned, human trafficking was one of the offences, but the main offence was a rape or major conspiracy.

[Andrew Selous]

There have been relatively few prosecutions for human trafficking involving forced labour, compared with, say, sexual exploitation, although there have been major successes in my own county of Bedfordshire and, just before Christmas, in Gloucestershire. These forced labour exploiters often earn enormous sums of money. What can we do to take some of that money to help the police fund these complex and difficult investigations?

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend will know of the Connors case, which was finally concluded yesterday —an appalling case involving vulnerable people being forced to work by the criminals concerned. It is important that we tackle these cases, but the main offence was introduced only in 2010 and related to events that occurred after that date, so we are very much at the early stage of bringing these cases to court. The Connors case is one of the first. An agreement has been reached with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, however, to refer cases to the police, and other steps are being taken to toughen up on internal trafficking.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Has the Solicitor-General had any indication of the number of cases where files were submitted and the decision was taken not to prosecute, or of the number of decisions that were based on concerns about the witness capacity of the victims?

[The Solicitor-General]

I will look into that and am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, because I do not have the information here. The Crown Prosecution Service is anxious to prosecute in this area if the evidence is available. All too often it is difficult to obtain the quality of evidence from overseas that one would want in order to prosecute effectively. There is also the problem that victims need a great deal of support and encouragement. All these matters are being addressed, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his point.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I welcome what the Government are doing in this field—they are being very proactive—but does the Solicitor-General share my concern that there is a temptation for the Crown Prosecution Service to choose lesser charges for which it is easier to secure a conviction, such as immigration offences, which results in traffickers getting a lower sentence than if they had been prosecuted for human trafficking?

[The Solicitor-General]

I would dispute that. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), many human trafficking cases involve other offences, which are often more serious. With sexual exploitation cases, where there are continual rapes and serious offences of that sort, it is right to charge for rape as the principal offence because it is more serious in some ways. I therefore do not accept that the Crown Prosecution Service is going for lower charges. This is a matter that we in the Attorney-General’s office keep under review.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

6. Whether implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson report will affect the enforcement of laws of contempt.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What steps he is taking to ensure that the CPS’s networks of specialist rape and child abuse prosecutors are adequately funded.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The prosecution of rape and child abuse is and will remain a key priority for the Crown Prosecution Service and will continue to be funded accordingly.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Solicitor-General for that rather brief response. Will child abuse cases always be prosecuted by specialist advocates or, as is now the case in rape trials, only when the specialist happens to be available?

[The Solicitor-General]

That is not correct. All Crown Prosecution Service advocates have been trained in how to deal with domestic violence cases. Some 800 have been fully trained as rape specialists, and they are always involved in any rape case, so it is not right to say that that is not so. A network has been set up, under Mr Nazir Afzal, the chief Crown prosecutor for the north-west, to look at child sexual exploitation and improve prosecution, and it is proving successful.

[Julie Hilling]

The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service’s failings in child grooming cases go well beyond Rochdale, and he said that a whole category of crimes has not been well treated by the criminal justice system. Does the Solicitor-General know how many cases the DPP is referring to and whether any of them will now be revisited by the CPS?

[The Solicitor-General]

Whenever a case is the subject of further evidence or it is suggested that the right prosecution decision has not been made, the CPS takes that very seriously, and, as the hon. Lady will know, it reviews cases as appropriate. It is worth making the point that the CPS is improving its performance in rape and sexual abuse cases. Rape convictions are up by 4% year on year, and that is continuing in the current year, and there is an improvement across the area of sexual violence generally.

[Meg Hillier]

Rape convictions may be up, but they are still woefully low. Given that next Sunday is international day to end violence against women, will the Solicitor-General expand on his earlier comments about the number of specialist prosecutors? The key question is whether there are enough of them for justice to be pursued swiftly, which makes things better for the victim and more likely that a prosecution will be secured.

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady is right to say that this is a key priority. It is extremely important that the Crown Prosecution Service deals effectively with these cases, which are so important. That is why a huge effort is going on, with improvements to guidance and ensuring that prosecutors are properly trained in this area. As she may know, the Director of Public Prosecutions himself led the training for prosecutors in the past year and made sure that particular reference was made to supporting witnesses. This is an area of vital concern. I could go on for hours, but I will not.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the Solicitor-General share my concern at the delay in prosecutions being brought in North Yorkshire because of the lack of a sexual assault and rape centre? Will he use his good offices to ensure that we have one at the first available opportunity not only to enable counselling to be given but forensic evidence to be taken to enable rapid prosecutions to take place?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is important to have very good arrangements for the support of witnesses. As somebody who has prosecuted rape cases, I can say that they are not easy. It is very important that witnesses feel confident that they can give their evidence, and that is all about support. I will certainly look into the situation that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but she should not think anything other than that the Government take this extremely seriously, as does the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements on the level of economic crime.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

It is not possible to quantify exactly what the effect of the new deferred prosecution agreements will be on the amount of economic crime, but we do believe that they will contribute to the welcome trend of an increase in self-reporting by organisations. That will enable the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service to obtain better evidence so that prosecutors will be able to bring more cases and restitution will be obtained, and this could lead to a reduction in the amount of economic crime.

[Mrs Glindon]

What steps will the Minister take if the proportion of cases resolved by the CPS creeps higher than the Government have forecast in the impact assessment? Does he agree that a sunset clause of five years would be a sensible safeguard?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is certainly important to recognise that this is not an alternative to prosecuting in serious cases, and the SFO and the CPS are very anxious to ensure that that is the case. It is particularly important that individuals should not feel that they have any way out of their liabilities, but this relates purely to organisations. A sunset clause is not contemplated at present, but the hon. Lady has put the idea forward and of course I will look at it. I thank her for making that important contribution.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

But all too often directors of companies are, in effect, complicit in what has been going on when economic crime is involved in their organisation. They want to protect the company rather than self-declare. Indeed, this surely must lead the Crown Prosecution Service to take very seriously the idea, when directors are negligent, of bringing prosecutions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act against the body corporate—for instance, News International.

[The Solicitor-General]

I clearly cannot comment on a particular case, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important that this should be about self-reporting by companies. That does not let individuals off the hook, but it means that the business and jobs can continue and that these business entities have certainty, while ensuring that they are on tough conditions. The whole point of this is that a company should pay a penalty and be on tough conditions that will be monitored by a judge, to ensure that it cleans up its act and provides all the information necessary to the prosecution authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s handling of cases referred to it in 2009 involving alleged sexual assaults by Jimmy Savile.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

Neither I nor the Attorney-General have yet had discussions directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the case. This week, the Attorney-General was briefed by the principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Levitt QC, on her draft review, and I understand that that draft review is now with the director for consideration.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

What consideration has been given to proposals by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to refer cases to other relevant agencies—such as social services—where it concludes that there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution?

