Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I will first deal with the Government’s proposals, although I am aware that hon. Members will wish to speak to other amendments. I will deal with those at the end of the debate on the group.

The Government proposals in the group are on the setting of fees for two distinct public services. New clause 10 concerns fees charged by the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is Government policy—I imagine and hope that this is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—to encourage volunteering in our communities. To that end, it has long been the case that criminal record checks, where needed, such as in respect of work with children, are provided free of charge to volunteers. The new clause puts on a clear statutory basis the ability of the Home Secretary to take into account the cost of providing criminal record certificates and other services covered by part V of the Police Act 1997 when determining the fees charged for those services.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister is making important points about ensuring that people are able to pay. As I understand it, it is not currently possible to get a basic disclosure within England and Wales—it has to go through Scotland. Will he look at ensuring that, where appropriate, basic applications are available and free?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Dromey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is of course right.

We support a rigorous and fair justice system, but it must ensure that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all that they have suffered, which, in the more extreme cases, can involve years of their lives. If a miscarriage of justice has taken place, it is the justice system’s mistake, and it should be its job to put it right, not to make it harder for innocent people to do so. If—God forbid!—we ever saw a repeat of what happened with the Birmingham bombings and the subsequent convictions, it would be absolutely unthinkable that those people would not be entitled to compensation.

I very much hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment and our representations. We intend to support the amendment in the other place, where we believe that further detailed scrutiny should take place, because the Government have got it wrong and we must put that wrong right.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the opening comments.

I thoroughly support new clause 10, because it is right that we recognise volunteers. Too often, people have had to pay far too much to go through the processes necessary to volunteer, as I know from my own voluntary work, although that was more of a problem when people needed separate certificates for everything they did. I am glad that we have made some progress at least.

There is an issue, however, about the availability of the right level of disclosure for criminal record certificates. I thought I knew this area reasonably well, but I did not realise until recently that it was not possible to get a basic certificate—there are three levels: basic, standard and enhanced—listing unspent convictions in England and Wales; the only body that does it is Disclosure Scotland. While getting the pricing correct, therefore, we must also ensure availability. It seems perverse that only under Scots law can somebody get what most employers ought to have access to. Most employers do not realise that they should have the basic, rather than standard or enhanced certificate. I hope that Ministers will consider that point and ensure that while providing the right costings, we also get that right, and that the Government implement the relevant provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

On new clause 28, the Minister made a strong case for having some fees. I think we would all agree that if a Russian oligarch makes great use of our courts, they should make some contribution. None of us would suggest that their having to pay £1,000 or so would inhibit their ability to get justice. Perhaps the cost of using the courts should be a fraction of the fees going to the lawyers; that might be a safe way of ensuring that we make our fair share. That is not the route chosen, however, although it is quite tempting, given how large the legal fees are in many of these cases. It is not just Russian oligarchs, of course; it is anybody with a very big transaction. It seems right that they should contribute to the costs of our fantastic court system.

We need to ensure, however, that people not in a position to pay are not hit. It should still be possible for people without money to access the courts, and in that, the fees system could help, because by taking more money from those who have lots of it, we could subsidise those who do not. I note that there is broad support for the idea that any money made should be reinvested in improving our court system and ensuring that it works well. Broadly, therefore, I am pleased to see the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)]

Go on!

[Dr Huppert]

It is nice to be encouraged by the Whips to speak at greater length, but I am sure we have enough to debate and I do not want to take time from the important debates coming up.

On the concerns about clause 143, the hon. Member for Islington North has, of course, tabled his amendment, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also tabled an amendment that would get rid of the clause completely. I am not a lawyer, but my assessment is that the JCHR approach is probably a cleaner one, but both amendments aim to achieve exactly the same thing. I agree with the shadow Minister that we should flag this up as a big issue, but leave it to the other place to find the right answer. By then, I hope that the Government will have reflected on it and accepted the principle that it is incredibly hard for anybody absolutely to prove their innocence. That is a really tough threshold. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and that we can strike a better balance in the other place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will be brief; because of the odd timetable we have for the Bill, there is not much time to debate any of it. My remarks are concerned solely with amendment 95, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explained, there is strong support.

