Julian Huppert
Main Page: Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat - Cambridge)Department Debates - View all Julian Huppert's debates with the Home Office
(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman will know that not all parts that were under the NPIA are going into the NCA. Other sections of the NPIA are effectively going into parts of other organisations—some will come to the Home Office; the College of Policing that we have set up will look at standards and training. It is not possible simply to take the two budgets, add them together and say, “Where is the money going?” The money for the National Crime Agency will come from the precursor agencies, but as for other bodies, we will obviously have to look carefully at its budget at a time when forces and others are having to take cuts.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I want to say again how well regarded SOCA is. When the Home Affairs Committee looked at drugs policy around the world it was clear wherever we went that there was huge respect for SOCA, its brand and the work it does to counter narco-trafficking. One recommendation in the Committee’s report on drugs was that we should try to preserve the badge of SOCA—perhaps as a serious overseas crime arm or something—so that we would not have to explain to lots of countries why we had changed its name. Will the Home Secretary look at that idea?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for once again reiterating the good work that SOCA does, and I recognise that there is a brand issue. SOCA is being brought into the National Crime Agency and there will be a serious organised crime command within that agency. What the international parts of the NCA are called, and how they are configured with other commands in the NCA, are currently under discussion.
The National Crime Agency will be a visible, operational crime-fighting agency. It will have four commands—I have just referred to that issue—that will allow it to lead the national response on organised crime, border policing, economic crime and child exploitation. It will fulfil the coalition commitment to create a dedicated border policing command, ensuring a joined-up response to those who seek to enter the UK illegally or in order to do harm. It will be home to the national cybercrime unit, bringing together existing capabilities to keep the public safe from online threats.
The NCA will hold the single authoritative intelligence picture of organised crime affecting the United Kingdom, underpinned by strong powers and duties to ensure it can share relevant information across law enforcement bodies. Part 1 of the Bill will give the National Crime Agency the ability to task and co-ordinate the law enforcement response to organised crime. Individual police forces will continue to play an important role in tackling criminal gangs, but the NCA will ensure its resources are used in the most effective way.
To ensure the right operational response at the right level, the Bill also provides for co-operation and tasking between the NCA and police forces. I would expect agreement to be reached locally about which agency is best placed to take action against a given criminal group. Where—exceptionally—agreement cannot be reached, the Bill provides the necessary backstop powers for the NCA to direct the provision of assistance or that a particular task be undertaken.
The NCA will be operationally focused with an experienced crime fighter at its head. The Bill provides for clear governance arrangements, with an operationally independent director general answering directly to the Home Secretary for delivering the agency’s strategic priorities. Keith Bristow, the NCA’s first director general, has made it clear that to undertake his role effectively he will need an open and responsive relationship with police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Bill will ensure this by requiring that the devolved Administrations and key figures in law enforcement are consulted on the NCA’s annual plan and its strategic priorities. From the director general downwards, NCA officers will need to be equipped with the necessary powers to do their job, so the Bill provides for NCA officers to be designated with the powers of a constable, customs officer and immigration officer.
Given the vital crime-fighting role that NCA officers will have, it is inconceivable to me that their work should be disrupted through industrial action. Although my preference is to reach a no-strike agreement with the relevant unions, the Bill includes a back-stop statutory prohibition on industrial action. Few would wish to contemplate the police being able to strike, and I am pleased that in the other place no one argued against applying the same restrictions to operational NCA officers.
Before moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I want to touch on a possible future role for the NCA in respect of counter-terrorism policing. The House will be aware that the other place voted to remove what was clause 2 of the Bill, which enabled counter-terrorism policing functions to be conferred on the NCA by order. The debate in the other place was about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that should be given to such a decision, not whether the NCA should take on counter-terrorism policing in the future.
