Alan Turing

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2012 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Betts, to serve under your chairmanship today. It is also a pleasure to see so many hon. Members from all parties and backgrounds here to speak in this important debate. I hope that, unlike many debates in this place, this will not be a party political debate, and that we can work together to commemorate an important event. Unfortunately, due to the parliamentary timetable, the House was not sitting on Saturday 23 June, on which date Alan Turing was born exactly 100 years ago.

Last week, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart)—it is a pleasure to see him here—made an application, which I and others supported, to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate in the House to commemorate that centenary. It was a pleasure to support that application, but the Backbench Business Committee, in its wisdom, decided that that route was not the best one, and proposed this one instead. I am delighted to have secured this debate to discuss Alan Turing, and the things he did, and the things we did to him.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important and excellent debate. Does he agree that although this is an excellent forum for discussing the achievements of Alan Turing, it would be good to see more great scientists celebrated on the Floor of the House?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is, of course, right. She and I both work to try to promote science, technology and engineering in the broader sense. It is a shame that in this country we do not always recognise scientists—the Clerk Maxwells as much as the Alan Turings. There have been a few links with the House: I have previously spoken to the hon. Lady about one of my predecessors, Isaac Newton, who was the Member of Parliament for Cambridge university. His contributions in the scientific field were perhaps greater than his political contributions. I hope that we will be able to mark the contributions of people in the academic and scientific fields in the years to come.

We have now the opportunity to debate a truly remarkable man and, sadly, a truly depressing chapter in British history. Before doing so, I want to mention Professor S. Barry Cooper of the Turing centenary advisory committee. He has worked tirelessly to spur this debate, and to run a number of events throughout the country to commemorate the life of Alan Turing.

I also want to thank the library of King’s college, Cambridge, which has been a fantastic resource. Alan Turing was a fellow there, as well as a student, and it continues to preserve and promote the life and times of that exceptional man, and his contribution to the modern world. We will not have time today to cover everything that he did, and I invite hon. Members to come and visit the wonderful library at King’s if they wish to know more.

Last Saturday, people throughout the world, including the good people at Google who changed their doodle for the day to a Turing machine, celebrated the centenary of Alan Turing’s birth. The purpose of today’s debate is to contribute to those celebrations, to mark them with our parliamentary brand, and to draw the Government’s attention to the need for us to remember and to commemorate his life in further ways.

In Turing’s famous 1950 article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence”, which set out the famous Turing test—the test of a machine’s ability to exhibit human behaviour, he concluded that we could see only a short distance ahead, but that we could see plenty there that needs to be done. I suspect that politicians of all colours agree with that statement. If one phrase encapsulates his thinking, his brilliance, and the tragic circumstances in which he was forced to live and die, it is that. He looked at the world around him, exposed what was in front of him, and set a generation of scientists and mathematicians down paths that have changed our world. The tragedy is that no amount of intelligence or foresight could insulate him from a society that was determined to suppress him, and a country that so cruelly mistreated him. Today, we have an opportunity to honour his life and his achievements. One hundred years after his birth, we have a chance to try to put right what the country got so badly wrong.

A citizen of the world from an early age, Turing was born in India before boarding in England. His intellect was recognised very early, and by 16 he was reading Albert Einstein and extrapolating from his work. In 1931, he matriculated at King’s college, Cambridge, having won an open scholarship to study mathematics. By 1935, he had a first-class degree and a fellowship there. He was just 22. In the following year, he published his first seminal article.

I am sure that many hon. Members would like a complete run-down of how the Turing machine revolutionised the theory of computation, and the understanding of mathematical proof through hypothetical computing machines. We are limited by time, and other hon. Members want to speak, so I will refrain from referring to everything that Turing tried to do, but his contribution to human knowledge before reaching his 25th birthday was profound.

After the publication of Turing’s article, he was awarded a visiting fellowship at Princeton, and obtained his PhD. But it was during the war that he first began to have a tangible effect on our country and the world around him. The day after the UK declared war on Germany, he reported to Bletchley Park. He had previously worked for a year part-time for the Government’s code and cipher school, the predecessor to GCHQ. When war broke out, he dedicated himself to the defence of a country that took him for granted.

Turing was immediately assigned to the cryptanalysis of Enigma, the most crucial code-breaking programme of the war effort. So valuable was his contribution to the security services that the papers remained secret and were released only in April this year. They show just how many breakthroughs Turing made in the race to break Enigma. A fascinating question is whether any other human could have made the contributions he made at that time. He was awarded an OBE for that work, but his work remained top secret.

Turing’s contribution to cryptography had a profound impact on the war, but perhaps his most lasting contribution was to computing as a result of his work on cryptography, and the articles he wrote in peacetime. Phrases such as the Turingery technique, the electro-mechanical bombe, and the Banburismus process are hardly commonplace, but they revolutionised our understanding of computers and what they could make possible. Turing’s work directly influenced the creation of the world’s first programmable digital electronic computer. Another fascinating example of which we should take heed is how hard it is to work out what the results of research will be when it starts.

After the war, Turing began work on the automatic computing engine, the pilot of which influenced the construction of the first commercially available computers: English Electric’s DEUCE and the American Bendix G-15. For those achievements, we owe him a huge debt

In the late 1940s, Turing moved to Manchester, and turned his attention to more abstract work in mathematics. Having revolutionised cryptanalysis and modern computing, he then turned to the philosophy of computing and came up with ideas for problems that are still unsolved today. Part of his 1950 paper, to which I referred earlier, created the Turing test. It was designed to ask how to tell the difference between a computer and a human. The test is, essentially, whether someone can reliably tell, without seeing what is happening, whether they are communicating with a computer or a human. Online communications provide a number of examples of it sometimes being hard to tell what is responding but, so far, no artificial intelligence can reliably pass the Turing test.

A version of the test is used daily by millions of people around the world. CAPTCHA—the completely automated public Turing test to tell computers and humans apart—is the catchy name for those words that are typed on websites to show that someone is a human and not a computer program. The theory behind that—it is used to secure things across the web every day—is directly influenced by his article 62 years ago.

Turing’s contribution to our understanding of artificial intelligence is no less significant. His idea about how to tell whether a computer can “think” is vital to the modern theory of artificial intelligence. That is not all. In his later years, he worked in mathematical biology—a field that I used to dabble in when I was doing research—and particularly morphogenesis, which is how embryos develop into the organisms they eventually become. He also worked on Fibonacci numbers in plant structures, and his general contribution to the concept of pattern formation is still considered central to the field and has applications in how zebra patterning occurs and many other fields. Again, no one could have foreseen from Turing’s early work where it would lead today, and what would come out of it.

We could spend hours of parliamentary time talking about every one of Turing’s achievements, and I freely admit that I have missed out a huge number of them. Perhaps a full six-hour debate, and many volumes of Hansard, would be enough to list everything that he did, but I hope that the brief summary that I have given provides some tribute to him. But we are not here just to mark Turing’s scientific achievements, or his contribution to the defence effort during the war. Whenever we talk about him, we must discuss how he was treated towards the end of his life, and how he was forced out of the world to which he had contributed so much.

In 1952, Alan Turing was convicted of gross indecency under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. His crime was admitting to a relationship with another man. The way it came about is particularly sad—it should never have come about in any way—in that the relationship with the man was, in fact, with somebody who tried to burgle his house. When he reported it, the police became interested in the crime that he had committed by having a relationship with a man in the first place.

When he was convicted, under the laws of the time, he was given a choice of imprisonment or a “cure”—the rather barbaric cure of chemical castration. Faced with two awful choices, he chose the latter, perhaps in the hope that he could continue to live a meaningful life with his liberty at least intact. None the less, he lost his security clearance—essential to all the work that he was doing—his work and even the freedom to discuss his work with colleagues. He lost his right to live his life.

Two years later, in 1954, he died from cyanide poisoning at the age of 41. We have no idea what he could have achieved if he had lived a fuller life. One of the great tragedies is that we did not even give him the honour of a conclusive inquest to understand exactly what went on. We still debate, including in the past week, the circumstances of his death and whether it was suicide or an accident. Some suggest that he created a deliberately ambiguous scenario in which to die. We do not know; we did not check at the time.

A number of tributes commemorate him. His code-breaking machine was commemorated on a stamp. Last week a new plaque was unveiled in my constituency at King’s college, and there are others, which I did not have the chance to look at, in Manchester and on his childhood home. There are academic conferences, symposiums and colloquiums galore, as well as workshops, public lectures, films, art, opera, plays, books, concerts and poetry. The Olympic torch bearer in Manchester ran past his statue to mark it. There has been some interesting discussion about the coming Olympics; I mentioned Turing in the parliamentary links day on the link between science and sport, but I had not realised then that he had entered the Olympic marathon trials in 1948 and come fifth. That would be a challenge for most scientists, computer scientists or engineers today, and one which I will certainly not try to replicate. Nature ran a full issue about Turing. Overseas, Obama has spoken about him and how important he was.

In 2009, the previous Government issued an official apology. I pay tribute to that and am grateful that it happened, but there is still a lack of official recognition for one of the greatest Britons who ever lived, whom Time magazine selected as one of the hundred most important people of the 20th century. That lack of recognition is particularly apparent when we think that it was our Government who so cruelly mistreated Turing and who failed to treat him correctly. We owe it to him to do something further on the centenary.

I accept that the way he was treated as a homosexual was not unusual to him. There is a long history in this country of treating homosexuals in a way that we would now consider completely and utterly unacceptable. I am pleased that the Government have taken steps on the broader issues, with, for example, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which allows the Secretary of State to disregard criminal convictions for homosexual acts by consenting adults. I am pleased that that will now happen to ensure that a person will not be considered as having committed, been charged with, prosecuted for or convicted of a criminal act for such activities. It is important because there are people still alive who bear comments on their Criminal Records Bureau checks about activities that we would certainly not consider criminal now.

There is a lot that we should be doing. The centenary is a good opportunity to mark our debt to Alan Turing and the errors we made as a country. I am sure that hon. Members will talk in more detail about the need to do that. There is a call, supported by a very large petition, for him to be granted a full pardon. It would not change his death or the way that we stopped his work from continuing, but it would be an important sign that the Government accept that Governments made a mistake in the past. It is important to many people who are still affected by the historical decisions that we made.

It is also suggested that Turing be commemorated on a banknote. I accept that banknotes are not the responsibility of the Minister, but I hope that he will listen to that proposal and pass it on to those who print the banknotes. Those two simple acts would make amends for the way in which British society treated such a great man, and embed his story and work into our national consciousness. I hope that the Minister will agree to those suggestions.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way a second time. I agree with the points he makes so eloquently and movingly. Does he agree that Alan Turing, given his life and achievements, would be a much better name, and indeed brand, for technology and innovation centres, which have been named “catapult centres”? Catapults are rather sloppy bits of engineering that have the habit of destroying what they project. I will be writing to the Secretary of State to make that suggestion. Will the hon. Gentleman support it?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I share the concern about catapults. The idea of a catapult satellite centre seems particularly odd. That is not how I would choose to launch a satellite into orbit. It is worth saying that from an energy efficiency perspective, trebuchets—a slight variant on catapults—are extremely impressive, so there is some interesting technology in that area.

I share her concerns about the name. There is an issue with technology and innovation centres. We could talk about them for about 10 minutes, I suspect. Hermann Hauser, the constituent of mine who came up with the proposal for technology and innovation centres, suggested “Clerk Maxwell centres”. I know that the Select Committee on Science and Technology suggested “Turing centres”. I do not mind which it is. There is a strong case for both and I hope that we can honour both. Either would, in my view, be better names than “catapult centres”. I suspect that renaming scientific research centres is not part of the Minister’s purview, but I hope that he will look carefully at the other suggestions made and, whatever hon. Members suggest, I hope that he will pass them on to the appropriate Ministers for consideration.

Whatever the response, I hope that the Government will take the chance to recognise that in the centenary of Turing’s birth we have the opportunity to celebrate someone whose contribution to our society and world has hitherto not been sufficiently marked. He showed the world the infinite potential of human ingenuity and the machines that that ingenuity could make possible. He changed our world and our society. He showed the world how machines could help humans, and we treated him in the most inhuman way. I look forward to a full debate from hon. Members, who I thank for coming to mark such a great man, and to a full response from the Government. We owe him no less than our full discussion.

Defamation Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I cannot possibly comment on an individual case and individual possible action. I anticipate that the difficulty may be that the defaming of a deceased person always gives rise to questions of whether any action is possible. Trolling is an extremely unpleasant, curious activity which some very nasty people appear to be going into. There have already been quite a lot of prosecutions for trolling, but we think the public are entitled to proper protection against it.

Our proposed approach, under clause 5, will provide website operators with a defence against libel, provided they follow a procedure to put complainants in touch with the author of allegedly defamatory material. This will strengthen freedom of expression by ensuring that material is not taken down without the author being given an opportunity to defend it. Conversely, it will strengthen protections by enabling people who have had their reputation seriously harmed online to take action against the real author and bring proceedings against them if the matter cannot be resolved by other means.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

This is indeed a complex issue. Can the Justice Secretary confirm that this is an optional defence and that web operators would be entitled not to follow those regulations and not to use the defence, and that they would still be covered by the defences available under the e-commerce directive if they so chose?

[Mr Clarke]

That is entirely correct, but of course those web operators would also be vulnerable to possible action because they had not availed themselves of the process, which would give them one way of proceeding if they chose to do so. We are not replacing other remedies which might well be available against a publisher who took no steps to inform the defamed person of where the defamatory matter was coming from.