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady is right and it is an important point. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering its policy on how it shares information with other relevant agencies. It is, of course, important that disclosures and information that may be helpful in protecting a vulnerable person are shared where possible, and the Attorney-General and I feel that that process should be considered carefully and in a positive way.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

10. What plans he has to improve the efficiency of the Serious Fraud Office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the prosecution of disability hate crimes by the Crown Prosecution Service.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The whole country marvelled this summer at the achievements of the Paralympians, which provided a huge opportunity for changing attitudes towards disability. The CPS takes disability hate crime very seriously and the DPP has made his own commitment very clear. I have not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with him yet, but I can assure her that the CPS prosecutes these cases whenever it can.

[Diana Johnson]

I start by welcoming the Solicitor-General to his new position.

In 2011, the number of disability hate crimes rose by one third to 2,000, but only 523 convictions were upheld. When he has such conversations, will he talk through how that conviction rate might be increased?

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady has spent much time and effort campaigning for disability rights, including within the criminal justice system, and I respect the point she makes. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that progress has been made: the number of convictions has risen steadily from 141—I believe—in 2007-08 to the 480 concluded in the past year. However, yes, more progress needs to be made, and the DPP has explained in the past that he thinks a lot more needs to be done.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

According to the CPS website, there is no legal definition of a disability hate crime. Will the Solicitor-General look into this matter and see whether it can be reviewed?

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important to monitor and identify crimes, particularly violent and public order crimes involving an element of disability hate. The CPS has issued new guidance on this matter to its prosecutors, who of course have the right in appropriate cases to ask, under section 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, for an uplift in the sentence. That needs to be done in appropriate cases.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

5. What changes he expects following the publication of the Director of Public Prosecution’s final guidelines for prosecutors in cases involving the media.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What progress Advanced Language Solutions has made on reporting to the Crown Prosecution Service the results of checks to ensure that all of its interpreters have been security vetted.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

Advanced Language Solutions has completed its review and has provided assurances to the Crown Prosecution Service that a full audit trail is now held in respect of the 1,100 interpreters on its list and that all vetting information has been fully verified.

[Meg Hillier]

The Government have overseen a shambles in the provision of interpreting services. They have procured an IT system, at a cost to the taxpayer of £42 million, to ensure that interpreters turn up in court, but they are not turning up. Justice is being delayed, and in many cases it is being denied. What action is the Attorney-General taking to ensure that the Ministry of Justice is taking proper action to ensure that justice is not ill served by such chaos?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is important that there should be strong performance in this area. There has been a major improvement since the early months of the contract, when there were the problems that the hon. Lady has rightly outlined. The picture is one of improvement and one where the Government are saving £15 million a year, so we are also ensuring good value for money. There has been an improvement, and we will continue to monitor the area closely.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

7. What proportion of prosecutions for burglary were successful in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

The Crown Prosecution Service’s records show that the proportion of defendants prosecuted successfully for burglary in each of the past three years was 86.1% in 2009-10, 85.8% in 2010-11 and 85.6% in 2011-12.

[Miss McIntosh]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position and thank him for that answer. Does he believe that fewer prosecutions will be brought if the new offence of using grossly disproportionate force, which the Justice Secretary intends to introduce, is brought in?

[The Solicitor-General]

No. The intention is to be firm on burglary. In fact, the number of successful prosecutions increased from 23,700 to 25,077 between 2009 and the most recent figures. The approach is to be firm on burglary.

[Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)]

Is there any systematic review examining the causes where prosecutions fail? Obviously it could be quite right that the court should find a person not guilty, but sometimes there is a failure to pursue the prosecution adequately, either because witnesses do not match up or the case is not properly put, so is there any systematic review of where prosecutions fail?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, this is something in which the Director of Public Prosecutions takes a particular interest. As Law Officers, we are in the position of superintending the process, and we ask the sort of probing questions that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to ask.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of progress in reforming the European Court of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

Exactly. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend has got it absolutely spot on.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge will be not just here in the Chamber but in every marginal constituency? That is what happens in Australia, where they have the system in question. The equivalent of a Liberal Democrat Senator in a Conservative seat becomes that area’s parliamentary representative, and so it is in every marginal constituency.

[Mrs Laing]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Joint Committee took evidence from the Australian Parliament, and Members ought to look at that evidence and pay heed to Australia before giving away our primacy.

The most worrying thing of all is that as the primacy of the House of Commons is challenged, the unique link of accountability between the elector and his or her representative in Parliament—their Member of this House —will be undermined, so Parliament’s very accountability will be undermined as well.

Quite apart from the fact that there is no reasonable question to which the right answer is 450 extra elected politicians, having a second House of Commons at the other end of the corridor will not increase the chances of holding the Government to account. It will do exactly the opposite. A clash between the two Houses and a squabble over when and whether the Parliament Acts could be used will lead to a challenge in the courts, and I for one do not want vital political issues to be decided not by Parliament but by the judiciary. Our electors expect us to take responsibility, and they expect the buck to stop with us, their MPs. We ought to fight to preserve that.

I turn to the matter of consultation. The subject of Lords reform may have been talked about for 100 years, but we are not considering it in a proper, wider context. Reform of one part of Parliament is reform of Parliament as a whole, but we have been able to consider only the narrow proposals that the Deputy Prime Minister has put forward. I sat on the Joint Committee for eight months, and we recommended a constitutional convention so that the subject could be properly examined in context. The Government have ignored that recommendation, and now we face the possibility that we might not even be able to examine the Bill fully here in the House of Commons because of a narrow programme motion. At the same time, the Government are afraid of a referendum. They are afraid to ask the people. No constitutional convention, no referendum, no proper scrutiny in the House of Commons—that is not democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Despite his eloquence, I disagree with most of what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said. There are two issues that I wish to address from the outset. The first is the charge that now is not the right time. It never is the right time to introduce constitutional reform. That is the dreary, weary excuse that anti-reformers use over and over again. It was used about devolution and almost every other constitutional reform brought in by the last Labour Government whom I was proud to serve. What if great reformers over the years had decided that it was not the right time? What if Aneurin Bevan had said, “I have this really good idea for a national health service, but the country is broke and we are probably going to lose the next election, so it is not the right time”? What if the suffragettes had said, “We’d really like the right to vote, but there is so much else going on at the moment; let’s leave it to the men for a few more years”?