I have been clear that no decision on this issue has been taken and that none will be taken until after the NCA has been established and following a detailed review. However, the creation of a national crime agency with a national remit to combat serious, organised and complex crime invites the question whether it should take on national functions in respect of counter-terrorism policing. I do not come to this question with any preconceived ideas about what the answer should be, but it was prudent, in my view, for the Bill as originally introduced to have included a future-proofing provision.
I also recognise the points raised in the other place about possible future decisions on counter-terrorism policing and sensitivities in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the original clause, as drafted, provided strong protection for the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland in relation to counter-terrorism policing in Northern Ireland. I will continue to reflect on the debate in the other place before deciding how best to proceed, and I am sure that the House will want to come back to this issue during the later stages of the Bill’s consideration.
As well as establishing the NCA, we need to ensure that both the NCA and its law enforcement partners have the powers they need to fight organised crime in all its manifestations. In combating fraud and other economic crimes, the Bill confers on the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service the ability to enter into deferred prosecution agreements with organisations alleged to have committed economic wrongdoing. These agreements will enable prosecutors to impose tough financial penalties and other sanctions on organisations for wrongdoing as an alternative to protracted court proceedings with uncertain outcomes.
To support the fight against immigration crime, part 3 of the Bill extends to the UK Border Agency’s financial investigation teams certain surveillance and property interference powers available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997, as well as asset seizure powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Under the law as it stands, there is an artificial distinction whereby these powers are available to Border Agency staff investigating customs offences, but not to those investigating immigration offences.
On the Proceeds of Crime Act, we need to ensure that our ability to seize money and assets derived from criminal conduct is not undermined by legal loopholes. I can therefore announce that we will table amendments to the Bill that will restore the civil recovery scheme to the position it was commonly understood to be in prior to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Perry. In its judgment, the Court held that the scheme only applied to property within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. This judgment significantly weakened the reach of the Proceeds of Crime Act, and it is right that we should take action to prevent those who engage in criminal conduct here from being able to put their ill-gotten gains beyond the reach of the UK courts.
As well as strengthening enforcement at the border through the NCA and UKBA, the Bill will ensure that we can make the most effective use of resources by closing a long-standing loophole in the immigration system. Part 3 of the Bill removes the full right of appeal against refusal of an application for a visa as a family visitor. I know this provision has caused a number of hon. Members some disquiet.
Mrs May
Let me say to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have raised this issue that analysis of a sample of 363 allowed family visit visa appeal determinations in April 2011 showed that new evidence produced at appeal was the only reason for the tribunal’s decision in 63% of those cases. In only 8% of cases was new evidence not at least a factor in the allowed appeal. If people have new evidence, they can make a fresh application. It will be heard and considered, and a decision will be given to them in far less time than it takes to go to appeal. A system of appeal is about appealing against the original decision, not appealing against the original decision plus bringing forward extra evidence.
Mrs May
I really think I have answered questions about this issue, which I am sure will continue to be a matter for debate during the Bill’s progress.
Just as we are bringing the law enforcement response into the 21st century, so this Bill will ensure that our courts and our laws can meet the challenges of today’s society. Part 2 will enable the courts to deal robustly with wrongdoing and will ensure confidence in the system of non-custodial sentencing. For serious offenders —particularly those who use violence—a prison sentence will usually be the appropriate punishment, but where a custodial sentence might not be appropriate, the public must have confidence in the alternatives. A community order that is not perceived as a credible sanction or a fine that is not paid simply brings the criminal justice system into disrepute.
The provisions in part 2 will change that. For the first time, the courts will be required to include a punitive element in every community order. They will also be able to impose a new electronic monitoring requirement, which makes use of global positioning system technology to monitor an offender’s whereabouts. This will protect the public by deterring crime and assisting with detection. Alongside that, the Bill provides for courts to defer sentencing after conviction to allow time for restorative justice. We know that around 85% of victims who participate in restorative justice conferences are satisfied.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I commend him for the campaign he has led on this issue, following the death of his constituent Lillian Groves. He has been resolute on this issue, and I am pleased that we have been able to find a vehicle through which to bring forward this new offence so quickly. The Bill introduces an offence of driving with a concentration of a specified controlled drug in the body in excess of the specified limit for that drug.