It will be very important to ensure that these measures—clause 5 and those associated with it—do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise that risk. We will continue to consider that and eventually some of it will have to be covered by regulation.

Concern has also been expressed about the impact of the current law on secondary publishers more generally, including booksellers and newsagents. In accordance with our aim of ensuring that secondary publishers are not unfairly targeted and action is taken against the primary publisher wherever possible, clause 10 removes the possibility of an action for defamation being brought against a secondary publisher except where it is not reasonably practicable for the claimant to bring the action against the author, editor or commercial publisher of the material.

A further related proposal to modernise the libel regime is the introduction of a so-called single publication rule. Information online can be copied instantly, stored indefinitely and accessed long after physical forms of publication, yet the current regime allows additional claims for such cases of “republishing”. The proposed rule seeks to reconcile the need to protect individuals from repeatedly having to face the same defamatory comments with the need to avoid open-ended liability for publishers when old material is accessed years later, which has the potential severely to inhibit freedom of expression. Therefore, the Bill includes a provision that will prevent an action being brought in relation to publication by the same publisher of the same, or substantially the same, material after a one-year limitation period has passed.

Agreeing a libel regime fit for the realities of the 21st century is not straightforward, but these steps constitute sensible reform to ensure that freedom of expression and protection of reputation are possible both online and offline. Modernisation, however, must also extend to the cost and length of libel cases, which are increased in current law by the presumption of jury trial. I am normally a strong defender of the principle of jury trial in criminal cases and always have been—I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends and everyone else that my political arteries have not suddenly hardened and affected my views on that.

In practice, jury trials have been infrequently used in libel cases in recent years and the majority of cases are now heard by judges alone. I believe that it makes sense to recognise that reality in law by discontinuing the presumption of jury trial, which in this case has become a kind of noble fiction that creates real practical problems for one or other of the parties. It greatly increases the cost and time taken in defamation proceedings, which can be done deliberately to advantage one or other of the parties in negotiations and bargaining. Many basic legal issues that could otherwise quickly be sorted out by a judge sitting alone, such as deciding the meaning that allegedly defamatory material can have, cannot be resolved until full trial, whether or not a jury is ultimately used. That causes unnecessary delay and expense, to everyone’s detriment.

Recognising that judges should normally rule on libel cases is also part of the wider package of procedural proposals, to which I referred a few minutes ago, that we are taking forward alongside the Bill to help reduce costs and encourage settlements. It goes hand in hand with a new preliminary procedure that we are developing to resolve key issues, such as meaning, at as early a stage as possible. Of course, there might remain occasions when jury trial is appropriate, so the Bill retains the court’s discretion to order that when it considers it appropriate to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

A chilling effect can sometimes be a good thing. A prosecution brought against someone involved in such behaviour can lead to others not doing the same thing for fear of prosecution. The Justice Secretary is right to remind the authorities, who might be watching the debate or might read of it, that they have tools at their disposal to bring criminal prosecutions.

Subsections of clause 5 set out the circumstances in which the defence could be defeated. This is a key area in which technological developments have outstripped our laws. As has been said, a duty will be placed on internet service providers to identify internet trolls without victims needing to resort to costly legal action. The Opposition welcome that development, but the detail will be provided in regulations that we have not seen. It is important that this well intentioned clause does not inadvertently lead to a website being required to disclose the identity of a whistleblower when they are the source of a post on a website, or to websites being easily censored by casual threats of litigation against their operators.

[Dr Huppert]

All hon. Members accept that getting this right is complex. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that he was not quite accurate in saying that there will be duty on websites to reveal who trolls are? If operators choose to use the defence in clause 5, they will be required to follow the regulations. If they choose not to use that defence, there would be no such duty, and therefore some protection.

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman is probably right, but as we have not seen the regulations—they have probably not been drafted—I am not sure. I commend him for his work on this. He has been involved in this issue since he was first elected, as have many colleagues on both sides of the House.

As has been said, many proposals in the Bill, including clause 5, will be introduced by regulations, probably via a negative resolution of the House, meaning, as I have just said, that we are in the dark on exactly how the measure will operate in practice; how a website operator is expected to respond, which was the point raised by the hon. Gentleman; and what protections are given to whistleblowers. For the sake of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that the Government publish their regulations before Committee and subject resolutions to the positive procedure. That will allow Parliament properly to consider detailed plans that will have huge impacts on the operation of the Bill and defamation procedures.

Clause 6 creates a new defence of qualified privilege on peer-reviewed material in scientific or academic journals. We welcome the adoption of that recommendation from the Joint Committee.

Clause 8 introduces a single publication rule so that the one-year limitation period in which libel action can be brought will run from the date of the first publication of material, even if the same article is subsequently published on a website on a later date. The reform intends to end the current situation in which material in online archives is regarded as being re-published every time it is downloaded, which, in effect, leaves the archive operator with a limitless risk of being sued.

The Opposition also welcome clause 9, which seeks to deter those eyeing London as a location to pursue libel actions that they would not dream of pursuing in other jurisdictions. In recent years, our courts have clamped down on libel tourism, and I hope the measure, which gives courts more power to decide whether a case can be heard, will help. We need to reduce the potential for trivial claims and address the perception that English courts are an attractive forum for libel claimants with little connection to this country. We welcome steps to tighten the test to be applied by the courts in relation to actions brought against people who are not domiciled in the UK. I am, however, concerned about cases brought by EU citizens or in a state that is, for the time being, a contracting party to the Lugano convention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

As with all these matters, it is a question of balance. Those 15 followers could be influential individuals who are hiding under their anonymity—perhaps they are journalists—and could use their standing and anonymity in different ways, so that has to be addressed. We must consider the balance of who the 15 individuals in the hon. Gentleman’s example are, because there could be abuse of other individuals through the internet system. Indeed, in the example I cited earlier only nine people saw the photograph, but it was so damaging for the person concerned that, in my view, the person responsible deserves to be severely punished. It is not necessarily the quantity that we need to look at, but the quality.

I want to look at the issue of anonymity in relation to clause 5. Currently, websites operate with impunity. I do not know whether the proposed change will prevent that abuse of the internet. If someone is able to hide away and become anonymous so that the internet operator is unable to find them, I do not believe that the operator should have an excuse. We need to be very careful about making sure that website operators take control of what is said on blogs and the other things that appear on websites. I should declare that I once sued the BBC for a comment that appeared on a blog—successfully, I might add. We need to ensure that someone operating a website recognises that the buck stops with them if they are going to mediate these comments. I am yet to be convinced that clause 5 will have a significant effect on the abuse that can follow.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that websites can currently act with impunity, but does he recognise that a huge number of sites, whether Mumsnet or almost any other, face a constant deluge of unfounded claims, which they simply do not have the resources to defend, so they are forced to take down things that may not be defamatory in any way, shape or form? Does he think that that is appropriate?

[Ian Paisley]

Again, it is a question of balance, but I would far rather such sites were more defensive of their own reputation and standing than they allowed something to slip through which damaged, lied about or hurt someone in an unfounded or unfair way. I understand that there are huge difficulties, but, if someone is going to set themselves up as a website operator in the 21st century, in the new media, they have to take responsibility for their actions. That is the responsibility that should fall to people and make them consider what they do. Members of my party will support the general thrust of this change to the defamation laws, but we are yet to be convinced on some points, which we look forward to being thrashed out in more detail in another place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

This is a timely debate. The Bill might be uncontested, as we have heard from many Members, but it is not uncontroversial. Free speech and freedom of expression have been brought to the forefront by the Leveson inquiry, which is happening a mile down the road. In this House, we know that there is a fine balance to be struck in weighing the right to freedom of speech and expression against the right to privacy. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, when it comes to the law on defamation it is vital that we get the balance right. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned the difficulty of getting it right. The solution is not a simple one and great care and caution must be taken.

I, like many other Members, believe that our libel laws are outdated and have made it far too easy for the rich and powerful to suppress and stifle criticism. Even many small-time bloggers, journalists and academic professors are afraid to tackle important issues for fear of being sued—a sad reflection of the current law’s unintended consequences. The Government’s reforms seek to redress the balance, maintaining the importance of free speech while giving people the opportunity to defend themselves against unfair and malicious allegations.

We have heard a lot today about libel tourism. I appreciate that there are mixed views on the matter and on how much of a problem it is in the UK. Some Members have felt that it is overstated, others that it is not, but I think we all agree that it is a problem that London has been labelled in such a way. It is crucial to emphasise that not only the number of cases reflect the problem caused by the libel tourism tag. The threat of proceedings can be used to stifle much-needed investigative journalism, regardless of whether a case is ultimately brought.

I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who spoke so eloquently about libel, that it is important that everybody from every walk of life should have access to protection from libel. Libel tourism is hardly an attractive label to be attached to the UK. Here we are, in the mother of Parliaments, standing up for our country, and we do not want to hear that label used. We have so many wonderful attractions in this country—and, dare I say it, in Hastings—so let us try to lose the tag as a destination for libel tourism as we tackle the issue of defamation. I therefore strongly welcome the provision in clause 9 to tighten the test applied by the courts in cases brought against people who are not domiciled in the UK or the EU.

I support the provisions in clause 11 on the presumption against a jury trial in defamation cases. Of course, I understand the importance of trial by jury in most cases, where it provides a fair hearing for all concerned. Many Members have spoken about the importance of maintaining the true and honest right of British citizens to be tried by their peers, but the existence of the right for either party to opt for trial with a jury has its problems. As we heard earlier, it can often impede settlements, create additional costs and increase the length of cases which, on average, take about 12 months from the issue of court proceedings to trial.

The outdated law surrounding privacy and defamation is highlighted by the online traffic that many Members have discussed. Our internet hosting sites are a particular example. Twitter and Facebook especially have driven a significant rise in online libel claims. For example, last year a county councillor was ordered to pay £3,000 in damages and costs to a political rival over false claims made on Twitter. Operators of websites, both large and small, are also at risk of action against them in respect of comments posted by a third party. It is almost impossible for many websites, such as social networking sites, to police that. The owner of a book store would not be prosecuted for a sentence contained within a book sold at the shop, so why should online sites be fearful of such action being taken against them?

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent point about how a bookshop should be treated, but unfortunately that is not what happens at the moment. Bookshops are subject to libel cases about books they are trying to sell, which they have no ability to defend.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is a broader point about some books, but there are quite a lot of books that are not subject to such analysis. I am sure that the Minister will address that point later.

At the moment, internet hosting sites are obliged to remove allegedly defamatory material from their website when they receive a complaint, often without knowing whether the comments are defamatory. That is an attack on free speech and the Bill addresses that issue. The provision in clause 5, which offers website owners a new process governing the responsibility for publication on the internet, will undoubtedly give websites greater protection against a threat of legal action. I am sure that is welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.

Above all, I welcome, as I know my constituents in Hastings and Rye will, the clarity that the Bill will provide in an area that remains unsettled and unclear to many.

Let me mention clause 13, which repeals the Slander of Women Act 1891.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. We face a tough challenge in trying to write defamation laws. On the one hand, we want freedom of expression and, on the other, we want protection of reputation. We want to get the balance right while ensuring that the system is affordable, because the law should support whoever is right rather than whoever is wealthiest. We should also ensure that the law is accessible to all, not just to lawyers, and we simply do not have that balance. The costs are not right—they are far too high—and there is what has been described today as the chilling effect of people being silenced for fear of large costs, even in thoroughly unmerited cases. That happens. We have heard about a number of cases, including those that involved Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst. We have heard of publications such as Nature, Which? and the British Medical Journal, which do not feel that they can publish articles out of fear. It applies online as well—Mumsnet, WhatDoTheyKnow and many others.

While I was writing this, a case came up in my constituency, Cambridge. Richard Taylor, a local blogger and an extremely assiduous attender of council meetings who writes them up in immense detail, described a council meeting which was looking at enforcement action against a property in Cambridge being used as a bed and breakfast without the benefit of planning permission. This has led to a rather bizarre libel threat from an organisation known as WWFS Ltd or UK Law Consultants Company, who say they are consultant solicitors. Though I am not an expert in the field, the claim appears to me to be baseless, especially since the people making the claim refuse to say which part of his description they find defamatory. They have gone on to threaten other commentators.

Mr Taylor writes on his blog—all this is there, if anybody would like to look at www.rtaylor.co.uk—and this should worry all of us:

“My view is that this kind of thing is one of the reasons people shy away from entering discussion of how we run our society, be it at the local level in Cambridge or more broadly.

Having received the threat of legal action I have had to consider if I am prepared to risk everything I have in order to do what I consider to be the right thing and continue to publish the material. This is to an extent the question which has to be asked before publishing any material, every blog post and every tweet could potentially be personally ruinous.

Should the case reach court, the cost of defending it, even if the judgment was in my favour, could exceed my resources.”

A number of people with legal training and others are assisting Mr Taylor in the case and I think he will be all right. He is also determined enough to get through.

The current position is not acceptable. The Libel Reform Campaign was established in 2009 to try to make a difference. Lord Lester proposed his Bill in 2010. There was a Government draft Bill in 2011, and I had the great privilege of serving, with other Members who have spoken, on the Committee which considered that. The full Bill was tabled in 2012, led by the Minister, Lord McNally. It has been nice to see how this has captured the imagination. As John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, said,

“When we launched the Libel Reform Campaign in 2009, only the Liberal Democrats backed change. Now the cause has cross party support.”

That is absolutely correct. I pay great tribute to him and to everybody in the Libel Reform Campaign—Index on Censorship, English PEN, Sense about Science and all the other supporters that they have.