Secondly, if any of us had been starting from scratch and designing a second Chamber for a new, modern democracy, it is inconceivable that any of us would have come up with the House of Lords in its present incarnation. Of course we would not have done so; the very idea is risible. The truth is the House of Lords is an anachronism, and we all know it. Yes, it performs a valuable scrutinising and revising role. Yes, it demonstrates a diligence often superior to that of the Commons. When I was a Minister appearing before a Lords Parliamentary Committee, the standard of questioning was often more stringent and, I regret to say, its members often better informed than those in the Commons. There is, however, absolutely no reason why that standard of performance could not be maintained, possibly even exceeded, by a democratic second Chamber with new blood and new expertise. This is not about a personnel change; it is about accountability and democracy.

In any case, the fact that the House of Lords performs a valuable role is no reason to maintain it in its current constitutional form. It is a democratic farce, an arbitrary mixture of a majority deriving their place from patronage and a minority deriving it from titles inherited from a liaison with a royal, centuries ago. It is a hangover from pre-democracy days, a constitutional dinosaur.

Labour has a proud record, going back to our first Labour leader, Keir Hardie, of demanding a democratic second Chamber. If we do not take this opportunity now, through this Bill, to ensure that we have a democratically constituted second Chamber, we will be throwing away that opportunity—if not for ever, certainly for this generation. It is a “now or maybe never” decision.

We will try to amend the Bill. For instance, I am a supporter of the reformed democratic second Chamber having a “secondary” not a “primary” mandate. That principle, eloquently enunciated by Billy Bragg, will help to address the crucial issue of the primacy of the Commons. I am not in favour of electors having two votes—one for MPs, one for Lords—as there should be just one vote: for MPs. This House should continue to have the primary representative mandate from our constituents. Parliament should consist of MPs with legislative primacy by virtue of their primary mandate, with peers discharging their important revising, scrutinising role by virtue of their democratic but secondary mandate. That is an issue for Committee; for now, we have a duty to give the Bill a Second Reading.

[Oliver Heald]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Joint Committee, which examined at the draft Bill, suggested that the Government should have another look at forms of indirect election that preserve the supremacy of this House while still giving a democratic legitimacy to the other place? Does he agree that looking again at some of those ideas would be well worth while?

[Mr Hain]

I do if the hon. Gentleman means by that the secondary mandate.

I remind the House that the last time the Commons voted on a very similar proposition to that put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister—the one put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in March 2007—it voted decisively for an elected Chamber. A 100% elected Chamber was favoured by 337 votes to 224, and an 80% elected one by 305 votes to 267. Surely this House of Commons, with hundreds of younger MPs of a new generation, is not going to backtrack on that vote? With new MPs of a new generation, we should be increasing the majority for reform.

One of our greatest parliamentarians, Robin Cook, told the House on 4 Feb 2003 that there was a real possibility of House of Lords reform becoming a parliamentary equivalent of “Waiting for Godot”:

“it never arrives and some have become rather doubtful whether it even exists, but we sit around talking about it year after year.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 152.]

For the very first time, all three parties have a manifesto mandate for Lords reform. To betray that mandate would be to betray trust even more. This House has a once in a political lifetime opportunity to bring down the curtain on what must rank as the longest political gridlock in the history of parliamentary democracy. It is high time we resolved this once and for all, and brought our democracy fully into the 21st century by an historic decision for a democratic second Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

At the time when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) was Leader of the House, I was the shadow Leader who opposed all the motions that he tabled. I do not remember agreeing with him very often, but I think that he said something important today when he talked of the secondary mandate system, the vital need to ensure that this place retains primacy, and the need for effective government.

My concerns about the proposals in the Bill relate to the central provision allowing the election of senators, or representatives, for the regions. In future, instead of the simple constituency link that we have at present, with one parliamentary representative being elected for each area, there will be a number of senators. In marginal seats a parliamentary representative for the Conservatives may be elected to this House, and a parliamentary representative for the Liberal Democrats may be elected to the senate. I see that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is looking at me. In a three-way marginal such as the seat that he represents, there will be three surgeries every week.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as he chose to name me. Let me say that I am not sure it is a three-way marginal, although I suspect that my constituents would be delighted to hear more.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what he has described is very similar to what happens now? There are extra representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the European Parliament and on councils. Giving the people a say in the composition of the other House merely means that they will be able to exercise some direct influence, which does not happen when Members are appointed through patronage.

[Oliver Heald]

What is happening is the creation of a culture of the multi-Member constituency. An individual constituent will be able to choose whether to go to the Liberal Democrat, the Conservative or the Labour representative in Parliament, and I do not believe that that is good for our country. I believe that it is important for a Member of Parliament to represent all his constituents, and for the constituents to know where to go when they need help or want to raise an issue. That is good for them, and it is good for us.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Although I support the Bill, as a Member representing one of the most marginal seats in the House—my majority is 389—I think that my hon. Friend is making an extremely important point which must be considered. I can imagine how, had I been elected under the proposed system in the last election, my Labour or Liberal Democrat opponent would have sought to undermine my position by claiming that he or she had a mandate equal to mine.

[Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that.

The Joint Committee took evidence from Australian senators. The Australian system is similar to that proposed in the Bill. Senator Ursula Stephens from the governing Labour party told us:

“I am allocated a number of seats that are not held by the Government in the lower House in my state. I look after those constituents who do not have a government representative. Those people might come to me about issues and legislation.”

Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Australian Greens said:

“we have nine Senators and only one Member in the House of Representatives. The issue of working with constituents is very important for us and it takes up quite a bit of time.”

Senator Michael Ronaldson of the Opposition Liberal Party said:

“I do not think that you can make the assumption that you will not be engaged in constituency-type work, particularly if the elected Lords in an area—as Senator Stephens said—come from the other party. If you are a Member of the non-ruling party, the Lords might find that they have more people knocking on their doors than they might otherwise have anticipated.”

When the Clerk of the House gave evidence, he spoke of the danger of “constituency case tourism”. We must try to avoid such constituency conflicts.

[Simon Hughes]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is a real issue, and I think it will have to be addressed if we proceed with the Bill. There are ways in which it could be dealt with: for example, it could be agreed that Ministers would deal only with Members of the House of Commons when it came to constituency casework.

[Oliver Heald]

That issue is not addressed in the Bill.

I mentioned the Clerk of the House a moment ago, and he has appeared on cue!

The power of the people is in this House, not at the other end of the building. That is why, when we are arguing with the Lords about a Bill, they always give way eventually. When I was a Whip, I went down there and had discussions with them, as many other Members will have done. In the end, they say, “You are the elected House; you have your way.” I recall hardly any occasions during my time here when, in the end, they have not caved in, because we are the elected House.