Dr Huppert
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. Much depends on what the aim is and how the specified limit should be set. Will she confirm that the aim is to set a level for drugs that is equivalent to the current legal alcohol limit in the blood of 0.08%, and to measure the drug concentration that would indicate the same level of impairment? Is my understanding correct?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are currently considering the controlled drugs to be covered by the offence and the limits that should be set for such drugs for driving purposes. As a Government, we have taken a robust, zero-tolerance approach on illicit drugs through the drugs strategy. As we consider the detail of this policy, we will want to send an equally strong message that people simply cannot take illegal drugs and drive.
Yvette Cooper
Like the Home Secretary, I have always questioned whether there was a case for removing this measure in the first place. If she has carried out further analysis and believes it can be removed while maintaining protection for groups that might be discriminated against or where the police need to have the flexibility to respond effectively, we would be keen to see that evidence before we get to Committee. It is important to ensure that we protect freedom of speech, but it is also important to ensure that we can protect vulnerable groups from unfair discrimination.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way, but I say to hon. Members that this issue will be covered in Committee.
Dr Huppert
Has the right hon. Lady seen the letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighting the fact that there has been no prosecution using this provision that could not have been achieved in other areas? There is a big difference between insulting and abusive action, and if there is no risk to prosecutions free speech can be safely defended in this case.
Yvette Cooper
I am aware of the points the DPP has made, but I simply ask, because this is important, that the Government undertake an equality impact assessment on the impact on different groups, in order to be sure that they are doing the right thing before this matter reaches Committee.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I want to support some of the many excellent provisions in the Bill, and in particular the inclusion of drug-driving as an offence on which the police can act at the roadside in a proportionate and simple manner. There have been many such cases of which I have been made aware and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on having campaigned on the issue with great success.
I am disappointed that the Government have not taken the opportunity to go slightly further and consider road traffic offences more generally, including the laws on those who drive while medically unfit. Of course, the problems caused by drug-drivers and those who drive while medically unfit are incredibly similar from a public safety point of view. In both cases it is an offence to drive, but the law is not effective in preventing the problem.
Arguing for the drug-driving offence in another place, Lord Henley recognised that although being unfit through drugs is an offence, it is not prosecuted often enough because of the difficulty the police have in trying to prove that the driver is sufficiently impaired. That has hampered the police in taking drug-impaired drivers off our roads and the new provision will give the police a proportionate power to do so and punish them appropriately for endangering the public.
I do not consider those who drive while unfit for medical reasons in the same category as drug-abusing drivers; nor do I believe that they should necessarily be punished as severely as they might be under the Bill. Drugged and drunk drivers have made a decision to incapacitate themselves, whereas those driving while unfit for medical reasons might not have done. The effect on our roads is the same, however, as that driver is incapacitated while driving a vehicle that can kill.
The police should have the power to take a licence away or prevent someone they believe to be unfit to drive from doing so until it can be established otherwise. We know that 1,100 casualties and 50 deaths are caused every year by drug-driving, but I cannot quote the number of casualties on our roads caused by people driving while they are medically unfit—for example, because their eyesight is impaired—because we do not record the figures. In my short time as a Member of this House, however, several tragic cases have been brought to my attention.
One such case was brought to me by one of my constituents, whose niece, Natalie Wade, died on the way to buy her wedding dress, mown down by a driver who categorically knew he was unable to see appropriately to drive but continued to do so. He refused to recognise his obligation to report that to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is what we require medically unfit drivers to do. Hon. Members might also be aware of the case of a lady called Cassie McCord, who was killed by a driver with impaired eyesight who had been stopped three days earlier by the police. The police were unable to prevent him from driving, he continued to do so and she died when he ran her over only three days later.