Clause 143 will fundamentally overturn the huge changes made after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. For many years, along with Chris Mullin and many others, I was one of those who, from this position in the House, raised questions about the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and I could paper the walls of my house with the letters of abuse we received for taking up their cases. None of us who took up those miscarriages of justice was ever in favour of the bombing and killing of civilians in any circumstances; we were, however, in favour of justice.

The first person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was Paul Hill, one of the Guildford Four, who had been a constituent of my constituency before I was elected, but was in prison when I was elected. Meeting him and the others in prison, I was struck by the sheer hopelessness of being locked up for an offence they did not commit, when every newspaper and commentator in the country said they were guilty and when their family members were abused in the street and vilified because they had a son, nephew or cousin in prison for an offence they did not commit. It made that campaign very difficult, but some very brave people stood up, and eventually those happy days when they were finally released brought about a fundamental change in the whole narrative of justice in this country.

[Dr Huppert]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on this issue over many years; it is a great tribute to him that he took it seriously. Does he agree that a fundamental principle underlies this point, which is that no matter what somebody has been accused of, however heinous it might be, they are still entitled to due process and due legal protections? That is an essential principle from which we should not vary, whether a person be accused of terrorist activities, sex crimes or anything else. Due process is important, because errors are made.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. However heinous the crime, however vile the accusation against an individual, unless they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, we undermine everything we believe in as a democratic society.

The big change that came after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—and Judith Ward for that matter—was the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which immediately started looking at 600 miscarriage of justice cases that had not received the sort of publicity that we had managed to engender in the three cases I just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 178 to 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.

We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.

The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.

[Dr Huppert]

I shall do my best to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate.

I welcome Government new clause 11. It is right to extend powers to PCSOs, allowing them to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. I am a huge champion of cycling. I was delighted when the House passed a motion to get Britain cycling. One of the banes of my life in that context is cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. Anything that we can do to get people to cycle safely and legally will make it easier for those of us who want to extend facilities for cyclists. There are sensible ways forward. In Cambridge we have been using a “lights instead of tickets” campaign to make sure that people get their lights. I welcome the new clause as a sensible step forward.

I shall spend most of my time talking about schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I have tabled a series of amendments. There has been particular controversy recently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, because of the detention of David Miranda, the partner of The Guardian journalist working on the Edward Snowden leaks. This has led to the Independent Police Complaints Commission taking the Met to the High Court over failure to address complaints and how schedule 7 is used. This is a very broadly written power. It should not be a surprise that it has expanded from its original use in Northern Ireland in the 1970s to become worse and worse as illiberal Governments have made it even heavier.

It seems to me that it is not right for people who “look like terrorists” to be detained. That is exactly what happens under schedule 7. StopWatch has done a huge amount of work on this. Last year there were 64,000 schedule 7 stops—a huge number. Twenty-seven per cent. of those stopped for under an hour were Asian, much more than their proportion in the community, and 77% of those stopped for more than an hour were from ethnic minority populations. We should not consider that acceptable. StopWatch cites some chilling quotes from one man Glasgow who said that

“the first thing you ask your friend is . . . not how was the holiday, it’s did you get stopped and what did they ask you?”

If we are setting up a power that creates huge concern in the Muslim and ethnic minority populations, that will separate people from the bulk of our country and is deeply alarming. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and David Anderson QC have also commented on how damaging that is.

This is a matter that Liberal Democrats have been concerned about for a long time. It is not just about David Miranda, who has the support of The Guardian. It is also about people who are detained routinely. That is why my party has debated this and why I tabled a range of proposals. There are many concerns about schedule 7. One option would be to get rid of it. There are alternative powers in section 47A. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There are other options that we have looked at. I would like to see us committed to David Anderson QC’s proposals to limit the scope of schedule 7. The Government should introduce provisions to that effect in the other place.