I would like particularly to mention one extremely dogged individual who has been involved with that, as well as with the Hacked Off campaign, Dr Evan Harris. I suspect that Members in all parts of the House will have heard his comments on the issue. I am delighted by the cross-party support that we have.

This is a good Bill, but with some tweaks it could be a great Bill. I am delighted by clause 1. The serious harm test is right, but it should be coupled with a strike-out power so that cases could be quickly ended where there is no serious harm to consider. I support clauses 2, 3 and 4 as they codify the common law, which means that non-lawyers such as myself can find out what the rules are, without having to plough through case law after case law.

With regard to clause 4, I am pleased about the codification of Reynolds, but it is still a complex defence. Some improvements can be made, as Members have mentioned. I hope the Government will consider the possibility of a simpler, clearer public interest defence which would apply where defendants take appropriate action to correct any errors or inaccuracies that they have made, as has been suggested by the Libel Reform Campaign. I do not expect the Government immediately to say yea or nay to any such proposal. It needs to be considered very carefully, but I hope they will look at it. If we could find something like that, it would be an excellent improvement.

Clause 6 is a key change from the draft Bill and shows the value of pre-legislative scrutiny, which I hope will be applied to a number of other Bills, as it is shortly to be applied to the draft communications data Bill. Clause 6 is extremely welcome. I pressed hard for this. My experience as an academic scientist made me particularly concerned and I was especially pleased when the Secretary of State announced, in response to a question that I asked him, that there would be a change to give protection to academics and scientists publishing peer-reviewed articles.

Currently, journals are afraid of publishing peer-reviewed statements, and academics can be afraid of making the statements that they need to make. There has been an insidious silencing of rigorous scientific debate. A survey conducted by Sense about Science in 2010 found that 38% of editors of scientific journals have chosen not to publish certain articles because of a perceived risk of libel, and 44% have asked for changes to the way articles are written to protect themselves, not necessarily because they thought there was a genuine case to answer. Journals such as Nature, the British Medical Journal and a range of others are not libel experts and should not be expected to be libel experts.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that that should be extended to national newspapers? There is indeed a stifling of debate about scientific issues in the national press, and very many of our constituents do not read the scientific press and need access to good scientific debate in the national press.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. She is right that we need to encourage more educated scientific debate among the general public. That is a larger issue than the subject of the present debate. The question is how far one goes in providing the sort of privilege that we are talking about. Peer review processes are significantly better developed than what we see in newspapers. I would expect newspapers to have more access to lawyers who could advise on libel because they deal with a range of issues. But there may be ways of going slightly closer to what the hon. Lady suggests and I would encourage something like that to happen.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it not possible that we could have a sort of citizens advice bureau for people who are thinking of publishing something so that they could go to someone who understands the issues, without having to go through the law to get guidance quickly, so that good debate is not stifled?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I can see where he is coming from. The clause goes further than that and it is better. It says that for peer-reviewed academic publications, unless they are malicious, there is no risk. So the citizens advice bureau approach is not necessary. Anybody publishing in this way knows that they are fine, as long as they are not being malicious, and I hope people would not seek to be malicious in this way.

However, we do see such cases, and not only the famous ones. In the past six years one in 10 of all High Court libel cases have involved an academic or scientist. It is a real issue, and I believe firmly that scientists and other academics should focus on doing research in their field, not on researching the law. That protection is very welcome.

Clause 10 is another welcome addition to the Bill, particularly because it protects booksellers. As the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) mentioned, they sometimes face cases on questionable materials. If they are selling two such books a year and are not interested in defending the case, they just remove the book from their stock. It should be the author who is responsible, wherever possible.

I support most of the other clauses. I am pleased to see clause 7, which extends some of the privilege protections, clause 8—the single publication rule—and clauses 9, 11 and 12. I am pleased to see clause 13, which gets rid of the Slander of Women Act 1891. Society has moved on slightly in terms of gender roles since 1891.

This is a good Bill, but there are still some areas of concern. I agree with those who have said that one of the key areas that has not been looked at enough is costs. It is key to get the costs right, but that is not entirely within the Bill. Cost is not just a matter of writing legislation. Legislation alone does not solve every problem. The Government need to do a little more work to make it clear how they will reduce costs, in addition to the legislative changes that are being made.

Then there is the issue that has been touched on recently about corporations and other non-natural persons. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that non-natural persons are not natural persons: companies are not the same as people. They do not have feelings in the same way and they could be treated differently. There have been many cases, such as the McLibel case, of corporations which abuse their power and their resources to take unreasonable libel actions.

The Joint Committee recommended that corporations should have to prove that they have actual, substantial financial loss and that they should have to get permission from the court in order to take actions. That seems a modest way to go, given some of the other proposals, which are quite tempting. An extreme view is that corporations should not be allowed to take libel action at all. This has been tried in Australia, so that only corporations with fewer than 10 employees are allowed to take any sort of libel action. I have spoken to a number of lawyers in Australia, and that does not seem to be the best way to go. I hope the Government will not go ahead with that idea, although I was initially attracted to it.

I rarely disagree with comments from the Libel Reform Campaign, but I do not like the idea of courts being asked to make declarations of falsity. I was initially persuaded of that, as people who served on the Committee are aware, but I think on balance that it is hard to expect a court to say definitively, “This statement is false,” because new evidence can come up. It is a very hard thing for any court to say.

Lastly, let me turn to clause 5, which deals with an incredibly complex area. I think that the idea of a new defence is a good approach, but it needs to be tweaked somewhat and the Government’s proposed regulations should be published and available for discussion alongside the Bill. I hope that the Government will be absolutely clear that this new defence is an optional one that website operators can use but do not have to. It does not impose on them a duty; it merely gives them a defence if they comply with some regulations. Furthermore, I hope that the Government are absolutely clear that the existing defences from the e-commerce directive remain in place and that the rules about being a mere conduit and so forth still apply in exactly the same way they have done. It is very important that we do not see any inadvertent weakening of the protections available.

It is also important that we are clear that the good practice of post-comment moderation used by some website operators, whereby they try to do their bit to filter out the things they can tell are inappropriate, does not itself bring about liability, so long as that does not change the meaning in a damaging way or significantly increase the scale of publication. This was recommended by the Joint Committee and accepted by the Government, because if the BBC, for example, spots something inappropriate and removes it, it is important that that does not render it more liable to the thing that they could not have spotted because they would not know the facts of a case.

It is also important that there is an ability to preserve some anonymity. It is right that action should be taken against a person who posts something online, but there will be cases, such as those of whistleblowers and dissidents, in which there is a real reason why anonymity should be preserved. The key point is that there should be a communication channel between the person complaining and the original author, even if that is mediated by a third party.

This is a very complex area, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate that he was open to considerations to try to get it right. I hope that either he or the Minister will be able to arrange for the Bill team to meet me and the Libel Reform Campaign, internet service providers and organisations we have been talking with, such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Mumsnet, to discuss how we can get this right so that we get what we all want: something that works in a clear and simple way and gives the right protection to the people we wish to be protected. This is a good Bill and I am delighted to support its Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Honour is served. We are grateful.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

11. What recent progress he has made in reforming the law on defamation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Defamation Bill has been introduced into this House as part of the Government's programme for this Session. The text of the Bill and accompanying explanatory notes were published on 11 May.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for that answer. After campaigning for many years for libel reform, it was excellent to see the Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech and published—and in better form than it was in the draft, which says something about pre-legislative scrutiny. I particularly welcome the protection for academic and scientific articles and for operators of websites. The Bill talks about regulations applying to website operators to deal with anonymity and other issues. There are many nuances to that, so will the Government publish a draft of that order together with the Bill?

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend sat on the Joint Committee and I know that he has long taken an interest in matters pertaining to scientific freedoms. I fully agree that we must ensure that the threat of libel proceedings is not used to frustrate scientific and academic debate and that the law must be reformed to provide an appropriate libel regime for publications on the internet. The Defamation Bill aims to address both those areas fairly and effectively. I look forward to further debate as it proceeds.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

It is important to point out that those specialist domestic violence courts are closing not because of what they do, but because the courts in which they are based are closing. I am pleased to say that those specialist courts will be moving to other courts, so no specialist domestic violence courts will be lost.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

17. What recent progress he has made on his plans to reform libel laws; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

The Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill was published on 29 February. It set out the Government’s position on all the key issues. A substantive defamation Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and hope that there will be time for the Bill in the Queen’s Speech. The Joint Committee recommended that qualified privilege should be extended to

“peer-reviewed articles in scientific or academic journals.”

Does he agree that it is in the public interest that scientists and other academics should be able to publish bona fide research results without fear and that, unless their publication is maliciously false, they should be protected from defamation actions?

[Mr Clarke]

One of the main reasons for publishing the draft Bill and looking at the law in that area was the fear that genuine academic and scientific debate was being stifled by the use of the defamation laws. We propose that peer-reviewed research should be protected and are now considering the draft of the final Bill in the light of the Joint Committee’s report. I will not anticipate the Queen’s Speech, but if we can include a defamation Bill, one of its principal objectives will be to deal with the very serious problem that the hon. Gentleman has identified.

Victims and Witnesses Strategy

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Government will continue to look at rape crisis centres as a national responsibility and consider funding them from the centre. We have been able to open, I think, four new ones since we came to office, but for all existing ones we have for the first time pledged funding for three years, providing them with more sustainable security than under the previous year-by-year changes. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to give very high priority to improving support for such valuable centres as much as we possibly can. I think she agrees and is prepared to say that our record so far is pretty good. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary certainly helps me to ensure that we keep concentrating resources in this area.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I recently visited Cambridge victim support, which does an excellent job, but there is no doubt that greater help is needed for victims and witnesses. I welcome that much of the statement, but will the Justice Secretary clarify his comments about those who have been convicted? I accept that we need to stop those who simply take advantage of the scheme, but he will be aware that some convictions are never spent. Is he arguing that someone who was convicted for such an offence 50 years ago should still not be eligible for any compensation, irrespective of what happens to them?

Policing

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The House will know, Mr Brady, that over the past 10 years, you and I have had the honour of co-chairing the Westminster kids club Christmas party, but this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, and it is an enormous privilege to do so.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, “New Landscape of Policing”, which we published on 23 September 2011. A new Government always want to put their imprint on an important area of policy, but in my 25 years in the House, I have not seen the kinds of changes to policing and the policing landscape that this Government initiated when they took office. The Government propose abolishing the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency; creating a new National Crime Agency, a professional body for policing and a police-led information technology company; centralising non-IT procurement; supporting collaboration; and ending unnecessary bureaucracy.

Our report was a response to those fundamental and far-reaching proposals for policing reform. Given the significance of the changes to this £997.3 million budget, the Committee decided to examine the proposals in great detail. I am pleased to see that three members of the Committee are present—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), and the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—as well as the official spokesmen from various parties.

We have received more than 50 pieces of written evidence and heard from 29 witnesses, including the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). We have also held an informal meeting with the Police Federation, attended by its chairman, Paul McKeever, and Derek Barnett, who represented the Police Superintendents Association. At the invitation of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, we have also held two public meetings—in Sheringham in Norfolk and in Cardiff in Wales. We put the public at the centre of our deliberations; after all, the police exist to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. To increase that involvement still further, we ran a nationwide polling exercise on our website, asking people what they wanted the police to prioritise. In total, 2,000 votes were cast, and the highest public priority for the police was dealing with murder and serious violence.

Despite the Government’s desire to unclutter the landscape, we concluded that it seems likely that the new landscape of policing will contain more bodies than the current landscape’s six. It is possible that the Government’s changes will lead to a more logical and better functioning police landscape and ultimately make the police more successful at achieving their basic mission of reducing crime and disorder, even though we will end up with more bodies. We believe that as the scale of the change is unprecedented, the possibility for mistakes may be large and with us for some time. That is why, at the point of publication, the Committee had particular reservations about the timetable for the changes, including the transfer of functions from the National Policing Improvement Agency by spring 2012 and the setting up of the National Crime Agency by December 2013.

It has taken the Government more than a year to announce where the functions of the NPIA will go. As the NPIA has an annual budget of £447.6 million, it is extremely important that we know those facts. The continuing uncertainty was damaging to the morale of the 2,000 people who work for the agency, and to the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service as a whole. I am therefore glad that the gap or loophole was rectified by the Government’s acceptance of our recommendation that the phasing out of the NPIA be delayed until December 2012, and by the announcement on the future location of some of the agency’s functions. It is not immediately clear whether further functions from the NPIA will transfer to the NCA, and how some of the functions already earmarked for transfer to the NCA will relate directly to operational responses to organised crime.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee, for giving way. Does he agree that, while it has certainly not been perfect, the NPIA has done a very good job, and that there is some concern that an impression has been given that it has not been valued by the House? It has had many disparate functions, many of which have been developed very well. It is important that we put on record our appreciation for the NPIA’s work during its existence.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for, and agree with, his intervention. It is important that we put on record the achievements of the NPIA in certain areas. The fact that organisations are being abolished does not mean that we do not recognise the work done. I will come on to some of those organisations later.

The fact that the location of all the NPIA functions has not been announced remains a concern. I hope that, during his winding-up speech, the Minister will finally give us the list of all the outstanding functions and tell us where they will go. Many of the NPIA functions bound for the NCA will have to move to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which itself is due to be abolished and co-opted into the NCA by December 2013. This shifting of resources between agencies due for closure, before finally shifting them to the NCA, makes heavy weather of the Government’s important principle of uncluttering the landscape.