We do not stop such people driving but we need to avoid these preventable deaths. The very least we could do is allow the police to do their job, and when they recognise that individuals are clearly unfit to drive for whatever reason—drug-driving or medical impairment—we should allow them to act.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Lady is making an extremely good point and she is absolutely right to say that we must focus on the level of impairment, not the cause. If it is a question of road safety, we must focus on a solution whereby people who are unfit to drive for medical reasons or because of drugs or alcohol that they have recently consumed should be unfit because they have reached a threshold of impairment, not because of the cause of that impairment.
Rebecca Harris
Someone who is apprehended by the police because their driving is impaired by alcohol can have their vehicle taken from them at the roadside, and the new provisions will go a long way towards ensuring that that happens more often with drug-driving and that we can prosecute drug-drivers more readily and more easily. If a person fails a roadside sight test, however, such as that which one needs for a driving licence, it is impossible for the police to take their keys and require them to have an eye test. Perhaps we could extend the scope of the Bill—I hope in Committee that we can take the provision one step further and consider those who are medically unfit to drive, for whatever reason.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). He has obviously campaigned hard on that issue and I commend him for his efforts. I am glad that the measure will be contained in this legislation.
Earlier today, the Home Affairs Committee held a conference to launch our new inquiry into leadership and standards in the police. I am pleased to see three members of the Committee here this evening: my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). We listened carefully to some of the leaders of our police service, including Hugh Orde, Bernard Hogan-Howe and the new chief executive of the college of policing, as well as leaders from abroad, such as the commissioner who heads the Royal Canadian mounted police and the former president of Interpol. It is clear that in order to get effective leadership, there must be effective structures. I am therefore glad that, with the creation of the National Crime Agency, we at last have a body for the head of the NCA, who was appointed 15 months ago.
At that conference, it was interesting to hear the acceptance from all sides of the police service of the need for the Government, the Opposition and those in the police service to sit together and talk about the future of policing. With the Bill, we have an opportunity to streamline a number of the structures that have operated in policing for a number of years. The Labour Government can be praised for the resources that they gave the police, but we would be the first to admit that we did not really spend the necessary time examining the structures and ensuring they were fit for purpose.
What the Government have proposed is a revolution in policing—the abolition of SOCA and the National Policing Improvement Agency, the creation of the College of Policing and police and crime commissioners, and the abolition of police authorities. When on taking office the Home Secretary announced the changes, she talked about uncluttering the landscape. We will probably have more organisations rather than fewer at the end of the process, but I would be the first to accept them if they were fit for purpose, acted upon Parliament wanted and did the job effectively.
My first concern about the new landscape is that it is not complete. We thought that by now we would have a Constable—perhaps “Dedham Vale”—but instead we have the tail-end of a “Guernica”. The good intentions are there, but it is not complete. I thought that after two years, we would have the end of the landscape and the jigsaw would have been completed, but it has not. I urge Ministers to come rapidly to a conclusion about how the landscape will look in the end. The Home Affairs Committee, including its members who are in their places, has scrutinised and monitored what the Government have been doing, but we cannot decide on the structures. That has to be up to the Government. All that the House and the Committee can do is scrutinise and monitor what the Government are doing and give our recommendations on whether the system will work.
We need a conclusion on whether responsibility for counter-terrorism will remain with the Met or form part of the National Crime Agency. Why? Because we were promised a review of that at the end of the Olympics. The Home Secretary specifically said that she would not make a decision until the Olympics were over. I urge the Government to make progress, because it is not in the Met’s interests, and certainly not in the interests of Keith Bristow and his new colleagues at the NCA, that they should delay.
Like the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), I would probably be minded to move responsibility for counter-terrorism into the NCA. It would fit well there, as the NCA will be a national organisation dealing with national and international issues. However, I know that there is resistance to that from the Met. I have discussed it with a number of officers, who feel strongly that responsibility should stay with the Met, because it has within it the expertise needed to deal with the matter.