I believe in efficient and effective government. I think that it is something the Conservative party has stood for over the years. We have given this country more than 250 years of good government—or, at least, we have given a lot of it during that period. [Laughter.] I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying “It must be healed.” I agree: it must be Heald.

Following the proposed changes, we will struggle to have effective government. The Parliament Acts cannot be used on every occasion. It is a nuclear option. We rely on the Lords’ giving way, but the fact is that without conventions and arrangements between the Houses —some means of ensuring that we always prevail in the end—it will be more difficult to ensure that we have effective government in this country. When a party makes promises in its manifesto, it will not be able to deliver on them. When we experience a crisis, as we have recently, it will be difficult to introduce urgent measures with the necessary speed.

Let me make a suggestion. It is in the Joint Committee report, the alternative report and in my pamphlet, which can be read on the website of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Let us see whether we can avoid regional elections which provide a geographical power base, which would mean the people at the other end of the building representing a group of constituents from an area. Let us consider indirect election. There are various different models. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned the German model, and the right hon. Member for Neath mentioned the secondary mandate model. There are ways of doing this.

I support reform and I think that we should do it, but I do not agree with the Bill, and I believe that it needs to be looked at again.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the procedure for Scottish Bills, as set out in Standing Order 97, requires the Speaker to issue a certificate stating that a measure is predominantly Scottish, after which it can go to the Grand Committee. It would be possible to do the same for England. Surely it would be worth printing a complex Bill in draft—so that it can be published and people can look at it—because, if there were territorial issues on the margins, it would provide an opportunity to consider them fully before the Speaker issued his certificate. Is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) not a valuable addition to how we have dealt with such matter traditionally?

[Helen Goodman]

As the hon. Gentleman says, arrangements are in place for legislation that takes effect predominantly in Scotland. However, the Government seem to be rushing legislation through so fast that it is quite possible that the Speaker and his offices might not have time to take all these complex matters into account. That is a problem with the way this Government are ramming through legislation on the NHS and, if I might say so, this Legal Aid—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

One of the problems with looking at draft legislation rather than legislation in its final form is that it is not possible at that stage to say what the financial implications across the United Kingdom might be. The Government would be forced not simply to identify the territorial extent of a Bill, as they do currently, but to look at the differential impact of clauses that apply across the United Kingdom. For example, some legislation could be applicable throughout the UK but have a greater effect in some places than in others. Let us take social security as an example. If unemployment is higher in Wales than in England and changes are made to the rate of jobseeker’s allowance, the impact in Wales will obviously be different from the impact in England. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Lady intends.

[Oliver Heald]

But social security is a UK-wide competence. It is nothing to do with just England, Wales or Scotland; it applies all over the country.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point, but unfortunately that is not the way the Bill is drafted. That is one of its faults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I do not wish to delay the House any further on these technical amendments. I think I have made my point perfectly clear. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I hope that I have demonstrated a small number of the problems with this Bill.

[Oliver Heald]

Let me start by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has done the House a service by introducing the Bill. It is a modest measure, but it provides something useful for the House, if the commission proposed by the Minister, which I also welcome, decides that we need a procedure for England similar to Standing Order No. 97, which sets out the Scottish procedure. That Standing Order says that when a piece of legislation is first printed, the Speaker can issue a certificate saying that it is a Scottish Bill. In those circumstances it is dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, which means that Scottish Members decide what happens in Scotland. I personally have always felt, as has my party, that England should have a similar opportunity, and the details of how that might be achieved have been discussed and argued over for many years.

What my hon. Friend is suggesting will help in the difficult process of deciding whether a Bill is predominantly Scottish or, in this case, English. The difficulty that the Speaker has always had to contend with is that, under Standing Order No. 97(1)(a), he can provide a certificate, and that

“it shall not be withheld by reason only that the bill...makes minor consequential amendments of enactments which extend to England and Wales”.

So it is possible for a Bill that is predominantly about Scotland but has some implications for England and Wales to be dealt with under the Scottish procedure. My hon. Friend is proposing that draft legislation would contain a certificate from the Secretary of State explaining the territorial extent of its legal and financial effects on the various parts of the UK. That would be useful in cases that were on the margin.

[Helen Goodman]

But can the hon. Gentleman not see that the territorial extent is already in a Bill, and that the financial implications are set out in the impact assessment that is published alongside it?

[Oliver Heald]

The mistake in the hon. Lady’s amendments is that they would not give the Speaker any opportunity to present his certificate. She is proposing that the Secretary of State’s explanation would be provided when the legislation was presented, rather than when it was first printed, which would give the Speaker no time to do his work. These are therefore wrecking amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

The issue is the speed with which this Government are putting through legislation, and their failure to leave adequate time between First and Second Readings, and between Second Reading and the Committee stage. If they were to give Bills adequate time, that would give the Speaker the time for which the hon. Gentleman calls.

[Oliver Heald]

I completely disagree. The hon. Lady would give the Speaker no time at all. Under Standing Order No. 97, the Speaker has the time between the Bill first being printed and its presentation in which to decide whether or not to provide his certificate. Her proposals would provide no such time. The Bill would simply be presented; the helpful information from the Secretary of State would not be given to the Speaker before that point.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is flipping between the Speaker and the Secretary of State. Under the Scottish procedure, it is the Speaker who provides the certificate, but the Bill talks about the Secretary of State doing so. These are two separate procedures.

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman ought to think in terms of the partnership that my hon. Friend’s Bill would create. She is proposing that the Minister would help the Speaker. Is not that a good thing? The Secretary of State would provide the Speaker with a statement setting out the territorial, legal and financial effects of the Bill. It would give him time and provide a draft Bill process for complicated cases in which there were issues on the margin. It would provide a helpful extra arrow to the bow. It is a good thing and I certainly support it. The amendments would damage that process, however, because there would be no draft Bill, and no time between a Bill’s first printing and its presentation for these matters to be considered, because the rule would apply only when it was presented. These are wrecking amendments, because they endanger the spirit of co-operation that my hon. Friend is trying to engender between the Government and the Speaker in deciding whether a measure should be dealt with under an English procedure. I therefore oppose them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

There is certainly an issue, but whether it is as broad as the hon. Gentleman suggests is another question. Whether the entire constitutional nature of the House should be changed as a result of it is also a matter for debate. If there is a matter to be addressed, the only way to solve it, in my view, is to set up an English Parliament or assemblies in all the regions of England. This Bill is more damaging than its supporters realise. Under the guise of simply providing for certificates stating which parts of the UK will be affected by a Bill, it is trying to achieve by the back door the outcome that the hon. Gentleman supports. That is not the right way in which to debate this issue.