SOCA was set up by the previous Government, of which the shadow Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), was an active member—one of his roles was that of Policing Minister—and our Committee has been concerned about it for a number of years. In our most recent report on the agency in 2009, we found that its budget of £476 million was used to hire 3,800 members of staff; that it was spending £15 of public money for every pound it seized from criminal gangs; and that it lacked transparency in the way that it operated. Despite improvement in its performance, it is essential that the Government’s new crime-fighting agency be set the correct targets and can use its resources cost-effectively, so that it does not become another SOCA. It is also not clear whether SOCA will be given extra resources to help it manage the NPIA functions during the short-lived transition. I hope that the Minister will offer clarification on that point.

The lack of detail regarding the creation of the NCA was one of the central concerns of the Committee, and that remains the case. We were concerned about the delay in appointing a head of the agency, and the lack of detail on the objectives and—most importantly—the budget of this new policing agency. We welcome the appointment of Keith Bristow as the head of the NCA since the publication of our report. We felt, however, that someone occupying a position of that importance ought to have appeared before the Committee before taking up his formal appointment. We also remain concerned about the lack of detail on his role and objectives. Will he be a civil servant, or the head of the No. 1 crime-busting agency in the country? Will he be Sir Humphrey or Eliot Ness? Perhaps we will find out when he appears before the Committee on Tuesday to answer some important questions.

The Committee still awaits the figures on the agency’s budget. When the Minister first appeared before the Committee on 28 June, I asked his director of finance whether he knew the budget. He replied that it would be a little higher than SOCA’s, which is £476 million. Luckily, he had the Minister next to him, who told the Committee that although the budget for the NCA had not yet been set, the lion’s share of it would come from SOCA. The Minister came before us again on 20 December 2011, following the announcement that the destination of some of the NPIA functions would be the NCA, and he could still not inform us of the budget. This is not a game of “Play Your Cards Right”—a little higher here, a little lower there. We want the figures. Parliament needs to know exactly what the budget of this new agency will be, particularly as it is the flagship of the Government’s new policy.

There remain many areas where the agenda for the future of policing is unclear. One such area is police IT. Despite costing the public £1.2 billion annually, we concluded that

“IT across the police service as a whole is not fit for purpose,”

and that that affected the

“police’s ability to fulfil their basic mission of preventing crime and disorder.”

The Home Office has made rectifying that, through changes to police IT, a top priority.

It was an error of judgment on the part of the Home Office to prevent Lord Wasserman from giving oral evidence to our inquiry. As the author of the police IT review that preceded the Home Secretary’s announcement of the creation of a police-led information and communications technology company, and as chairman of the board setting up that new IT company, he is central to any future plans. He hosts seminars on behalf of Ministers, he speaks on behalf of Ministers, and he advises Ministers. I have received many invitations to seminars that the Minister for Policing was unable to attend, and Lord Wasserman is sent in his place. It appears that Lord Wasserman is, in fact, acting as a Minister, so it is very odd that he has refused to appear before the Committee. I hope that the Minister will have some good news for the Committee, in terms of agreeing to allow him to attend. The Committee unanimously wrote to the Home Secretary again on 20 October 2011 asking Lord Wasserman to come before us and give us answers on the development of the new company. That request was turned down.

One of the areas that the Committee has been focusing on with regard to policing has been the policing protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me in the debate, Mr Brady, even if only to prove that one does not have to be a member of the Privy Council to be allowed to speak. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael)—perhaps one should expect a Welshman to look for the dragons in the landscape. I do not intend to describe every single aspect of that landscape, which has already been done well by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who went through a number of aspects of the report as well as some of the comments and suggestions that we, as a political party, had to make. Instead, I will pick out a valley here or a hill there, say a little more about those and perhaps suggest a few routes to take through the landscape.

The Government seek to undertake the most radical change to policing in 50 years, and there will be significant changes by the end of this Parliament. We will see dramatic structural changes, which will have a significant impact on the ground. What the public will care about is what will directly affect them. We should accept that the merger, abolition and creation of all sorts of agencies that members of the public have generally never heard about will not be what they care about, and that is not what the most interesting headlines will be about. The reforms, however, underpin delivery, so we have to get them right.

One of the key issues is the relationship between the democratic right of citizens to decide policies and how policing should happen—those policies might be developed in this place and by the Government—and the right of the police to use their expertise and knowledge to determine operational matters. Those two rights are distinct, and we need to ensure that we understand the difference between them. The police obviously need to be policed, but if our control over what they do is too strong and our grip is too tight, then they will lose that freedom of movement and expertise, their purpose will be undermined and policing in this country will simply dissolve.

I am concerned about how the system will operate. Currently, operational matters are dealt with by chief constables, but a huge amount is driven centrally by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which issues directives. A former Cambridgeshire chief constable has said, “I have an ACPO directive to do the following”. That may not be how the system should work in theory, but, as has been said, in theory, theory and practice are the same thing, but in practice they are not.

ACPO has a role in co-ordinating strategic responses and policing strategies, and it advises the Government on important operational matters. It uses that expertise, under the direction of Sir Hugh Orde, to direct police forces throughout the country and to provide policy advice. Generally, it does that well, but it has been in existence since 1948 and, like any Government-backed organisation with significant independence and vital responsibilities, it is liable to mission creep.

In 1997, ACPO became a private company limited by guarantee, so the body that sets the direction for policing in this country is a private company. There were technical reasons for that, but the message that it sends is worrying. Similarly, ACPO was not subject to freedom of information, although that has now been updated. It received increased responsibilities, such as control over the world’s largest per capita DNA database, which I am pleased is changing, control of undercover policing and control of the policing of political groups in the UK in addition to a growing number of income-generating activities, which stretch the definition of what one might call occupational guidance to breaking point.

There are a number of examples of how occupational guidance can be stretched. I have the great privilege of leading for the Liberal Democrats on transport policy, and when the Secretary of State for Transport announced a review of whether motorway speed limits should be raised from 70 mph to 80 mph, a key question for me was to work out the Government’s policy on how speed limits should be enforced. The current 70 mph speed limit is realistically enforced not at 70 mph but at 80 mph. The speed limit depends on enforcement, and 80 mph meaning 80 mph is a different policy from 80 mph meaning 100 mph. Those are two different policies, but who decides which is implemented? How would the Secretary of State decide? I have been told that the decision on what that policy means—the effective speed limit in this country—was taken not by the House or the Secretary of State for Transport, but by the ACPO lead officer in the area. That is not a case of ACPO deciding what equipment should be used, what the practicalities are or where police officers should be sent. A whole range of matters is for ACPO, and I would not expect the Department for Transport to decide them, but the effective speed limit applying on our motorways should be controlled democratically. Similarly, I found that ACPO guidance advises police forces not to enforce 20 mph speed limits in cities. ACPO should not determine that when the Government have made it clear that they support more 20 mph speed limits in appropriate areas.

Under the Labour Government, ACPO—a largely unaccountable body—was given responsibility for safeguarding some of our basic human freedoms. A private company had the role of deciding how tasers should be used when such weapons, if misused, can be deadly. It had similar control over DNA. ACPO sent me an astonishing letter when questions were being asked about how people could have DNA data deleted from the police national computer. I will happily provide a full copy of the letter to anyone who wants to read it. It is dated 2006, and it advised that the following procedures should be adopted:

“Upon receipt of a request for deletion of a PNC data entry the force”

should check that it can correctly identify the subject. That is absolutely fine. The letter goes on to say that

“an applicant may request the deletion of”

their

“record/DNA sample and profile/fingerprints”

and so forth when there are special circumstances. When that request is made, a check should be made on whether the data entry is correct. So far so good. It continues:

“In the first instance applicants should be sent a letter informing them that the samples and associated PNC record are lawfully held and their request for deletion/destruction is refused”.

There is nothing before that in the letter requiring anyone to find out whether the information is lawfully held, and to work out whether to refuse it. That is a glaring omission. The letter then says that the applicant may write back explaining why the data should be deleted, after which the chief constable should look at the matter and decide whether there is a case to answer.

That is not what we should expect, and I hope that it is not what ACPO intended, but the letter certainly went to several police authorities, including mine, as guidance on the rules. The guidance was that applications should be rejected, and if that was questioned, the police should find out whether the data were correctly held. That should be reformed.

To be fair, ACPO is in a difficult position, and I think that Sir Hugh Orde has accepted the need to change how it operates. It has a grip on national policing but, as Sir Hugh has said,

“it is not through any choice; it is because someone has to do it.”

It is partly the Government’s responsibility to ensure that the right people are fulfilling the right tasks, and that we do not say, “These are tasks that the Government will not do,” and force them on ACPO by accident. It is clear that we need to fix ACPO, and that the Government should have that role. I totally endorse the Government’s decision to create a new professional body to provide leadership and to develop the police as a profession. That is an extremely positive step, and I am delighted that the Government are taking it.

I also support the idea of a body where chief constables can meet to discuss important policing matters, to deal with operational issues and to advise the Government with their expertise. That is right and proper. Chief constables should have that role, and I support its facilitation. We can keep the best bits of ACPO, and get rid of the other bits. We must ensure that those organisations, whether councils or bodies, are accountable and transparent. Will the Minister comment on whether they will be private companies and whether they will be subject to freedom of information? They must not decide the law of the land, so how will the Government decide what is an operational matter, and how will the powers be outlined?

There is more we can do. During the Committee’s investigation, it became clear to me that we still do not have a good handle on evidence. This country has a long tradition of not using evidence-based policy, which applies to policing. It would be helpful to have an organisation that could provide reliable, independent and world-leading advice on policing. We need evidence-based policing, as well as more general evidence-based policy. I welcome the recent establishment of the British Society of Evidence Based Policing, and I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity to speak to it, and to hear what it has to say. One could come up with a number of interesting conclusions about policing styles and techniques that are driven by evidence. Britain leads the world. We train police officers in many parts of the country on executive leadership programmes, and the Minister, with the Chair of the Select Committee, kindly spoke at one of those events just before Christmas.

Much of that has been driven by an academic who is now based in Cambridge. Professor Larry Sherman is professor of criminology at that university, and he has a lot to say on this matter—I hope that the Government regularly listen to him. He recently gave the 2011 Benjamin Franklin medal lecture at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. He said many interesting things, and I commend his speech to anyone who might be interested. He argued for the creation of a British academy of policing, which would be

“a civil society organisation uniting police associations with university faculties of policing in a self-governing professional body”,

and could

“extend the global influence of British policing”,

and provide politicians attempting to navigate a new policing structure with rigorous academic material. I endorse that, because it would be excellent to have the academic knowledge from our universities linked up with policing.

We have one of the best policing traditions in the world, but we must be able to reform it and we must be able to proceed on cogent evidence. There is always inertia with such a force, and some of it is necessary, but it should be changed from an evidence-based position. We need that rigorous change, and I hope that the Government will continue to head down that route.

I want to discuss some other issues. We have discussed the police IT company and organisational matters. I would like the police to deal with that better and to become more innovative by using small-scale ideas. I shall give two examples, using companies that are, not coincidentally of course, in my constituency. I have mentioned them briefly in the House.

Sepura makes radio handsets that are used by the police and other emergency services. It is doing some excellent work with West Midlands police in using those radios to record information about stop and search—I will not discuss the wider aspects of stop and search—and to log the location, time and other details of an incident that has just happened. I understand that that is extremely successful, because it saves time for police officers and provides more accurate and more accessible results. I am sure that the Minister remembers writing a letter to Sepura congratulating it on that work. I hope that we will see it rolled out in other areas, and that there will be other innovations.

Real VNC does similar work, but sadly only with the police in the United States, where there are similar systems. Hand-held devices can be used to access the main police computer in a secure and controlled way, so that the police can be more active, and can record directly at the scene instead of having to wait. It goes without saying that all existing IT systems need to be made to work. My experience with Cambridgeshire constabulary, from an evening that I spent with the police, was that it took about an hour and a half to download a video from a head-mounted camera. We need to fix such problems as well as be more innovative.

My final plea is that we should not focus too much on organisations. What matters in policing concerns what happens on the ground and with individuals, and the ward of East Chesterton in Cambridge, which I used to represent as a county councillor, contained excellent examples of that—I apologise to hon. Members who have heard me make that point previously. I would love to claim credit for all the brilliant innovations in that ward, but they were not mine and were largely driven by PC Nick Percival—I still think of him as that, although he has now been promoted. He came along as our community beat manager and carried out a whole range of measures that made a difference in that relatively deprived part of Cambridge.

In his first year on the beat, Nick Percival managed to halve the amount of antisocial behaviour and crime that was reported, which was a huge achievement. If all our officers could manage such things—I realise that it is not that simple—this country would be a different place. He also managed to arrest fewer people than was usual for that area. Some saw that as a cause for criticism, but I saw it as a great triumph. Successful policing involves reducing the level of crime, and a greater number of arrests is not the aim.

I would like to highlight two things done by PC Nick Percival. First, he created a link with young people. That is important, especially when looking at the factors that led indirectly to the riots. We used to have a problem, particularly during school holidays, of young people getting bored, hanging around, causing trouble and smashing up bus shelters or engaging in other forms of small-scale antisocial behaviour. Nick Percival came up with the idea of a voucher scheme. Any young person in the ward who was seen playing well during the holidays by a police officer or a PCSO—we have had a great team of PCSOs over the years—was given a signed voucher by that officer. At the end of the holiday, everybody in the class at school that had the most vouchers received a £15 voucher for the local shopping centre. That was a cheap measure, and it transformed the area. Rather than having groups wandering around feeling bored, people would play and hope that a police officer would walk by. They desperately hoped that the cop would come over and find them, and they would say, “Hi PC Nick, good to see you.” It would be fantastic to see that sort of relationship in more areas.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend provides me with the opportunity to flag up an exciting proposal that has been put to me by an organisation called Cricket for Change. It is keen to work with those responsible for the training of PCSOs, and embed within that training a unit aimed at providing PCSOs with the skills that they need to engage young people in sport through games such as street cricket and tag rugby.