It is also important that we know the name of the new chair of the College of Policing. Perhaps the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will tell us that. It has a chief executive, and we heard from him today. He has ambitious plans for what he hopes will eventually be a royal college of policing. Professionalism is vital to the future of our police service, but it is also important that the Government get on and appoint the chair. I know that someone was recently nominated, but that person has not been appointed, for a variety of reasons. If there is a shortlist of additional candidates, I urge the Minister to interview them, as I think he will be doing this week, and then let the Home Affairs Committee have the name of whoever is going to be in charge of the organisation, which is vital for the future of this country’s police service.
It is also important that we deal with the issue of appeals. I do not know whether the Minister will remember this, but when he was Minister for Immigration, he promised in a debate in the House a meeting with myself and colleagues who had an interest in immigration. Actually, I think I put it to the Home Secretary that she should meet us, but she passed it on to him. He, of course, has now left the post, and I hope he will pass the message on to the current Minister for Immigration.
Those of us who deal with a lot of immigration cases want the issue of appeals dealt with. That is not just Opposition Members—I see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) in his place, and I reckon that he has many immigration cases at his surgery on a Friday evening. The last thing he wants is for us to be in limbo, having to ask people to apply again because there is no right of appeal for family visitors.
I put to Ministers a simple solution. I know that things have to change. I do not accept that there is abuse in the system, but it is a lengthy system and I know that they want to save money. I and others have suggested in the past that we have an administrative review of the decisions made by entry clearance officers. New evidence necessary to ensure that a case can be dealt with satisfactorily could go to somebody in a hub in London—it is quite possible for cases to be reviewed in London. I say to Ministers that the change will affect the settled British community, the diasporas that the Prime Minister and other Ministers feel strongly about bringing on-side. Unless we do something about the problem, British citizens trying to get relatives over for weddings and other family events will suffer.
Dr Huppert
It is always a pleasure to speak to the right hon. Gentleman about these issues. There is a problem when more information is required in a case, and I understand the Government’s advice that people should reapply. Would not an alternative approach be for entry clearance officers to be able to specify what extra information they would like and make a decision once they have received it? I have seen a number of cases in which they asked to see specific documents part-way through the process.
Keith Vaz
I agree, and my biggest regret from when I was the Minister responsible for entry clearance 10 years ago is that I did not introduce that approach. I left it to the system, and I was wrong to do so. If we had a system that allowed new information to be accepted, we would be able to save the taxpayer a huge amount of money and save those who are seeking to bring people into this country a lot of anguish.
Gavin Barwell
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will explore those issues once I have dealt with the limits.
A decision needs to be made about whether the levels should be based as far as possible on the scientific evidence of similar levels of impairment to that caused by alcohol or whether there is a case, as the family believe, for zero limits for some of the most serious substances. As I understand it, the Government have set up the Wolff panel to consider the detail. They themselves are finding this a highly complex and difficult area and are taking a bit more time than originally envisaged to do this work, but I would be grateful for any guidance that the Minister could give in his winding-up speech about the timing of the panel’s report.
Dr Huppert
It is a fascinating balance. I have seen comments from the Wolff panel suggesting that alcohol is far and away the most dangerous substance that people can take, so although I support the aim in the Bill of reducing impairment, perhaps more work still needs to be done on drink-driving as well.
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to be on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue. What he has described is Liberal Democrat policy as well, and I am delighted that the Government have conceded on it, but has he given any thought to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which also deals with insulting behaviour?
Mr Leigh
Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that in detail when he speaks, because he makes a good point. It is important in the coalition that we try to find things for which, philosophically and honestly, we can work. One thing that is deep in our joint tradition as Liberals and Conservatives is our desire for more freedom, so it is good news that the Government are going with the grain of what the coalition is about.