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the West Lothian question. Can it be right that a Scottish Member can vote on English matters when an English Member has no such reciprocal right? Can he answer that question?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I must stay in order while answering that question, Mr Deputy Speaker. I referred to the “so-called” West Lothian question because it is not simply about West Lothian; it applies also to west Belfast, west Cardiff and even west London, in that certain matters relating to Greater London have been devolved to the London assembly. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is asking a reasonable question, but the Bill does not provide an appropriate way of dealing with it.

The Bill, rather than creating constitutional symmetry that would apply beautifully to all parts of the UK, would seriously affect the way in which the House operates and the ability of all Members to participate in debates. This question deserves an answer. I represent a Scottish constituency, and I am interested in how these issues apply to the UK as a whole, but if Members in England really feel strongly about this, I would argue again that the answer involves another measure, rather than creating two kinds of Member in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That comment may support my position. Let us take the argument to the next stage: if the hon. Gentleman was asked not to vote on a Bill that had financial consequences, it would put him in a difficult position with his constituents if he chose to ignore those implications.

It is not simply that many Bills are more complex than they first seem in their implications for the UK as a whole; I am also concerned about the way in which the measure would fundamentally change the workings of the House.

[Oliver Heald]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we already have a procedure for certifying that a Bill is Scottish—

[Thomas Docherty]

Through the Speaker.

[Oliver Heald]

Yes. We did it for years. Those Bills created no real difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire offers an additional opportunity through the draft Bill process for any cases on the margins. It is not a question of changing our procedures. We already have a procedure that deals with the matter for Scotland, so why not have one for England?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the procedure to which he refers does not in any sense imply that Members outside Scotland cannot vote on the final stages of measures. The Bill is very much the thin end of the wedge and would create two classes of Members of Parliament. That is my fundamental concern.

A Government could have a majority that depends on votes in Scotland, Wales or northern England—people assume that that would be a Labour Government, but politics change, and what happens in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years may not be what people expect from today’s politics. After all, some 60 years ago, the Conservative party had a majority of seats and votes in Scotland, so we must think of the long-term consequences. If a Government had a UK majority in the House that depended on votes outside England, Bills that applied “only to England”, on which Members outside England could not vote, would need to be supported by the Opposition. The Government would therefore not be the Government for large parts of the legislative programme. Opposition spokespeople would be the de facto Ministers for Education, Health and so on for England, and the real UK Ministers could not perform their roles because they would effectively not command a majority in the House. That would move us towards a position whereby there were two Governments in the House: a UK Government and a second Government formed by the shadow Front Bench for those “English-only” matters where there was no majority for that Government. We would reach that position if we followed the route of not allowing Members of Parliament outside England to vote on specific matters.

My position is clear. If there is genuine concern among people in England—I accept that there may well be—it should be addressed through proper devolution, and perhaps a proper English Parliament, not by trying to tinker with arrangements in this House in such a way as to undermine its working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I shall address that point later, but for now let me say that when we publish legislation, we already publish territorial extent clauses. I have a couple of examples to share with the House that demonstrate why these amendments are unnecessary because we already do what they suggest we should do, and inserting them into the Bill would open up the possibility of court interference in how this House operates.

[Oliver Heald]

I imagine the commission will look at the experience in respect of Standing Order No. 97 and the way it was used for Scottish business. These amendments raise the issue of the timetable between a Bill being first printed and then presented, and the certification of the Speaker would be an issue if Standing Order No. 97 were being looked at for England. In that context, will the Minister assure us that the current and former Clerks of the House, as well as the senior officials present and, perhaps, those who work in the Speaker’s office, will have an opportunity to give some input into the commission on the procedural timetable and how it might work?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will permit me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be going into great detail on that point.

[Oliver Heald]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her Bill. Does she agree that in the House, during the period when Scottish Bills were dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 97, nobody ever talked about two classes of MP? Why should that happen with an English procedure?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend makes an erudite point, and I shall no doubt refer to Standing Order No. 97 in my remarks.

I completely agree with the Minister that this matter should be framed as an English question. Clearly, it is an unfinished piece of constitutional business that the devolution settlement has allowed a situation in which English matters increasingly come before the Chamber and are voted on by MPs from all parts of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady points out precisely why it is so important to resolve in this Parliament some of those complex constitutional issues. There will be others, I am sure, who will refer to the problems of the other House and the fact that there is draft legislation currently in this place about reforms to that House. There might be consequences for that piece of legislation as well.

[Oliver Heald]

On the point that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) just made about the people of Scotland not having predominantly voted for a Conservative Government, is it not the case that when Tony Blair was elected, the majority in England did not vote for him, but we had to put up with him?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will not digress down that particular historical byway.

Let me get back to the Bill, which does three simple things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

If we are to have such a system—and there has been some discussion of Standing Order No. 97—that is indeed what happens. That is the point that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire—

[Oliver Heald]

My constituency is in Hertfordshire.

[Thomas Docherty]

I apologise. It just goes to show the benefits of living in a United Kingdom; otherwise I would not be learning that geography lesson.

Under that rule, the Speaker makes the decision. You would, Mr Deputy Speaker, pull me up if I followed the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and gave seven centuries’ worth of history on the role of the Speaker and how it has changed—and, indeed, the excellent role of the Chairman of Ways and Means and how it has changed in the past 700 years. The Speaker’s role is to be an impartial judge. To give a simple example, let us say for the sake of argument that Mr Murdo Fraser becomes leader of this new party. If he wants a name for a party that supports the Conservatives at that level, that backs Tory policies but is not officially Tory, I must counsel him that the title “Liberal Democrats” has already been taken, so he will have to think of another one. If Mr Fraser’s new party were to win 27 of the 51 or 52 seats that there will be in Scotland at the next general election, but thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we were to sweep to power at the next general election, it might well be possible—

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) made an engaging speech, but he did not let the facts get in the way of his argument. I felt a bit sorry for Lord Strathclyde, because he lives in Scotland and is Scottish, so to be described as having no connection with the country will have been a bitter blow. Equally, it was slightly unfair on the rest of us to be told that we knew nothing about Cumbria or Scotland, given that some of us love walking in the lakes and visit Scotland regularly. But there we go!

I was struck by something else that the hon. Gentleman said. He spoke as though the Conservative party invented the West Lothian question—as though it was a sort of Conservative plot. In truth, of course, the question was posed by a Scottish Labour MP, the former Father of the House, Tam Dalyell. He was the one who asked whether it could be right for Scottish Members to vote on English legislation, when they had no right to do so on Scottish legislation and English Members did not have that right either. Following his speeches during the debates on the Scotland Act 1998, Conservative Members, including Michael Ancram, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), now the Secretary of State for Defence, and I came up with the policy of English votes for English laws to address the West Lothian question. Since then, the Conservative party has had a great deal of work done on the question—the democracy taskforce has been mentioned—and has come to the conclusion that something could be done to address the problem.