[Dr Huppert]

The idea outlined by my right hon. Friend sounds excellent, and I hope that it does well. There is much we need to do to engage with young people because of the risk that some see themselves as somehow detached from existing organisations. When the Committee took part in visits after the riots, people described how distrust of the police already existed and said that from an early stage they and their families had grown up distrusting the police. We have to break that down, and any initiative that leads to normal friendly relationships between the police and the general public must be a good thing.

The other initiative was a system called e-cops that originally started in East Chesterton but is now used across Cambridgeshire. It is a regular newsletter sent by the police to anybody in that area and includes information such as which roads PCs have been walking down. It was transformational in East Chesterton because instead of people saying, “Why do I never see a police officer on my street?”—frankly I would be worried if I always saw a police officer on my street—there was a hugely increased level of satisfaction in what the police were doing at minimal extra cost. One of the great things about e-cops was that it was set up in an informal, chatty style; it was clearly written by a PC or PCSO writing as themselves. The initiative was successful and spread across Cambridgeshire. It is now used more as a communications device, and I think that the formality has weakened some of its effect. The idea, however, was for people to know their local police as people, not only as a force to complain or argue about.

Policing is ultimately for and about people, not just national organisations. I hope that if we implement a number of the necessary reforms, albeit with many of the caveats described by the Committee and colleagues who have spoken in the debate, we will remember to think about people and look at what we can do to make things better for them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the right hon. Gentleman on either count. That is the second hypothetical matter he has raised this evening. As I have said, we will consider the recommendations of the Police Arbitration Tribunal very carefully, and it is absolutely right that we should do so.

I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to police officers and, indeed, staff. The Chair of the Select Committee referred to the reception that was held in No. 10 Downing street yesterday by the Prime Minister to mark the contribution of those who helped to deal with the disorder last summer—not only police officers, but police staff and those who worked in the other emergency services and local government. The Prime Minister spoke fulsomely about the importance of what they and their colleagues had done in the summer.

I myself was reminded of what police officers do for us by the dreadful stabbings of three officers that took place in the Metropolitan police area before Christmas. Those young officers bore serious injuries. We should always remember what an important job the police do for the country. It is also important that the Government restate to the police service that we are having to take difficult decisions in common with those that affect other public services. None of that should allow the police service to believe that we do not value police officers or want to do the best for the police service in the future. I certainly wish to do the best for the service in the future, and for those who work in it.

I will pick up one or two specific points before I conclude. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned the budget for police and crime panels and questioned how it is derived. It is important to restate that police and crime panels are not ongoing police authorities with the responsibilities of police authorities. Those responsibilities will be taken by police and crime commissioners. Police and crime panels have an important scrutiny role in providing a check and balance that is carefully defined in the legislation that we debated. Their role should not be expanded, and they do not need anything like the kind of resource that police authorities have. The limited funding that has been provided to panels will enable them to do their scrutiny job. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who intervened, made that point very effectively.

I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington about the police professional body and the importance of dealing with diversity issues. That is a very good example of the kind of thing we could expect a police professional body to take up. It is difficult to see where responsibility for those issues lies at the moment. One of the things a professional body could be responsible for is ensuring that we can make greater progress in recruiting a diversity of police officers.

My right hon. Friend spoke about the importance of collaboration with local authorities, to which I referred in my response to the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. I endorse that. As my hon. Friend noted, I visited Sutton, where there is a very good example of police force and local authority co-operation. We would like to see more of that, but we are not going to prescribe it. We seek to enable and encourage such an approach, but we do not want to have a directive or master plan that tells police forces how they should go about it.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth launched his campaign to be police and crime commissioner for south Wales. I wish him the very best of luck in that regard and genuinely welcome his candidacy. He raised again the issue of the status of Cardiff as the capital of Wales and made a bid for the force receiving some kind of grant in recognition of that in the same way that the Metropolitan police receives a capital city grant. He has raised that issue with me before, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) has also raised it with me separately. In response to my hon. Friend, I asked the chief constable to supply me with the financial information that would make the case for such a grant. Clearly, resources are tight. It is a difficult request, because it would require removing grant from those who would otherwise be receiving it. These are the decisions that Ministers have to take, but I have undertaken to consider the issue in a sensible manner—I am happy to reassure him about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, whom I welcome to this debate of Privy Counsellors, spoke about the importance of evidence-based policy in policing, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. I strongly agree with both of them on this matter. I welcome the ideas set out by Professor Sherman, whom I would like to meet again shortly to discuss these matters. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge can organise a convivial dinner in Cambridge, but I would be very happy to attend.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that I have ever had a Minister make a request for such a meeting before—not that way around. I would be delighted to host him and Professor Sherman. I am sure that we can arrange that.

[Nick Herbert]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That is a deal. I would be delighted to come up to the town of my birth and discuss these issues with Professor Sherman, because they are important. The absence of greater academic co-ordination and interest in the evidence for good policing practice is something that we should collectively seek to try and redress.

Justice and Security Green Paper

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That is more a matter for the Leader of the House than for me, but I am just turning to some members of the Committee, and I note that its reports are debated here sometimes. If Members with a close interest in the subject do not consider the frequency of debate to be adequate, however, I suggest that they take it up with my right hon. Friend. I do not think that these particular measures touch upon the frequency of debate, but the Committee is to be made more accountable to Parliament. That is one of the underlying features of our reforms.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I am instinctively uncomfortable about keeping evidence secret from those in court cases, but I look forward to seeking the detailed safeguards in the Green Paper. The Secretary of State says that the measures are intended for civil cases, but what assurances can he give the House that he will not consider using similar processes for criminal cases, in which somebody’s liberty might be at risk?

[Mr Clarke]

There is no question of having this in criminal cases—it would be quite impossible. A person could not be convicted on the basis of evidence that he was not allowed to hear and that was withheld from the public. The position will be the same after this as it is now—if evidence is not possessed that can be used in open court, the prosecution has to be dropped and cannot proceed. I share my hon. Friend’s sensitivities about any part of civil proceedings being closed—particularly, for example, in inquests, as I said a moment ago. However, I have come to the conclusion that that is less unsatisfactory than a situation in which the case cannot be heard in civil proceedings, so both parties go away, both claiming they are still right, and nobody has been able to hear all the evidence and give a judgment that, although not everybody will always accept it, will be of considerable reassurance to the general public if someone has heard it all and come to a conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I have to be up front with my hon. Friend and say that less money will be spent on legal aid, which means that fewer people will have access to legal aid. The important issue is that we direct scarce resources to the most vulnerable, and that is exactly what we will be doing by prioritising those whose security and liberty is at risk and those whose homes are at risk of immediate repossession.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I was fortunate to secure a debate on legal aid last week in which I and others had the opportunity to go through some detailed concerns. Sadly, the Minister ran out of time in which to respond; I trust that he will respond to us all in writing. He implied then that there would be changes to the original proposals. Can he confirm that now, and what will they be?

[Mr Djanogly]

I can confirm that a letter has been sent to my hon. Friend, so he should get it shortly. As I said in the Adjournment debate, which helpfully enabled hon. Members to put their points across, issues that were raised then are being looked at carefully by the Government. We will assess those and some of them may have implications for our legislation in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T10. The Home Secretary recently announced her intention for police to do 80% of charging. I can see how that is to the benefit of the police, but has the Justice Secretary had any discussions about how we can ensure that it is not to the disbenefit of justice?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

That too is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the question should be addressed to the Home Office first.

Legal Aid

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I hope that this debate on legal aid—a vitally important component of our legal system—will prove timely. It is opportune because although the Government consultation, which has received around 5,000 replies, has closed, the Government have not yet published their response. I hope, therefore, that the Government will have the chance to listen to concerns from both sides of the House before publishing their final recommendations. I am delighted to welcome the Minister to respond to the debate, and more particularly to listen to it. He and I spent some time debating in 2005, and although I did not always agree with his position, he showed that he would listen to an argument and I hope he will show the same character today.

One of the basic pillars of our legal system is supposed to be that the law is accessible to all, not only to those who can afford it. Members of another Committee are seeking to reform the law of libel to ensure that success goes to those who have truth on their side, rather than to those with the most money. Legal aid is the manner in which we ensure that all have a fair chance to access the law and see justice done.

The Government have been at pains to emphasise their commitment to access to justice. We would all, I hope, agree with their stated position that

“access to justice is the hallmark of a civil society.”

Indeed, many of us would go slightly further and say that it is the hallmark of a civilised society. The Green Paper that announced the proposals suggested that the Ministry of Justice believes that legal aid has expanded far beyond its original intentions. I recognise that there is often waste, and that unnecessary costs could be eliminated or reduced, but we should avoid simply caricaturing the current legal aid system.

In my opinion, as it currently stands the legal aid system seems broadly to represent what Lord Rushcliffe intended in his 1945 report. He argued that public funding for legal aid should not be limited to those “normally classed as poor”, but should also include those of “small or moderate means.” According to the Ministry of Justice, under the current legal aid system 29% of us are eligible for publicly funded advice. One could ask whether that goes far enough. Given our unequal income distribution, even the median wage could well be described as “small or moderate means” in some parts of the country.

I accept that the wider fiscal situation and the rapidly growing nature of the legal aid budget allow room for consolidation through reductions in the budget, and there is a balance to strike between access and cost. This debate is largely an opportunity to discuss how such reductions can be achieved without harming the most vulnerable people in our society. A large portion of my speech will deal with the scope of the Government’s proposals, but I also hope to draw the Minister’s attention to the viable alternatives that have been proposed. Given the number of hon. Members from all parties present in the debate, I will try to be brief to allow others to speak. I am sure that one could easily fill 90 minutes with more detailed analyses of every issue that I cover.

It is easy to forget the recent history of legal aid, and it is important to look at the context behind the debate this afternoon and remind ourselves that legal aid underwent substantial changes under the previous Government—Labour launched about 30 consultations and reviews to try to sort the system out. Since the formation of the coalition, we have had Sir Ian Magee’s “Review of legal aid delivery and governance”, and the family justice review chaired by David Norgrove, both of which are pertinent to the debate. I am glad that the Government delayed their response to the consultation on legal aid until after the interim report of the Norgrove review was published. It is always useful to get expert advice before making decisions.

Hon. Members should be in no doubt that I appreciate much of what the Ministry of Justice has done since the formation of the coalition. In general, I admire the liberal proposals on sentencing that have stemmed from the Secretary of State and his team of Ministers—they may not thank me for that praise of their liberalism. It has been particularly good to see a renewed emphasis on evidence and reinvestment in justice, moving us away from an obsession with prisons and punishment, and renewing our desire to see criminals rehabilitated. We want less crime, not just to be harsh on criminals after the event.

There are, however, problems with the Government’s proposals, many of which will be familiar to hon. Members following this debate. If they have not already done so, hon. Members might want to familiarise themselves with the excellent report from the Justice Committee—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the large majority of which I agree with. I want to focus on the effects of the proposals concerning access to advice on social welfare law, in particular with regard to immigration law, family law and children and young people. I will also highlight what I believe are the unintended consequences of the Government’s proposals for citizens advice bureaux and other organisations.

It is worth questioning the central decision at the heart of the Government’s proposals. From the off they considered it impossible to pare down any further expenditure on criminal legal aid. Like many others, I remain unconvinced that we should leave criminal legal aid entirely untouched when it accounts for more than half the total budget, even if it has previously come in for close attention. Obviously, we do not want to deny people access to justice in criminal trials, but I believe there may be further scope for savings in that area. I hope the Minister will heed that note of slight uncertainty and address it when he responds to the debate.

In other areas, my uncertainty is more than slight. One such area is family law, and I have received many representations from organisations and individuals across the spectrum, from those who need legal aid to those who provide it and almost everyone in between. I cannot over-emphasise the concerns that people have about the possible effects of the Government proposals. Time and again I have heard the same criticism: the Government have brought forward proposals without properly researching the effects of the current system, and without adequately justifying their stance. As a result, the unintended consequences of the proposals, if implemented, could be regressive and widespread.

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes a strong case. Does he agree that there is a danger that people in a host of vulnerable groups, including those with mental health problems, those suffering domestic abuse—as opposed to domestic violence—those with learning disabilities, and others, could be disadvantaged in front of the law? Would it not be better to raise the bar for legal aid, and look at the situation case by case?

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend raises a number of issues, some of which I will come on to talk about. There is no doubt that this issue is a challenge, and there is no easy solution with which to protect all those vulnerable groups. Ideas such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, or those suggested by the Law Society, may provide a better option.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent case and I congratulate him on that. Does he agree that rather than being largely budget driven, the review should begin with an understanding that legal justice is inextricably linked to social justice? Homelessness, for example, will be narrowly defined by these changes at a time when the Government’s policies on homelessness, housing benefit and other areas are already having a disruptive impact in that area. We need a legal aid system that is flexible enough to assist those who will find themselves on the margins of society.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend for his valuable contribution to the debate. He is right: social justice lies at the heart of much of what is happening. The lack of social justice in this country, and the widening disparity between the rich and poor, already existed under the previous Government. That disparity is a sorry blight for us all and affects much of public policy. We know that one of the worst problems is the effect that social injustice and deprivation have on health. That is a much more fundamental problem to be solved than exactly what happens in an A and E hospital, and the same goes for the examples provided by my hon. Friend.