I have also proposed implementing proposals that my party made at our conference. They include getting rid of the principle that authorities can stop people without any suspicion at all, restoring the right to silence for those who are detained, and questioning to be recorded from start to finish. Restoring confidence and the basic principles of the rule of law to that process and making sure that data collected are not used inappropriately should be important in the case of David Miranda. I also propose a statutory principle of annual review and a sunset clause. The Government should look at these proposals and I hope they will take advantage of the process to make sure that that happens. I am glad that that is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I would love to deal with the proposals made by the Opposition and their proposals to ban synthetic caffeine, but in the interests of time I will allow the Minister to respond.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful. I shall be brief.

On new clause 26, as I said in Committee, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the clause. The work of a great number of people, whether within the public or the private sector, brings them into face-to-face contact with members of the public, and we know that some of these people suffer violence in the course of their jobs. It is essential that we are satisfied that the law adequately addresses this issue. However, I do not think the new clause is necessary to achieve that. There is already a range of offences that have general application and that criminalise violent behaviour and they would already apply in the context envisaged by the clause. Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so could well result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. So I do not think the clause is necessary, although as I said, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.

New clause 27 seeks to introduce a system of independent authorisation for undercover policing operations. I announced to the Home Affairs Committee in June our intention to legislate to enhance oversight of undercover law enforcement officer deployments. This can be done through secondary legislation and I will lay the appropriate order before the House shortly.

The changes will mean that law enforcement agencies will need to notify the Surveillance Commissioners, all retired senior judges, at the outset of undercover operations and get their prior approval for every deployment that lasts longer than 12 months. In addition, I am increasing the rank of the authorising officer. Deployments of undercover law enforcement officers will be authorised at assistant chief constable level or equivalent. Deployments lasting longer than 12 months will be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent. The rank of an authorising officer for emergency deployments will increase from inspector to superintendent level or equivalent. These changes will promote the highest standards of professionalism and excellence in this most sensitive area of policing and therefore achieve the aims of new clause 28. I hope they will be welcomed by the House.

On schedule 7, there is clearly debate on whether this requires further modification along the lines proposed in some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. For the purposes of the debate today, I put it to my hon. Friend and to the Chair of the Joint Committee that it is premature to consider making such changes because the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of these powers in the case of David Miranda. The Government, sensibly, will want to examine carefully any recommendations he makes in his report, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will want to do likewise. It would be wrong to pre-empt that report or commit now to implementing its recommendations. It is for the independent reviewer to make recommendations, but it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what legislative changes should flow from them.

Given the importance of these issues, any such legislative proposals should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, as with the provisions in the Bill, rather than being implemented through secondary legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggests in amendment 150. Although I welcome this contribution—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I sense the hon. Lady is trying to lure me into a debate she has just had with my hon. Friend the Minister. I heard his speech, in which he replied fully to the points made by her and others. She says it is not too late, but, in practical terms, it is—we have just had a Division and have moved on to Third Reading. [Interruption.] There will indeed be debates in other places.

The examination and detention of David Miranda at Heathrow airport in August has put a renewed spotlight on the changes we are making in the Bill to the powers in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Schedule 7 remains a key part of the UK’s border security arrangements and is vital to preserving the safety of the public. I welcome the renewed scrutiny of the provisions. It is right that, as part of his function of reporting on the operation of the Terrorism Acts, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of the powers in Mr Miranda’s case. The Government will carefully consider his report when it is received.

[Dr Huppert]

We had a slightly truncated debate on that earlier. The Home Secretary has rightly expressed concern about the use of stop and search—it disproportionately affects the ethnic minority population— and taken steps to deal with it. Given that a huge proportion of people who are stopped under schedule 7 are ethnic minorities—it is massively disproportionate—does the Minister agree that similar actions should be taken on schedule 7 stops?

[Damian Green]

The sensible thing to do is to wait for Mr Anderson’s report and then decide what changes, if any, are needed. Let us look at the evidence and then decide what changes are necessary, because the police need the power to stop, question and, when necessary, detain and search people travelling through airports and ports if they are to be able to determine whether an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism. That power is essential to the prevention of terrorism because it enables the police to detect and disrupt individuals who might be travelling for the purposes of planning, financing and training for terrorist attacks.