I hope the House will forgive me if I go into one or two details, because in the law the devil is always in the detail. Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
if they are “likely”—that is the important word—to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. Clause 38 simply deletes the lowest threshold of the offence—only the lowest; that is the important point—which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”. It is important to make the point that we are not removing protection from policemen for those who may feel themselves to be threatened in some way. We all know what being threatened is like: it is quite different from being insulted. The 1986 Act does not define the terms, but the courts say that we all know them when we see them, and I think that is right. A threat is when someone is “in your face” and there is fear of violence. Abuse is when there is, for instance, obscene language. That is why Lord Hurd brought in the law—he was concerned about football hooligans and concerned to protect decent, law-abiding people from feeling threatened or abused.
Insult, however, is clearly less serious and, above all, much more subjective. That is the point about the cases I read out: they are subjective. That is the problem. Most people are surprised to learn that insults are against the law in this country. They think that that kind of law would exist only in some kind of oppressive communist society, not in England and Wales, where traditionally we have given the world this concept of freedom of expression, and the freedom to insult people is an important part of traditional freedom. I believe—and we all know—that insults are minor compared with threats or abuse. An insult is a slight on one’s reputation; it can hurt feelings. Yet just because my feelings are hurt—because I feel that somebody over there has insulted me—should I attempt, or should the police attempt, to make them a criminal? I do not believe that is right.
That is why we have garnered support over the years so quickly. I think virtually everybody who has looked at this issue now supports us. I mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but those supporting us also include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers—that is important, because we were always told that the police were worried about this—the current Director of Public Prosecutions, as has been mentioned, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice, Liberty, The Daily Telegraph, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association. The list goes on and on. Virtually everybody is off the fence and supporting us. We now just want the Labour party to come on board.
There is nothing party political about this issue. There is nothing in what we are arguing about that runs contrary to traditional Labour belief. After all, despite the Whips in the other place, the Lib Dems in the Lords voted for the amendment, now clause 38 in the Bill, by 29 to seven; Conservatives voted for it by 49 to 30; Labour peers rejected their own Whip and voted 23 to 16; and not a single Cross Bencher voted against it.
Frankly, I believe that this change is not due just to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has come on side, as the Secretary of State said earlier. I believe that the Government comprehensively lost the arguments in the Lords. The Lords can be very good on these issues. The Minister was assailed from all sides. Even the Labour spokeswoman, Baroness Smith of Basildon had a difficult time. She suggested outlawing insults might be
“a useful tool which…enables the police to address homophobic and religiously offensive issues.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1126.]
She cited a case in which section 5 was used to convict someone who peppered people on a train with foul-mouthed verbal abuse. From all sides in the House of Lords, it was pointed out that such behaviour is well beyond the scope of mere insults. It falls clearly into the realm of threatening and abusive behaviour; it would be untouched by clause 38. Under pressure from all sides, the Baroness was good enough to concede that she was open to looking at the evidence and was not opposed to change. We want to see a similarly open-minded attitude from the Labour party in this House.
The Minister in the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach talked about balancing free speech with the right not to be caused alarm or distress. We all agree with that, but what does it mean in detail? Do we all have to be vulnerable to prosecution for insults so that the police can have maximum flexibility to decide whom they will or will not prosecute? I do not think that the Minister’s arguments held up. He said that the “insulting” limb of the offence gives the police
“the flexibility they need to respond to hate crime and to defuse tension quickly in public order situations.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1130.]
Agreed—but the present law was just too flexible.
What we are doing today is right. It is interesting that one of the many Conservatives to rebel was Lord Hurd, the Home Secretary who brought in section 5. At the time he did so, he made it clear that it was not intended to undermine civil liberties. No doubt he has seen what the rest of us have seen: section 5 has undermined civil liberties. He wishes to put it right, the Government want to put it right, and I welcome what the Government have done today.
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)
I shall concentrate on one aspect of the Bill: clause 30, which deals with self-defence and which has been touched on already by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). The clause introduces important practical changes, but I wonder whether it concentrates too much on where things are happening and not enough on what is taking place.