Family law particularly concerns me. I am indebted to a number of people for drawing my attention to the issue, and I would particularly like to thank Jo Miles, a Fellow in Law at Trinity college Cambridge, where I used to be a Fellow. She has made great efforts to produce evidence-based assessments of the proposals in the Green Paper, and she has also been in touch with Ministers.

The Green Paper’s reforms for family law constitute a radical reduction in the number of private family law issues for which legal aid will be available. That policy is based on two premises. To say those are outright false is perhaps going too far, but they are questionable and not well justified. The premises are first that spending on legal aid fuels litigation, and secondly that mediation is the clear alternative.

In some cases, there is no doubt that lawyers on each side—I declare an interest as a non-lawyer—ramp up the case to earn fees, and make a tense situation worse for the individuals as well as expensive for the state and of course for the side that does not have legal aid. However, it is not clear that that is common or regular. In fact, it is probably because clients can currently see a solicitor that litigation is avoided in many cases. Solicitors can play a very important role in guiding their clients towards agreed resolutions or advising them that their case is too weak to fight. Without professional guidance, badly founded and prepared litigation conducted by the client in person will surely follow and grow. That will mean an inevitable and probably substantial rise in the number of litigants in person in the family courts and the associated costs. I have seen no evidence for the Government’s assumption that there will be no significant impact on court operating costs. I strongly suspect that what is saved in legal aid may simply be spent in court costs.

The result will be that, as ever, those with money will have access to justice. Those who do not have the cash and who also lack the energy and resources to litigate by themselves will simply not have access to justice. Those who have not been able to enforce the other party’s private law responsibilities will have to fall back on the state for housing and other support—another cost to the Exchequer.

Therefore, the removal of public funding from the areas of family law that we are discussing may have the opposite effect on the finances to that which is intended. On a related note, it may also hamper successful mediation. Studies have shown that one of the main reasons why mediation has been successful has been the threat of litigation. That encourages people to adopt sensible positions and so to settle. Will that still work in the absence of litigation as a plausible threat?

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I declare an interest in the debate, having been a legal aid family lawyer. I want to pick up the point about mediation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that mediation can be quite useful, but it is no panacea and frequently fails when there is an imbalance of power, which is often the case in family matters? I am concerned that the Government’s proposals rely on mediation. I am concerned also about where all the mediators will come from and who will pay for them.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and bow to her greater expertise in this area. She is absolutely right. There is no doubt that mediation is fantastic, but it does not solve every problem. It is a great thing where it works. Where it does not work, there must be alternatives. She also raises the important point about the number of mediators. We are trying to turn to more and more mediation and arbitration in relation to a range of areas of law, and there is a real question about how we can train enough people.

I hope that the Government will revisit their proposals on reducing the scope of family law. We share the objective of controlling costs while preserving access to justice. I hope that the Government will be able to reach a better balance than they did in their original proposals.

Let me now turn to another element of family law, which has had almost as much attention from the same organisations—domestic violence, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned. That is a blight that is far more common in our country than many of us would like to believe. It is a very private crime and therefore difficult to measure, but estimates based on available data, such as the British crime survey, suggest that as many as one in five adults have experienced it in some form.

The Green Paper takes a narrow view of what domestic violence constitutes and how it can be evidenced. The Government seem to be counting only physical violence under the definition of domestic violence and then only where relevant legal proceedings have been started or orders obtained in relation to it. There are a couple of concerns about the consequences of that. First, it provides a perverse incentive for people to allege domestic violence just to gain access to funding for their other issues. In other words, it will encourage court proceedings. It is not clear whether that would involve people admitting what is actually happening or would lead to false allegations, but either way, it will increase court proceedings. Secondly, a huge amount of research shows that many victims of domestic violence do not disclose their abuse at all. For all sorts of reasons, they are reluctant to take legal proceedings in relation to the abuse. We should not make that harder.

All that would be bad enough. I hope that I need not convince anyone here that domestic violence cannot refer simply to physical violence. We must all be concerned about people suffering the threat of violence and mental torment. I hope that the Government will take seriously the criticisms that they have received on that point and will clarify and strengthen their definition of domestic violence so that those at risk have access to justice and are protected.

There is a particular issue about those people—normally women—who are in the UK on a spousal visa with no access to public funds and are subjected to domestic violence. I have met such people in the Cambridge women’s refuge. I am delighted that the Government are taking some steps to support them—for example, by extending the funding for the Sojourner project, which I hope will continue even longer. Everyone will work together to help such people. There will be legal aid funding for them to obtain an injunction against their ex-partner, and the UK Border Agency will fast-track their visa application—but there will be no support for them to apply for the visa that unlocks their future support. Surely that is not right.

Women will be disproportionately affected by the changes in legal aid. They are more often the recipients of it and less often have their own finances in place. Children and young people will also be disproportionately affected, partly because women make up the majority of primary care givers, although of course not all. I have received a considerable amount of evidence from a number of organisations suggesting that the proposals could deny many thousands of children and young people access to justice. The Liberal Democrat youth policy includes a commitment to providing young people with access to specialist support and advice on their legal rights and responsibilities—something that I hope would attract universal support. I therefore urge the Government to think again more carefully about their proposals for young people. They are clearly a group of people who are generally vulnerable and less able to represent themselves. It seems to me, then, that the current scope of legal aid should remain available to children and young people even if it must be reduced somewhat for adults. In addition, we should try to target funding and support better towards that demographic group in the future.

Similar concerns apply in relation to disabled people, whether young or old. For example, the Government plan to remove legal aid relating to matters of special educational need. The Government sought to justify that proposal in the Green Paper because there are alternative sources of support, they do not consider parents and carers bringing SEN appeals to be particularly vulnerable and they believe that the education of children should not be accorded the same level of priority as other, more critical issues. The last point is the most concerning. The coalition Government have taken some good steps to support families with disabled children—for example, the SEN Green Paper from the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), is a great step forwards. However, the change that we are discussing in this debate would send entirely the wrong message to those families. Access to education is a right for all children and is a vital mechanism for removing some of the barriers facing disabled children and young people.

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

On the point about special educational needs, does my hon. Friend further welcome the proposals in the Green Paper to move to a system of mediation to resolve many of the problems that parents and children have in challenging decisions made by local authorities? Should not that system of mediation be put in train with any changes to legal aid so that we do not end up with the good intentions of the Green Paper being frustrated by a lack of co-ordination between two Departments?

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Yes, mediation can play a good role. There are a number of cases in which we need to move away from the legalistic approach to resolving problems and towards mediatory approaches. However, as I said in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), mediation does not always work, and where will we get all the mediators from? We must ensure that there is a fall-back—a safety net—for people.

I cannot deal with all the issues relating to this area now. I assume that the Government have seen the briefings from the Children’s Society and the Special Educational Consortium and I hope that they will consider what they say. I am sure that other hon. Members have seen them as well.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is being very patient in allowing me to intervene again. The theme underlying this is public service and its improvement. There is an important link, which must not be lost by the Government. They must ensure that those people seeking to benefit from public services see an improvement in them. We have found this in the Select Committee on Health, which has been considering clinical negligence. The removal of legal aid is proposed in that area. How can a service move on, learn lessons and improve if those who are served poorly by it do not have access to the right kind of justice?

[Dr Huppert]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope to talk later about the effect of the Jackson changes, how legal aid will work then and the double whammy that people may face with the two changes being rolled up together.

Lastly on the subject of special educational needs, I am sure that other hon. Members have had constituents coming to see them, as I have. My constituents take special educational needs appeals for their children very seriously. They are very concerned. A number of people have come to see me. They are terrified both about what will happen to their own children and about the future. They see education as critical to their children’s future. I could talk about other aspects, but time moves on apace.

Hon. Members may be aware that I have a passionate interest in matters to do with immigration and asylum. I chair the all-party group on refugees, as well as being a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and it is a great pleasure to see him here today. I am of course pleased that asylum will remain within the scope of legal aid, but it is extremely concerning that other immigration cases have been excluded. Even under existing arrangements, immigration legal aid providers are struggling to remain viable; if we confine legal aid to asylum, it is doubtful whether good quality practitioners will continue to be available. There is already a surfeit of poor quality lawyers and advisers working in this field, and we would all benefit from better provision because many of them are not up to scratch.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Is he aware that many of the legal aid practitioners that used to deal largely with immigration matters in inner London have gone under? I frequently represent people at immigration appeal tribunal hearings, and I know that a disturbing number of claimants with strong cases are completely unrepresented, and that all kinds of family breakdowns and misery result. It is not necessary to invest a great deal of money in order for the most vulnerable to get reasonable access to justice.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right. I am not an expert on the position in London, but I know the Cambridge area and I realise that there is a shortage of good people. I see that with my constituents time and again.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I pay tribute to him for the work that he does as chair of the all-party group on refugees and as a member of the Select Committee.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), if that specialism disappears—and immigration cases are dealt with by specialist legal aid lawyers—vulnerable constituents may go to unscrupulous immigration advisers, be charged huge sums, and, at the end of the day, be left with no recourse except to go to Members of Parliament, who are not really qualified to give them that advice.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am astonished at how many constituents I see who have been poorly advised. The most extreme example was a lady who applied for asylum through a lawyer and got leave to remain, but when she went to renew her passport she discovered that the whole thing was a forgery. We are still trying to resolve that case. We need decent, good quality lawyers, not the rather shabby and disreputable people whom we sometimes see in their place.

The main point that I want to make is about the approach taken by the UK Border Agency. Its attitude is a well-known sticking point. It rarely allows scope for negotiation or mediation. It seems to take the view that it will stick to its decision until a court tells it otherwise almost regardless of the evidence. In so many cases, applications for the right to work were ignored until the agency was ordered to deal with them by higher courts.

Many applications for refugee reunion that are refused are then overturned on appeal, and it seems that the appeal system is being used by the agency as a safety net. Under the Government’s proposals, those cases would no longer be in scope for legal aid, and there will be no opportunity to fix the agency’s errors. I urge the Government to listen to practitioners and the representatives of asylum seekers and refugees. The Government should ensure that asylum support remains in scope as a high priority. They should also ensure that applications for family reunion are treated as extensions to a claim for asylum and thus be within scope for legal aid purposes.

There are certainly cases in which applicants with a poor case abuse the system, looking for appeal after appeal in a fruitless quest for victory. However, those with a strong case are also forced to jump repeated hurdles to get justice. The key solution is for the agency to get more decisions right first time, as was accepted by the Minister for Immigration, when I raised the matter in the Chamber.

I could say more about that, but I want to give a brief example of the impact that the Government’s proposals may have on service providers, and I shall then allow others to speak. I have spoken to service providers about the possible impact of the proposals on various vulnerable groups. I have received comments from a range of organisations and individuals that provide support. I wish that I could have talked to all of them, but I shall focus on the role of Citizens Advice, as I suspect that all Members will appreciate the vital role that it plays in our constituencies, not least in preventing the flood of case work that we all receive from becoming even more torrential.

Citizens Advice has produced detailed briefings showing the unintended consequences of the Government’s proposals on social welfare law work. Its cost-benefit analysis makes a strong case for retaining and even strengthening its role. For instance, its research found that for every £1 of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state potentially saves £2.34; on debt advice, the state saves £2.98; on benefits, it saves £8.80; and on employment advice, it saves £7.13. With impressive understatement, Citizens Advice suggests that the Ministry of Justice

“gets a good return from expenditure on legal help in these areas.”

It estimates that if funding were no longer available for these categories of law, at least £172 million of additional costs would accrue for both state and society.

What effect would the proposals have on the Citizens Advice service more widely? More than half of the bureaux surveyed in December last year said that the changes to legal aid scope and the reduction in fees would pose a real risk to the continuation of their local advice service as a whole. Again, I do not need to remind Members of the havoc that that would wreak in our communities, or of the large amount of extra work that would almost certainly come our way as a result. In passing, I praise the excellent work done by Rachel Talbot and the staff of the Cambridge citizens advice bureau, who are always there to help me and my constituents. I also praise Cambridge city council, which last year provided it with a 25% increase in grant. I wish that all councils did that, rather than pulling resources from such a vital public service.

Time is running short, but I wish to raise two brief points. The first, raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), is about the effect of combining the legal aid proposals with Lord Jackson’s proposals on clinical negligence cases. Lord Jackson was clear about it. He said:

“I stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility…the maintenance of legal aid at no less than the present levels makes sound economic sense and is in the public interest”.

Will the Government take account of that plea, and avoid a double whammy? Legal aid changes and the Jackson proposals together would mean that those who have suffered through error would not be able to continue with their cases.

Secondly, I flag up a concern raised with me by Andy McGowan, the access and funding officer of Cambridge university students union. He is one of those rare people on free school meals who got to Oxbridge—the Government would like to see more of them—and he wants to practise as a criminal legal aid solicitor; he is driven by a motivation that I am sure we would all endorse to help the most vulnerable in society. He asks how he can fund the legal practice course in the absence of the training contract grant scheme, knowing that he will be unlikely to be as well paid as those lawyers for whom money is the principle motivation. If we lose people like Andy from the profession and from public service, we will create a less fair future for many years to come.

It is not my intention to attack the Government’s proposals without offering an alternative. That is not a helpful or effective way of approaching such debates, and I am always disappointed when others do not say clearly what they would do differently. There is clearly much in the Government’s proposals that is sensible. I cannot claim to be an expert on legal aid, and I have relied heavily on the hard work of many other people in preparing this speech. I am grateful to them for all that they do to preserve what is good about the present system, and for their wider struggle to provide access to justice for all, especially for the most vulnerable. The case that I have attempted to build draws on the research and evidence of others. The same is true of the alternative that I offer the Government.