The democracy taskforce looked at the Standing Orders of the House. For many years, Standing Order No. 97 has been used for these purposes for Scottish legislation. It is not right to suggest, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife did, that these Standing Orders would always be used in a hostile, unco-operative way. The fact is that we do have a book of Standing Orders, the House does operate by them and largely there is a consensual approach, through the usual channels, that ensures that we can do our business. I do not think therefore that he ought to be suspicious that, just because we would introduce a new Standing Order, suddenly the history and traditions of the House would change and we would use the procedures to be hostile to each other. Over the years, each of the great parties has been in government and opposition, and were one party to start behaving as though the Standing Orders were a battleground and try to “get” the other party, it would reap the whirlwind in due course. We rely on being able to do our business in a consensual way and the usual channels co-operate well, so I do not think that he should be so suspicious.

To deal with English legislation, we would simply need to add to Standing Order No. 97, in line 3, page 91 of our Standing Orders, the words “or England”, make the necessary consequential amendment and set up an English Grand Committee.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling argument, but unfortunately that is not what the Bill does; it makes the Secretary of State responsible for determining the matter, not the Speaker.

[Oliver Heald]

That brings me to my next point. The Standing Order is not written in such a way as to disadvantage one party or another or to be used in a hostile way. It is drafted, and has been in our Standing Orders for many years, in a way that has a bit of common sense. It provides that if there are consequential amendments affecting England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the certificate can be withheld—but it does not have to be. The Speaker has some discretion. Equally, it is not compulsory under this particular Standing Order for a Bill certified as entirely Scottish to be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee—it is discretionary. If the usual channels discussed the matter and decided, “No, this ought to be dealt with by the whole House”, that could happen. We are not as daft as the hon. Gentleman thinks. We would not have Standing Orders so rigid that they could not work and could be used as a tool of war. We have sensible Standing Orders, we are sensible people when it comes to procedure, and I think that the House would be quite capable of dealing with this matter.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is setting up his commission and I welcome the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). It would give a little more room for manoeuvre over controversial measures or measures on the margins of territoriality. With her measure in place, instead of a Bill simply being printed and the Speaker deciding whether to issue a certificate, there would be pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill would be produced; it would go through its pre-legislative scrutiny; and it would contain a statement by the Secretary of State on his view of the territoriality, the financial aspects and so on. That would give us even more opportunity to ensure that our Standing Orders are not used in a foolish way.

[Mr Leigh]

As usual, my hon. Friend gives a very erudite speech. In all the chaff that came from the mouth of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), however, there was a grain of truth. I must put this to my hon. Friend, because he is one of our leading experts on the matter. If the current system works quite well and if, as we know, we can rely on the Speaker for his impartiality, need we add anything to the process? Need we add the Secretary of State? I make that point because it is important that we debate these matters seriously.

[Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the issue over many years and has great knowledge of constitutional matters. He makes a fair point, and I agree that the proposal may not be necessary. It may be an added extra that introduces complexities in a way that does not help as much as we think. However, that is one of the blessings of the commission, in that it will be able to look at that point—speedily, I hope—and come to a conclusion. It is important that serving on the commission are people who can bring experience and knowledge on this topic. I hope that it will be possible for the Clerk and the senior officials of the House to submit evidence to the commission or to take part in its proceedings, so that expert knowledge is brought to bear on this important point.

Finally, there has been a lot of talk about how if we had English votes for English laws, there would be two sorts of MPs. That is nonsense. When the Scotland provisions were used, nobody ever said that there were two classes of MP; indeed, one could argue that there are two classes of MP at the moment, in the sense that Scottish Members cannot deal with matters that affect their own back yard. The argument is nonsense. We are all elected on the same basis and we have Standing Orders to deal with matters. We have previously had a Scottish procedure; why can we not have an English one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but we want to solve the problem and we want to make sure the solution is workable. He may want to come back, but let me deal with some of the other aspects that I set out yesterday.

On the membership of the commission and the scope, we set out yesterday what it would and would not cover. Typically when the issue has been discussed, the West Lothian question has fallen into three components. One has been the representation of the different nations in the House. Another has been money—the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) touched on that—and the third has been the processes of the House.

On the representation of the different parts of the United Kingdom, we have dealt with that in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, so every part of the United Kingdom will be equally represented in the House. On the money side, I think my hon. Friend mentioned that we would not be dealing with that. We have made it clear that there may be issues that need to be dealt with in relation to the Barnett formula, but the time to tackle those is when the deficit has been dealt with, not now. We have made it clear that the commission will not deal with those financial matters. They are significant and raise a range of questions, but the commission—much to the relief, I am sure, of those whom we will ask to serve on it—will not be tasked with that responsibility.

I heard clearly the views that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) set out about some of the questions that the commission might need to consider. I welcome any thoughts that other Members may have about the scope of the terms of reference. The hon. Gentleman identified an important one—the interaction and the agreement between Parliament and the devolved legislatures about whether the particular areas fall within the devolution settlements and if they do, whether those devolved legislatures are content for us to legislate here. I have noted that and will bear it in mind.

The commission will be set up by the Government, so the terms of reference will be set by Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) made the point that the House operates in a consensual way and we do not want Standing Orders to turn into a battleground. We have said that there will be a full opportunity for the political parties represented in the House to have their say following the completion of the commission’s work. Clearly, that will have to take place anyway, because if we were going to legislate or change Standing Orders, there would have to be a debate and a vote in the House, but we want to make sure that when the commission has set out some workable solutions, we talk to parties in the House to move as far as is possible in a sensible way forward.

[Oliver Heald]

I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend wants to consult the House authorities on how best to frame the commission and the way in which it works, but can he guarantee that the Clerks of the House and the experts we have here will be able to have an input to the work of the commission, so that their expertise is fully taken into account by its members?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend puts his finger on exactly the point on which we wish to consult Mr Speaker and the parliamentary authorities. We want to make sure that the deliberations of the commission are informed by the way the House works, and that when it proposes possible solutions, they are workable and practical and will not have unforeseen consequences. We need to think through the consequences and have a properly informed debate so that Members know what they are supporting when we bring forward those solutions. That is exactly why we will have a short process of consultation with Mr Speaker.