The amendments to schedule 7 are in line with the Government’s continuing commitment to ensure that respect for individual freedoms is balanced appropriately and carefully against the need to reduce the threat of terrorism to the British public and British interests overseas. I have no doubt that the other place will want to examine the provisions particularly closely, including in the light of Mr Anderson’s report, but we should wait until we have all had the opportunity to look at the report before rushing to make a judgment on whether we have the balance right.

I should say a few words about the much expanded part 11, which deals with extradition. The ability to extradite people to and from this country is an important component of our criminal justice system. Those who commit serious crimes should not be able to evade justice by crossing international borders to escape arrest. We owe it to the victims of crime to ensure that there are efficient and effective arrangements in place to prevent justice being denied in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I am sure we can do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems positively generous, given some of the discussions that we have had today. I am very glad that we agreed yesterday to extend the debate to a second day, although I think that we could have used the time more productively.

There is clearly a great deal of common ground, and the scrutiny process has clearly been useful. It began with pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee. The Bill was examined very carefully, and I commend the Government for that. A great deal has been added since then, but it was good to start in that way.

I think that the large disagreement that remains ultimately comes down to whether we think that antisocial behaviour orders were an effective solution. I very much think that they were not effective. Yesterday, we heard that they were not effective in terms of breaches and that young people often used them as a badge of honour. We have also heard that the public do not think that they were effective. Last year, about 8% of people in an Angus Reid poll said that ASBOs were an effective way of reducing antisocial behaviour. Therefore, I am pleased that we are moving away from them. Unlike the shadow Minister, I am pleased that we are moving from sounding tough on antisocial behaviour to trying to reduce it. There is a difference between the two.

I still have a number of concerns that I hope their lordships will have a chance to consider. I hope that the Government will reconsider those issues during the passage of the Bill in the Lords. I was pleased by the attitude of my hon. Friend the Minister in his maiden speech in his new role. He highlighted that we must not allow injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance to

“become a means of targeting young people simply for being young people.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 541.]

That is right. I am sure that the Government would not want that to happen. We must ensure that it does not. However, the breadth of the IPNA still concerns me. What counts as behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance? I think that some draft guidance is going out. That needs to work. IPNAs should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused and are not likely to cause harm to victims or communities. Guidance can be misinterpreted and I hope that their lordships will look further at that issue. We must also ensure that any positive requirements granted are practicable and will not force people into a position where they simply cannot do what they are required to do and hence breach the IPNA.

I remain concerned about the naming and shaming issue. Judges should do that only where it is necessary. We should have legislation to deal with that. Failing that, the guidance must be expressly clear, but I hope that their lordships will look more carefully at that.

On eviction, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted

“the seriousness of riot-related offences”,

but correctly questioned whether we need a special rule for riot-related antisocial behaviour, because it looks like

“a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm”.

It punishes the entire family. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister told the House that he would reflect on the issue. I hope that he will do so in the right direction.

On schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, I was pleased to hear the Minister make some commitments, having looked at David Anderson’s recommendations. That will take us forward. I am pleased that the Government saw the problem with the existing legislation before it became a massive media story. However, the Government can go a lot further. I have tried to itemise a series of amendments that would make a substantial difference. The time has already been reduced from nine hours to six. However, we should go further. We should get rid of the idea of holding people without reasonable suspicion.

One thing we do know is that, with all the people who have been convicted after being held, there has been intelligence ahead of that. I am told that not on a single occasion has someone been stopped and searched, effectively randomly, without suspicion, and been convicted. Therefore, if it is not working, we do not need it to be sure that we are convicting people. There is a series of processes—the right to silence, the right to a lawyer—which should be taken further in another place.

I am pleased that the Government have shown throughout the passage of the Bill, from pre-legislative scrutiny to now, that they are listening and will reflect. I hope that that will continue in the other place and that this can be the right sort of Bill that helps us to deal with the genuine problem of antisocial behaviour, but also protects, indeed enhances, civil liberties by retreating from some of the things that the previous Government introduced—antisocial behaviour orders, schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act and much more.