The Law Society, which for a long time was officially responsible for legal aid, has continued to play a major role in shaping the debate on this important subject. It has produced an alternative set of proposals that aim to go beyond the savings that the Government have set out. It projects savings of £384 million, which could even reach slightly more, yet at the same time it claims to be able to protect the vulnerable about whom I have said so much. The Government are duty bound to look seriously at those proposals and, if they are workable, to adopt them. If the Government are serious about access to justice, they must listen to those who know what is necessary to provide it.

I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say, and to the Minister’s response. I hope that he will signal a willingness to modify the proposals in the light of the concerns that have been raised.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Julian Huppert Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has cleared up the issue—there is one council in favour of the proposed changed across the country. However, I disagree absolutely with what he said about the electorate voting for this measure. The model in the Bill was not voted for by the majority of people. As he said, the model in the Liberal Democrat manifesto was completely different from the one in the Bill. He gave the game away when he said, “Of course, in the coalition agreement, there was a compromise”. Well, if there was a compromise, it obviously happened after the election, not during the election, so I do not think that anybody actually voted for this model.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the key issue is about having elected people looking after policing? That was the common ground between our two parties. The outcome was not exactly as we would have liked, but it was a balance between the two options. Does he further agree that there is a problem at the moment, in that police authorities do not represent those on district councils? District councils do not have a direct input. In fact, does he think that police authorities, as they currently are, work well at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

I do not think that police authorities are as bad as they are portrayed. There is some variation among them, but many do a reasonable job. Perhaps they are not as visible as they might be, and perhaps people do not understand exactly what they do, but people such as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who sits on the Kent police authority, do a good job.

As for elections, let us say this. We can come forward with different models for this election or that election. However, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) will have heard me say in Committee, whatever the arguments about direct elections, the Government’s model is at totally the wrong level of accountability. I do not get people queuing up at my surgeries to say, “Do you know what, Mr Coaker? Nottinghamshire police’s counter-terrorism strategy”—or its fraud strategy or trafficking policy—“is wrong.” People come to my surgery to say, “Mr Coaker, we’re absolutely fed up with the kids at the end of our street,” or, “We’re totally fed up with the drug dealing going on from cars in a car park down the road.” I am sure that that is true for most hon. Members.

That neighbourhood, street-level accountability is what people want, which is why, to be fair to the hon. Member for Cambridge, his party proposed elections at a very local level. Whether that was the right model or the wrong model, if we are looking at where we need to strengthen accountability arrangements, it is precisely at that neighbourhood and street level where we need to do so. We can have neighbourhood policing, community meetings, beat meetings, and so on—all the things that have happened in a calm and measured way, and which have made such a difference to confidence at that level.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have discussed that idea in another venue, along with how important ultra-local policing is and how it is different from governance at a higher level. However, I am trying to understand where he is heading. In Committee he proposed directly elected chairs of police authorities, so I am glad that he now prefers the Lib Dem model—I do not remember him saying that before the election, but it is nice to hear that he is moving our way. Why does he think that having a directly elected chair of a panel would be so different from having a single directly elected person who would also act across a whole area?

[Vernon Coaker]

We are opposed to directly elected police and crime commissioners as set out in the Bill. Having said that, the Bill will presumably go through—unless Government Members vote against their own Whip—so then what should we do? The proper and responsible thing to do is to acknowledge that fact and propose another model—the hon. Gentleman will have seen our amendments. If we are to have a directly elected individual, then as well as saying that we are opposed to that in principle, what we as a responsible Opposition should do is say how we would improve it. The amendment that we moved in Committee—the hon. Gentleman knows this, but I am repeating it for the benefit of other Members—would have made that directly elected individual the chair of the police and crime panel, and thereby would have introduced proper checks and balances in the system.

The proposal that we are putting before the House today offers another way forward. What we are saying is, “Keep them as two distinct entities”—that is, have a police and crime commissioner as a figurehead, but also have a police and crime panel with significantly enhanced powers. These are all things that, with a proper inquiry and proper research, we could check to see whether they might be more appropriate, but I will tell the hon. Gentleman this. If he was stood where I am and he was opposed to something that the Government of the day were doing, he would say that he was opposed to it, but he would also seek to improve and adapt it, to take some of the edge off. That is what we did in Committee and that is what we are doing now.

It is not just the Opposition; hon. Members will no doubt have read Lord Imbert, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police and a former commissioner, setting out his opposition in The Times today. He will not be alone, although it is easier for him, as a non-serving police officer and a noble Lord, to say why he is opposed. He says:

“If passed unamended, this Bill will undermine”

the policing model that we have had in this country for years,

“threatening the crucial political independence and non-partisanship of the police and the Rule of Law itself.”

Yesterday, Liberty published the results of a survey conducted on its behalf by YouGov, which showed the lack of public trust in elected police commissioners. In answer to the question “Who would you trust more to protect your family from crime?”, 65% chose “A Chief Constable reporting to a Police Authority, as now” as their preferred option. “A Chief Constable reporting to an individual politician elected as a Police and Crime Commissioner” was the preferred option of just 15%. Just to show that that goes across the length and breadth of the country, I found out that a survey had been conducted in Hampshire showing that only 5% of the public there support having a single elected police and crime commissioner.

That is just the sort of evidence that any inquiry would have to look at. However, the Government’s response is simply to stand back and pretend that those people are all dinosaurs who would inevitably say that, because they are looking to protect their own interests, when in fact they are trying to say to the Government, “You need to slow down a bit and look at the consequences of what you’re trying to do.” All the Minister says is, “We believe it’s the right thing to do.” I have said to him before that, with respect, simply asserting that something is the case is not the same as arguing the case. Where is the evidence for this change to policing, which will make such a fundamental difference to governance arrangements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

First, if the system in London was working so well, why would the Government want to change it? Secondly, the change that the Government are making is to a completely different system from that which operates at the moment. The Metropolitan Police Authority is being abolished. The person who, through primary legislation, is going to be put in charge of policing in London through the Mayor’s office for policing and crime will be an unelected individual appointed by the Mayor of London. They will not be a directly elected individual as per the rest of the country, but an appointee of the Mayor following the abolition of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The hon. Gentleman asked why, if the system works so well, we should not expand it to the rest of the country. If the system in London is working so well, why are the Government changing it? Why not just leave it as it is? We are not changing the system in London to that in the rest of the country—we are completely changing the system in London to another system.

The inquiry would also need to look at the arrangements between a police and crime commissioner and the local democratic framework. One of the great successes of the current policing arrangements has been the introduction of the neighbourhood policing model, with the development of community safety partnerships in Wales and crime and disorder reduction partnerships in other parts of the country. Those arrangements have brought together all the various partners at a local level in order to try to tackle crime and improve confidence. The police and crime commissioner is not a responsible authority under the terms of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

What, then, is the relationship of the police and crime commissioner with the police and crime panel? Again, we do not understand that, and the Bill is unclear about it. I have referred to the complete lack of power that a police and crime panel has, leaving an omnipotent individual in charge of policing. Police and crime panels will have one person from each local authority—if there are not 10 authorities, we can make up the number with another couple—and a couple of independent members. If there are more than 10 local authorities, we can have a few more so that we stick to the basis of one person per authority. There is no reference to how many people might be in that local authority area or to its size—the reference is just to one person per authority, so it could be a tiny district council and a massive local authority area. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) mentioned Northumbria, which is a huge area covered by one council and a very small, highly populated area covered by another.

[Dr Huppert]

Does the hon. Gentleman think it is right that under the current system district councils such as Cambridge city council have no representation on the police authority at all?

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a fair point. We can, of course, make changes and improvements to the current system. However, the point is that we are introducing police and crime panels when we have not had a proper debate about what their constitution should be; we have merely said there should be one member per authority. The size of the district council area in terms of population is not mentioned. These are clearly things that we need to understand.

We have had numerous representations from people saying that they are concerned about this. Cumbria and Surrey police have expressed their reservations. Cheshire—I do not know if there is anyone here from Cheshire, but I might as well go round the country—says that the police and crime commissioner

“must be able to influence relevant partners if their Police and Crime Plan is to be effective in delivering improvements in community safety and crime reduction. However, if the PCC is not a ‘responsible authority’ they have no statutory role and could, therefore, be ignored.”

That is a serious flaw in the Bill that the Minister needs to address.

Another aspect that members of the Committee reflected on, as would many others, is the cost of the introduction of police and crime commissioners. That will be a particularly important area for HMIC to look at. Different police authorities across the country tell us that there will be a significant cost involved. A police and crime commissioner will have people supporting them—a chief finance officer, a chief executive and other staff. A police and crime panel will presumably need resources to be able to carry out its function properly. A chief constable will become a corporation sole—in other words, a legal entity—and able, unless the Bill is amended as the Liberals tried to do, not only to control staff but own property and assets and so will presumably need more staff to be able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being confusing; I was trying to be helpful.

It is a pleasure in many ways to continue the work that we did on the Bill Committee with many right hon. and hon. Members whom I see around the Chamber. These are slightly larger, grander surroundings than those in which we had our last, rather extensive, discussions.

[Michael Ellis]

But about the same number of people.

[Dr Huppert]

Indeed. We have had a fair discussion in Committee, and I am glad that we are continuing it.

The shadow Minister spoke about a desire for delay, and I can understand why he sees that as his role. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the detailed points that he made. I was rather touched by the shadow Minister’s comment about how I would behave if I were in his position. He did not make it clear whether that was in a scenario where the Labour party had completely collapsed and was now a minor party, whether that had happened to the Conservatives, or whether there was a Labour-Conservative coalition. I am sure he can comment on that later.

I want in particular to speak about Government amendment 14, which deals with a rather detailed point raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). It is a great pleasure to see him in his place. He spotted that lines 4 and 16 on page 22, in clause 30, did not quite fit together—that there was a drafting error. That led to an interesting discussion in which we genuinely explored some ideas—I think we all learned a lot—about what should be the process for suspending a police and crime commissioner, the standards and thresholds and the effects of such a suspension. There is an interesting balance to be struck as regards what should happen. The amendment corrects the drafting error and leaves the provision that a commissioner may be suspended by the panel—I emphasise that the term used is “may” rather than “must”—if charged with an offence that could lead to a term in prison of greater than two years.

Is the balance right? First, the position of police and crime commissioner is very responsible and we would not want to see a holder of it being seriously investigated for a major crime, which would put them in a position that would simply be untenable in the public eye. On the one hand, one could suggest that we should bring the threshold lower and lower until, if we want to be absolutely sure, they would be suspended if they were accused of anything. I think that would be going too far, and I shall come up with a suggestion on that point a bit later.

The flip side of the argument, however, is that such a commissioner has been charged, not convicted. There is a clear difference and a clear principle. Members on both sides of the House mentioned in Committee that we should not punish people excessively based on the fact that they have been charged. There is the principle of innocent until proven guilty that still applies to most public law—I shall avoid talking about terrorist offences on this occasion. Clause 30(3) says that during a suspension period, a commissioner does not draw their salary, their pensions or their allowances. That is a punishment, in effect.

We had a number of discussions in Committee and the Liberal Democrats have had some discussions about our proposals on the way forward. We have also discussed that with the Minister. There is the question of what offences we wish to catch. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West gave a number of examples of offences that would not be covered by the rules for the possible suspension in the context of offences with sentences greater than two years. I shall not go through every example, but they included racially or religiously aggravated assault or harassment, and I think we would have concerns about a police and crime commissioner who was charged with that. Other similar offences include aggravated vehicle taking, causing damage to property and causing injury. Vehicle taking without consent has a sentence of six months, as does assault on a police constable, as my hon. Friend pointed out. One would have great concerns if a police and crime commissioner was being charged with assaulting police constables, particularly on a regular basis. That would suggest that the relationship was not working

We must work out what to do. Our proposal—I hope that the Government will respond to it and will consider it as a way forward, and I look forward to hearing any other contributions—is that the period should be brought down from two years to six months, as suggested in the amendment originally proposed by my hon. Friend. It should be specified that the charge should be carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service—by a prosecutor—rather than a police officer, as they have powers to charge in some circumstances. We do not want police constables to be able to get at a commissioner with whom they disagree over some issue.

The flip side of bringing the threshold down to give greater public certainty is that there should be no loss of pay, no loss of pension and no loss of other allowances that would be incurred in the job—the person might not be doing that job during that period, but there might be some ongoing costs. That would avoid excessive punishment while providing public certainty that a prominent figure in such an area was not under a cloud and could not get out from under it.

There should also be a provision, regardless of the threshold, for the commissioner to be able effectively to suspend themselves and to say that there is an allegation against—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing quite a narrow set of amendments? I am not sure that he is on the point of what we are discussing now—that is, the new clause and the amendments that are being debated and have been selected.

[Dr Huppert]

I was speaking about Government amendment 14, which I think is in this group.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning—and this is my understanding—that that is a drafting amendment and a correction, yet he seems to be making rather a substantial point of debate. If the Government have accepted a change by tabling their own drafting amendment, it normally follows that it is quite minor. That was why I asked him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I had almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do shortly. There was an interesting debate in Committee about whether we wanted just to correct the drafting order or to go further—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. With respect, people can read the Hansard report of the Committee. I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. I think he has come to the main point of what he wants to say, so if he could now conclude on that point it would be helpful.

[Dr Huppert]

I am happy to do so. I hope that the Government will consider what I have said as well as the self-suspension ideas.

[Paul Murphy]

I support new clause 4, the case for which was so powerfully made, characteristically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). I hope that the House will divide on it.