I return briefly to the short exchange yesterday when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised his point of order and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair. I returned to the Chamber but had not heard all of the point of order. I said that I would read it, as I have, and would respond to it. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, the Government will listen to Members’ thoughts about what should be encompassed within the terms of reference. Nevertheless, it is a commission that the Government are setting up to fulfil their own coalition agreement. I listened to what he said, though, and I am happy to listen to what other Members have to say. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda, who I am disappointed is not here to take part in this debate—[Interruption.] I see that other Members share that view. I hope that he will look at Hansard and feel that I have responded to and dealt with his point of order, although strictly speaking it was not a point of order—that was your ruling yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker. None the less, I hope that he will feel that I have answered it properly. On those points, I also hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire.

My hon. Friend asked how the commission’s recommendations will be enacted. To some extent, that will depend on its recommendations. Clearly, if it recommends a solution with a legislative basis, there will need to be a Bill and it would have to be dealt with in the usual way within government. However, it is entirely possible—perhaps even likely, given what I have said about the Bill—that because it relates to how the House operates, the solution would be a matter for the House and Standing Orders. That would clearly need a different set of solutions. However, given what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, I hope that I have made it clear that the Government want to solve this problem. The commission is the mechanism for laying out some workable solutions, and I hope that she will find that of comfort.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) talked about the 1990s and the process of devolution, and he said that it was not yet complete. One of the problems is that this was not thought through properly. The Labour Government thought through some parts of it, but did not think about how England would be governed in this devolved era. They did that partly because it was a difficult question and partly, I suspect, because some of their interests were different. The fact is, however, that devolution, which we support, has had consequences, and we just need to work through them and deal with them sensibly. Of course, I do not need to answer his other point, because my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire has adequately demonstrated to the House that our right hon. Friend the noble Lord Strathclyde is, indeed, Scottish and resides in Scotland. He defended him so well that I need not trouble the House on that point any further.

I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. I want to deal with two points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). He is right that this is a complex matter, but I think that he confused or muddled up government and legislation. The Government cannot always assume that they will get their legislation through. They might well have a pretty decent chance of getting it through this House, although some of the legislation that I have been involved in has required a fair bit of persuasive work with my colleagues in the Conservative party, not just with Opposition members—[Interruption.] I hear agreement on that. In the other place, however, where the Government do not have a majority, it is not a foregone conclusion, and Ministers have to undertake a process of persuasion and consultation, and often have to make concessions. Even Governments with a majority in this place cannot take legislating for granted. Furthermore, aside from legislative issues, Ministers have many powers and executive responsibilities that do not involve legislation. I think that he was guilty of confusing those issues.

Public Disorder

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Local councils can put up CCTV cameras and they will continue to be able to do so. We can all see how effective CCTV is when we see people walking out of court trying to hide their face because they know that is how they got caught.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that those who are found guilty of committing crimes during the riots should be forced to face up to the full consequences for both their communities and individual victims of the damage they have done? That means tough sentences, but should it not also mean reparation? Does he agree that those young people should be forced to listen while the victims of their crimes explain what the damage to communities means, the jobs that will be lost, the damage to buildings and the sense of tragedy that many feel?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We should use all means to bring home to those criminals the damage that they have done to their communities and to local people, and he makes a number of suggestions in that regard.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman; he and I are old sparring partners.

[Oliver Heald]

The Leader of the Opposition rightly talks about the independence of the police, yet he seems to have expected that, during the course of a police inquiry, the assistant commissioner would go and see the Prime Minister and talk about the emerging evidence. It seems, extraordinarily, that the assistant commissioner had a similar expectation. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether that is the way it went on in Labour years? Is that what was happening? If not, will he say now that he thinks the police should be truly independent?

[Edward Miliband]

This is not about the operational independence of the police and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to return to these issues because it is the wall of silence that was erected around the Prime Minister that meant that he did not hear the facts about Andy Coulson, which were facts that he should have heard. We need reforms—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I will write to the previous Attorney-General today to ask for that information.

[Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Mr Cox]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Oliver Heald]

When the former Home Secretary spoke a moment ago, he used the words, “or informally”. Does my hon. Friend think that one aspect that may need examining is whether the matter was another subject that fell into the “sofa Government” category, and that the Attorney-General may have spoken to the Prime Minister or one or two others, but it was not brought before the full Cabinet?

[Mr Cox]

The matter needs to be closely examined, and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has taken it on board. With the greatest respect to the Attorney-General at the time, if he was informed of the matter, he should have interested himself in exactly how the investigation would be conducted. On the face of it, an enormous amount of wrongdoing was simply ignored. The police appear to have proposed a strategy, which would, as the briefing paper put it to the Attorney-General, “ring-fence” Mulcaire and Goodman and exclude a whole raft of serious criminal wrongdoing from investigation. That may well have affected Members.

I do not know to whom the Committee refers when it says that neither Ministers nor the police escalated the matter. As the Committee put it, if Ministers at the time had taken those issues sufficiently seriously, the matter would have been investigated. The truth would have been discovered then and we could have avoided a whole series of events that we now know unfolded.

My second point is about the review suggested by then Deputy Assistant Commissioner Yates. The Home Affairs Committee has rightly judged, in tone and substance, its criticisms of Mr Yates and Mr Hayman. There are serious questions to be asked about why an investigation or a review—I appreciate that it was not a formal review—that was carried out in eight hours apparently failed to read material that, as the former Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions was able to determine in a few minutes, gave rise to the gravest illegalities. On the face of it, that is either wilful blindness or rank incompetence. Whatever the reason, Mr Yates’s resignation was right and done for proper reasons. It is inconceivable that, if the exercise had been carried out properly, the material would not have come to light in 2009. Questions arise about the closeness of officers of the Metropolitan police to News International and whether that deflected and deterred them from a rigorous analysis of the evidence that had been in their possession since 2006. It was not only in their possession, but, as the memorandum of 30 May 2006 to the Attorney-General shows, they had discovered that it included

“a vast array of offending behaviour.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I have to say, having heard the evidence, that the answer to my hon. and learned Friend’s point remains hanging in the wind. I am not satisfied with the explanations that we have heard, which will appear in the evidence that will be published by the Home Affairs Committee. One explanation that was given by a senior investigating officer in the case was that the police had other priorities, and this matter was not regarded as sufficiently important when set beside them. We have to accept that police resources are limited and the police have to determine their priorities, but their credibility on the matter is not assisted by what the senior investigating officer of the case wrote about it—incidentally, in a News International newspaper of which he had subsequently become an employee. I am referring to Mr Hayman, who said:

“In the original inquiry, my heart sank when I was told the accusations came from the Palace. This was not the time for a half-hearted investigation—we put our best detectives on the case and left no stone unturned as officials breathed down our neck.”