The title of clause 30 is “Use of force in self-defence at place of residence”. It has been suggested that the result of the provision is that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but I wonder whether an individual grappling with a burglar at 2 am is worrying about where he is, rather than what is actually happening. In other words, is his concern the defence of his own person, rather than the defence of his property?
I hope that my examples will demonstrate the importance of that point. Imagine a person who runs a petrol station in a rural area and lives in a house 100 yards away. If he is attacked in his home, the new law will apply, but if he is attacked at the petrol station just as he turns out the lights and is about to lock up, or while he is walking from the petrol station to the house, it will not apply. Someone who works as a night watchman is protected by the new law while they are at home, but when they arrive for work, the provisions will not apply. A vicar is covered if the burglars come to the vicarage, but if he goes to investigate a light in the church at night and behaves in the same way there, the new law does not apply.
We have heard an interesting example involving a farmer. If a farmer hears a noise downstairs in his home and goes to investigate with a shotgun that he has taken from his gun safe in his hand, the new law will apply, but if, after he has been shooting legitimately, he is wandering back through his farmyard and goes to investigate a noise where all his expensive machinery is kept, and is then boxed in by the same people and reacts in the same way as in his home, the proposed law will not protect him.
Leaving aside the obvious point that we are asking people to remember that the law is different depending on whether they are at home, just outside their home or at work, notwithstanding the fact that they could be attacked by the same person in the same way and in the same early hours of the morning, a different test will apply if ever someone who is alleged to have breached the new law by behaving in a certain way is tried alongside someone who dealt with another member of the gang, but happened to do so in an outbuilding. The person who confronted one of the burglars in his home may rely on the new law, but his brother or son who behaved in exactly the same way towards another member of the gang in the outbuilding will not be protected at all.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman is setting out an interesting argument. Does he accept that anyone who uses only proportionate force, given the circumstances as they believe them to be, will always be protected?
Simon Reevell
The point of the clause is to put in place the new test, but that test applies only in a dwelling.
The clause gets even more bizarre when we consider proposed new subsection (8B), which deals with the corner shop with a flat above. A shop owner who comes downstairs from the flat and meets a burglar in the shop premises will be fine, because he will be covered by the new definition, but the person who lives next door and has to step out on to the street before going into the shop to start their work there for the day, and who encounters exactly the same circumstances when locking up for the night, will not be covered. If those two people meet the burglar while the premises are open, the shop owner who lives on site has the advantage of the new law, because the shop is part of the building in which their flat is located, but his assistant does not, so a different test will be applied to two people in exactly the same circumstances and encountering exactly the same villainy—and, indeed, the same villain.That cannot be a sensible revision, and the reason is that the focus is on the place of residence as opposed to what the problem really is, which is self-defence.
If this was reconsidered, and if instead of the test relating to the dwelling it related to whether the person was a victim of a criminal enterprise, all the examples I have given would be neutralised, because in all of them the person concerned would have been a victim of a criminal enterprise, whether it was in the church, the petrol station, at home, walking from one to the other, at work as a night watchman or outside as a farmer. If that were the trigger, the person concerned could rely on the new test, but as it is drafted, all those contradictions apply.
Subsection (6) makes it clear that this would not be a retrospective provision, and I understand that, but the amount of publicity generated by this clause means that to a lot of people out there the law has changed already. It would be ridiculous to have somebody waiting to face trial in circumstances where once the legislation was passed, a prosecution would never be brought, because the test would have changed. In whatever form the section appears in the Act, it needs to be introduced as soon as possible so that people do not rely on it before it is available for them to rely upon.
I should have said at the beginning, and so I say at the end, that I draw attention to the fact that, as a practising member of the Bar, I have an interest.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak. This is a large Bill, and it has been noticeable that most of the debate has focused on a few specific parts of it. That is a tribute to the fact that the rest of it is clearly less contentious and rather more successful.