I believe that was inconsistent with the evidence that we heard from the police about the priorities that they set themselves at the time. That is the honest conclusion that I have come to on the basis of that evidence.

The Committee has gone as far as it can. I believe we have gone to the limits of what a Select Committee can achieve in carrying out an investigation. These questions now remain to be resolved by others in the course of the Leveson inquiry, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly set up, and further criminal investigations must go forward under the direction of Sue Akers in Operation Weeting. In view of the evidence that we have now heard from the former DPP and others, I will not be surprised if evidence is uncovered of further phone tapping, further payments to officers and, I am afraid, possibly other offences involving the corruption of police officers. I hope that that is not the case, but the important thing for the reputation of the police, the good reputation of many honest officers and the public interest is that these matters are now fully investigated impartially and independently, and that those investigations are carried through to their conclusion.

We have heard a great deal about the press. One catastrophic effect of the original failed investigation, along with the failed review carried out by Mr Yates in 2006, was that senior police officers went to see representatives of The Guardian, which had been carrying out an investigation, effectively to try to put them off further investigations by persuading them that their investigation, which was based upon matters that were seeping out through the civil courts, was exaggerated and unjustified. It is to the credit of The Guardian, and particularly its journalist Nick Davies, that it persisted with the investigation. I say that as somebody who is no great sympathiser with The Guardian—I do not expect to receive an invitation to lunch there any time soon, and I do not know the people concerned. However, that was to their credit, and it was an illustration of the value of a free press.

That brings me to my next point. It is very important to keep the criminal side of this separate from the issues that arise in respect of the regulation and ownership of a diverse, free and robust press. The matters that we have been talking about are criminal matters, not just matters of comment or of insufficient comeback from the Press Complaints Commission. They are serious criminal matters involving a wide range of people—politicians, celebrities and, as we have heard, many ordinary members of the public often in tragic circumstances. Each case has to be properly investigated, and anybody who has committed offences has to be brought to justice.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we must not forget that there is a presumption of innocence right at the core of our criminal justice system? It is all very well for us to debate matters and examine what speculation there is, but people are entitled to a fair trial in our country.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I have been very careful to refer to investigations that should take place, and which we now believe are taking place. We should not do anything that will either interfere with the proper course of those investigations or prejudice a fair trial for anybody who is brought to trial as a result of them. However, the question of a free and robust press is separate from that. An under-reaction would not be in the public interest, but neither would an overreaction, would could even be more damaging. We need a diverse, free and robust press that is unmuzzled.

Too great a concentration of broadcasting, which is so important, in one set of hands can be against the public interest. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement, and I agree completely with him. He made some very valuable contributions, particularly when he referred to the position of the BBC, which is a sensitive matter. I feel—I suppose I would, as a Conservative—that there has at times been a certain amount of bias, or a predisposition, in the editorial line of the BBC, and that certain matters that should have been investigated or highlighted have not been given proper attention. It is to the credit of the BBC that its present director-general has said that, looking back, the BBC did not do full justice to the issue of immigration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My old friend the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right in one respect: there are faults in all parties in the House and successive Governments in not tackling this issue early enough. However, I completely reject his criticism of the Mayor of London, because the Mayor’s comments predate the most recent allegations.

[Clive Efford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Oliver Heald]

No, I will not, because I have so little time. That is the way it is tonight.

I shall make three points. First, people in this country have a fundamental right to live under the rule of law, but Members on both sides of the House must look back on this period and ask themselves this: did we uphold the rule of law? As the hon. Gentleman said, journalists felt that they could break the law willy-nilly, and people felt that they could talk to Select Committees about breaking the law, and nothing would happen. That is a failure of this Parliament over a period of time to uphold one of the basic rights of our people.

That is why it is right that the Prime Minister has agreed to a full, judge-led, independent inquiry, and why it is right that we have a proper police investigation under Sue Akers to go after the evidence. Our Select Committees did a good job yesterday in showing that even the most powerful people in the land, and even the world, can be questioned before a Select Committee just like anyone else. That is how it should be in our country. People should not feel that they can get away with it.

Let us ask how we got into that position. Many hon. Members have said that after 1992, Labour politicians were desperate for the good opinion of the media. They went out to the Canary Islands and all sorts of places—[Interruption.] They went to the Cayman Islands and Australia too. They were out to curry favour with the media regardless. The combination of currying favour with the media and the sofa-style government that we had under Tony Blair meant that we ended up with the sort of situation that was described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who said that the Attorney-General was told in a letter from the police that a vast quantity of private information and criminality needed investigation, but nothing happened.

How did that happen? It should not have been possible, and there should have been a report to the Cabinet. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said that no such report ever occurred. That reminds us of what the Butler inquiry said about sofa-style government, when there are no formalities. We ended up going off to war in Iraq without members of the Cabinet seeing all the papers. That same, sloppy approach is not the way to run a country. It is right that we have the inquiries, but the House must get together to ensure the proper rule of law.

My second point is that the separation of the criminal justice system from politicians is very important. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that he expected the Prime Minister to be briefed by an assistant commissioner about an ongoing police inquiry. The assistant commissioner actually offered that service to No. 10, but Edward Llewellyn was absolutely right to say no, because we want that separation. The cosiness of the police and the media, and sofa-style government, blurs the formalities that protect our constitution.

Finally, I want to mention the presumption of innocence. When in opposition, it is easy to cast stones and to rely on bits of gossip and speculation as if they are evidence, but in this country, thank goodness, we have a fair system of trial with the presumption of innocence at its core. I would not want that to change. All those who throw stones and pretend that someone is guilty just because a newspaper says so ought to think about where that leads. Let us stick up for the constitutional principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers, and let us ensure that we continue to have fair trials.

Phone Hacking

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is difficult to bring forward specific legislation for a specific company; we have got to be a Government under the law. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is worth reminding Labour Members that a US-based company is able to purchase all of a UK broadcaster because of an Act that their Government passed.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Leveson inquiry and agree very much with the Prime Minister that our focus should be on the innocent victims whom we have heard about recently, but he will be aware that there were concerns in the House that the hacking of telephones has impeded MPs in their work and interfered with freedom of expression, which is one of the most deeply felt and important aspects of our work. The Standards and Privileges Committee produced a report—its 14th report—on this subject. Will the Prime Minister ensure that it is fed into the inquiry and fully considered?

[The Prime Minister]

I will, of course, do that. This inquiry gives us an opportunity to look at some reports that a lot of work has gone into, but, sadly, that have gathered dust, rather than having been taken as seriously as perhaps they should have been.