I wish to highlight a few concerns that I have. I welcome the creation of the National Crime Agency in part 1, but an important question is how we can keep the SOCA brand internationally. I look forward to the Home Secretary’s work on that. I have a couple of concerns about how the NCA is to be inspected and made transparent. The Bill allows for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to examine the NCA but allows discretion as to whether the Independent Police Complaints Commission will examine it. It seems to me that the NCA will be fundamentally a policing body and should be subject to the IPCC in the usual way. I hope that that will happen through primary legislation.
Similarly, the NCA is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. In many cases, of course, it would be inappropriate for it to be subject to FOI, but a number of other organisations, such as the police, the immigration services and Customs are not exempt but provide information where they can. It would be in the interests of transparency for a similar provision to be made in this case.
I do not have time to go through the details of much of the Bill, but I am aware that clause 30 has received a lot of interest in the House. It is clear that the current law allows force to be used against a trespasser if that force is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances as they were considered at the time. That is an important defence, because people can make errors of judgment in the heat of activity. However, the Bill takes it a lot further, as it will mean that somebody can use self-defence even if they use a disproportionate level of force given the facts as they believe them to be at the time. It will not allow grossly disproportionate force, but it will allow people to be disproportionate.
I absolutely understand that in many cases, someone who has tried to defend themselves should not be arrested but should be treated as a victim while the matter is examined. However, it seems to me that people should be sensible and use only proportionate force, and that we should not allow disproportionate force. We need a change not in legislation but in how the police interact with people in such circumstances.
There is some extremely good stuff in schedule 15 to the Bill about restorative justice—an issue core to Liberal Democrat thinking for a long time. A lot of research backs up the role of restorative justice, and I pay particular tribute to Professor Larry Sherman who has done a huge amount of the fundamental research showing how effective it is. I am pleased that the Government are putting money into restorative justice but they may need to make rather more than £1.5 million available, particularly if it turns out to be successful and very popular. We know that restorative justice reduces reoffending and is far more satisfactory to victims than prison is. I am also pleased with progress on community sentencing.
There has been a large discussion about family visit visas and there is a problem with the incredibly high appeal rate—the figure I have seen was something like 60%. It seems that there are two possible solutions: the first is to have better decision making by UK Border Agency, and the second—the option the Government have chosen to adopt—is simply to stop appeals happening. We need the Border Agency to be much clearer about the information it requests and give people the opportunity to provide extra information that was not initially required. That could solve the problem in a far simpler and less draconian way.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment—it may be a written answer—on the specific issue of citizenship for the children of unmarried British fathers when the child was born before 2006. The former Immigration Minister has highlighted that the anomaly would be changed when there was legislative opportunity, and I wonder whether it might be possible to include that in the Bill. If not, we will have to wait until the next one.
I am delighted that the House of Lords voted to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. That is in line with Liberal Democrat policy and we have already heard many instances of where that provision was unreasonable. I hope the Government will reflect on section 4A of that Act, which has similar provisions about insulting behaviour. There are other steps that I hope the Government will consider or review to try to protect freedom of speech, such as, for example, section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which was used so inappropriately in the Twitter joke trial.
In the last minute remaining, I want to consider drug-driving. I am strongly in favour of a drug-driving offence that mirrors that of drink-driving. There is definitely a problem with people who are incapable of safely driving a vehicle being in a situation where they could cause serious to harm to others. That is right and I accept that the current position requires too high a level of proof. However, one should not use this measure as an excuse to deal specifically with illicit drugs; it should be tailored to existing levels of impairment. In fact, alcohol seems to be the most worrying issue.
A specific issue has been raised with me by Napp Pharmaceuticals, a company in Cambridge that is concerned about the effects of the proposed legislation on patients taking legitimate, prescribed medicines, in particular to manage chronic pain. There is significant evidence to suggest that their ability to drive may not be impaired compared with other drivers, but the patient would have the onerous burden of proof to show that they should be allowed to drive. Napp Pharmaceuticals is concerned about the consequences of that and would rather stick with the approach of the Road Traffic Act 1988. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on that.