I support the idea of deferring the commencement of part 1. Later, there might be the opportunity to debate my amendment, which would exempt Wales from part 1, but this is an opportunity to reflect on a less drastic course of action—that is, the deferral of the commencement of the Bill. There are one or two reasons for that and I hope that the House will bear with me as I set them out.

Not very long ago, the National Assembly for Wales took the unprecedented decision not to give legislative consent to part 1. That, in my experience—which goes back a few years in such matters—is entirely unprecedented. It has never happened before. As a consequence, the Communities and Culture Committee of the National Assembly has asked for the deferment of part 1. Its headline recommendation reads:

“We recommend that the Welsh Government has dialogue with the UK Government to persuade it to defer introducing those aspects of the bill related to the abolition of Police Authorities, and establishment of Police Commissioners and Police Crime Panels in Wales, at least until the effectiveness of their impact in England has been assessed.”

That is not a million miles away from new clause 4, which asks for the deferral of the commencement until such an assessment has been made by HMIC. That is why I support the new clause.

Policing, as the Minister will know, is not devolved in Wales, although it is in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but it is different in Wales from in England. I cannot see any evidence that there has been any sort of negotiation, discussion or proper Government-to-Government relationship on the issue of policing in Wales in so far as part 1 is concerned. There might have been, and doubtless the Minister will let us know when he winds up.

In Wales, there is a rather different relationship between the Welsh Local Government Association—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has already referred and which, incidentally, is not in Labour’s hands but is controlled by independents and non-Labour Members—police authorities in Wales, of which there are four, and the Welsh Assembly Government. That relationship is very special because it touches on a working partnership arrangement between the police authorities in Wales and the National Assembly that is unique in the United Kingdom. It seems proper to me to repeat the arguments used in Wales by local government, by the police authorities, by the National Assembly and by the Welsh Assembly Government to ask for the commencement of part 1 to be deferred. One chief reason those bodies ask for the deferment is the fact that there are rather different financial arrangements in Wales for policing. Half of Welsh police forces get their money from the Welsh Assembly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

This issue is effectively about the principle of capping, which causes real problems. Is my hon. Friend aware, in the local government context, of councils in Cambridgeshire that used to charge zero council tax and were prevented by capping from charging any at all? We do not want the same sort of ridiculous problems happening with police precepts.

[Mark Reckless]

Yes, I am aware of that issue. The predecessor council to mine in Medway, Rochester upon Medway council, similarly had no council tax and when Medway took over as a unitary authority, we had one of the lowest council taxes in the country—virtually the lowest except for the Scilly Isles at one point. However, we had the same percentage limit as everyone else, so when central Government put a new burden on local government and we had to fund it as a fixed cost, we were less well-placed to do that because the amount we could get through a percentage increase was less than other councils that had previously had higher taxes could get.

A similar regime to that for local councils has applied to police authorities, but to an extent it has been less controversial than that for councils because police authorities have not had the same democratic mandate as local government. There are only nine elected councillors on my police authority among 17. It is true that the majority of those nine must approve the precept as well as a majority of the 17, but it is certainly less of a democratic mandate than that for local councils in which all the local councillors are elected. I have understood, previously, that when the Communities Secretary, rather than the Home Secretary, has capped an authority, that has not been popular with the authority, but I have understood why it happened. However, I can see the attraction of moving from that to a referendum power as we are doing with local government.

I think there is a potential problem or issue, which I hope can be resolved through the Bill or its application, with bringing in the new body—the local police and crime panel. The panel will have a representative from every council in the police area, and I particularly welcome the involvement of district councils, which have been so important in developing crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships. Their involvement on the ground will be a real advantage: it will bring real insight to the commissioner and the force and it will pull local government more generally into the new arrangements. We hear a lot about the Local Government Association or police authorities not liking the new arrangements, and people who have a particular stake in the existing process might say that, but the districts coming in is going to be a real gain.

There is dispute about how strong the panel will be, and its powers are characterised in various ways, but one of its key powers will be its oversight and scrutiny of the budget. It is proposed that, in extremis, if three quarters of the panel agree, the panel can exercise what is described as a veto in the Bill, and paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 5 prescribe that the Secretary of State can make further regulations on that. In Committee, the Minister described some of his intentions for the regulations, but I am a little unclear about that because the regulations referred to in the Bill seem to be about how that veto process will work, whereas quite a lot of the detail that the Minister gave to the Committee seemed to refer to when or where there would be a referendum and the Secretary of State’s involvement. That is one of the issues, because it is envisaged in the Localism Bill that the Secretary of State will have referendum-calling powers and will presumably use regulations to determine how that happens. It is envisaged in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that the panel will have a veto and that there will be regulations on that. The crossover is not clear. There will be a directly elected individual who will come to office with a great mandate. One of his responsibilities is to set the budget and the precept, yet there are two other bodies—the panel and the Secretary of State; it is not clear whether it is the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government or the Home Secretary—who have at least some locus standi in setting the budget.

--- Later in debate ---

Does the phrase “have regard to” mean that the commissioner has to do what the panel wants or, at the other extreme, is it envisaged that he can just come back with something marginally different, and that is his decision as the commissioner? Are we saying that we cannot really make up our mind and that the courts have to decide all this and there will be litigation? That does not strike me as ideal, so I hope that, perhaps in the other place, we will reach agreement on this issue.

[Dr Huppert]

I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman made about having to use litigation. There is serious concern about what would happen if, when a budget was set, there was uncertainty and we had to use court orders. I am sure that he is aware of the cost of rebilling, and there is an important principle that we want to set all the amounts of council tax, while we still have council tax, at the same time, rather than send out multiple letters, which would just add to the cost of that process.

[Mark Reckless]

In my reference to litigation, I was alluding to the fact that the prospect of dispute, at least on the first occasion, given the narrow time scales and the costs of rebilling, would not be a positive thing. I have worked closely with my hon. Friend on the Home Affairs Committee on the issue—his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is strongly involved in these issues too— and I feel that there is a significant measure of agreement between us. In the coalition, it is important that we decide what we want to do, and state that clearly in the Bill and subsequent regulations so that we do not face the prospect of litigation.

Some Liberal Democrats may like the idea of a complete veto for the panel, but I am not sure that many of my Conservative colleagues would necessarily agree, given that the commissioner has a directly elected mandate and the members of the panel are appointed. However, I am convinced that a measure of financial oversight by the panel and by the councillors from every council who serve on it would be valuable. It will keep the commissioner linked in to local government, which is extremely important. The Minister has a criminal justice portfolio, and there is extraordinary scope for the elected commissioners to act in the wider criminal justice area. However, we do not want a great division to open up between local government and the work of the elected commissioner in criminal justice, so that knitting together is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe]

That democratic element cannot be fundamentally unique in relation to setting the precept but absolutely different in relation to any other aspect of the work of the commissioner. It is my contention that the people who support the amendment fear what will happen when the precept has to be ratcheted up to compensate for the cuts. They know that there will be massive electoral consequences and so are seeking to insert a device to denude the commissioner of the one power that they fear more than any other.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not sure that I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he not agree that the precept is in some sense absolutely key to what is happening, because it sets the total envelope of resource available to a chief constable to do their job? It is one of the most fundamental decisions that could be made by the commissioner.

[Steve McCabe]

If I was to stand as a candidate for police commissioner and was setting out my stall for the kind of police force I would want to see, I would not have to put on my election material the caveat, “By the way, I’ll have no power over the fundamental decision about funding.” With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The Government are trying to have it both ways: they want to create political commissars to run the police, but they also want to retain the power to mitigate the risk that the commissioner might come up with a precept that is unacceptable to the electorate. That is classically what is wrong with the Bill. It is designed to give the commissioner power in the areas that suit the Government, but at the heart of the Conservative party there is a doubt about that. The Government are trying to back the proposal while simultaneously watering down its key element because they fear that the course of action that they have embarked on will have electoral consequences for them.

--- Later in debate ---

I have doubts about the intention behind the new clause. I admire the dedication that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood shows on these issues. I wonder why, however, some Government Members are happy to swallow all the other elements, but on the key element of finance, want the power to water down the powers and take hold of the commissioner.

[Dr Huppert]

I am still unclear. If the hon. Gentleman does not support the alternative in the new clause, is he saying that he prefers the existing mechanism, which involves the Secretary of State? Which is he arguing for, or is he arguing against both?

[Steve McCabe]

I am saying quite simply that the nature of the existing powers, as I understand them, would give the Secretary of State the right to intervene. If the Government do not have faith in their own system, it seems right that they should have the power to intervene. However, what I do not want is a scheme that says, “We’re in favour of police commissioners, but by the way we’re going to limit their power when it comes to the area where we think there could be electoral disadvantage for us.”

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have spent much time together on the Bill Committee, on a previous Bill Committee and in the Home Affairs Select Committee crossing swords on some of these issues. I am encouraged by the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), because it would do some useful things for which I argued in Committee. It talks about strengthening the panel. We talked earlier about the Liberal Democrats’ initial manifesto commitment to having a strong panel, and there have been negotiations among the different sides about how to fit the two models together. However, the new clause moves in the direction I tend to prefer, so as ever it is a pleasure to work with him.

The new clause also leans more towards local accountability, which to me is very important. I have always been a localist—not only since the formation of the coalition Government—and I think that this policy should be about local determination. That was what was wrong with capping council taxes. We had councils that could not make sensible decisions owing to capping powers and because the Secretary of State was too remote from what was going on locally. Those councils could not make sensible decisions whether on tiny increases in very low council taxes, because those increases went above a certain percentage, or on moving from a council tax of zero, which was possible in a few rather unusual places, because any increase broke the percentage rule.

What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said was interesting. First, there is the issue of the precept. Why is the precept different from all other areas? We could adjust a whole lot of different premises, but the precept is the key. As I said in my intervention, it is what determines how much money is available to the chief constable. If only one decision could be made by a commissioner each year, the total amount of cash is surely the one for which we would want to provide the most control. It is also the one on which there would not be advice and policy guidance from other bodies on how to operate and what the constraints might be. It is properly a decision to be taken locally.

There are questions about what one does if a commissioner makes a decision that is held to be unreasonable by other people locally. This applies whether to a commissioner or a council leader. Whatever the structure, there will always be situations in which there is disagreement about whether something is being done appropriately. The question is: how do we resolve that disagreement? I was interested in the response that the hon. Gentleman gave to my question. He seemed to be arguing for the Secretary of State to have that power, but that is precisely the opposite of the localist agenda that I would like put in place. The Secretary of State should not be interfering in how the precept is set. They should do their utmost not to have anything to do with it, if possible. They should have a role in setting the framework, but they should not have the power to say, “That is too much. I’m the Secretary of State and I say so.”

[Steve McCabe]

Perhaps I can clarify matters a fraction for the hon. Gentleman. My point is that the police Minister and the Secretary of State inevitably have some responsibilities for the police that go beyond localism, as was discussed extensively in Committee. In fact, if I recall rightly, we discussed what would happen if the budget was set too low and therefore did not enable the police force to fulfil its obligations. The argument that the Minister advanced at the time was that the Secretary of State should have the power to step in. The hon. Gentleman seems to arguing for a pure form of localism that completely ignores that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions are becoming increasingly lengthy, and they need to be rather shorter.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, although this is a matter of great interest, so I have sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, having made my own mistakes earlier this afternoon. I lean towards pure localism. Let us remember that the people on the panel making the decision will be councillors appointed by their local authorities. In Cambridgeshire, for example, I find it hard to see how, say, the representative from Cambridge city council could look at a budget that was insufficient to provide the basic policing and say, “Yeah, that’s fine. I can’t be bothered to interfere with this one.” I do not have that lack of faith in our local councils or our local democratic system. I have concerns, although I prefer the new clause to the original proposals, under which the Secretary of State would have had a strong role. However, I do not entirely agree with everything in the new clause. In particular, I am not comfortable with the idea of having to have a three-quarters majority, which we discussed in Committee, as Members will know. I tend towards a somewhat lower figure.

[Michael Ellis]

My hon. Friend has misgivings about having a 75% majority, but does he not feel that it ought to be that high, because that is what would be required to overrule a democratically elected figure, which ought to be a severe circumstance and rare happening?

[Dr Huppert]

It is important to remember that, with the exception of the two independents—another example of how I would not have designed the system—the majority of panel members will be democratically elected, representing their councils in their system. They are not directly democratically elected, but they are indirectly democratically elected. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, the model in London is a two-thirds majority for scrutiny of a democratically elected individual, so I am more comfortable with two thirds. That does not make a huge difference for a typically sized panel, which will have 12 people. We said in Committee that the difference will be between nine votes and eight votes, but it is more useful to look at it the other way. In order to stop the veto, the commission would have to get four or five people either to vote with him or not to be there. That makes a bigger difference as the panel gets bigger.

The structure of the new clause is more positive than has been described, because it leans towards trying to have sensible discussions and negotiations. It starts with a commissioner making a proposal. Then the panel looks at the proposal and comments on it, before the commissioner works out what he will do. Unless it is vetoed, the precept is set, but if it is vetoed, it does not go to a referendum straight away. Ultimately, that is something that we are all trying to avoid, because of the associated costs of running unnecessary referendums and the risk of re-billing, which is a particular problem with this issue and capping. There is then another opportunity, over 14 days, for the two sides to negotiate and see whether they can come to a more sensible arrangement that works for both of them. Only if that is not possible is a further step taken.

That step is not about saying, “Secretary of State, tell us what to do. It’s up to you.” It is about saying that what should be done is up to local people. It is up to the commissioner to set one option and the panel to set another, and then the public will decide which they prefer. That is a much more appropriate way of doing things. The panel would act responsibly when it came to cost, with the exception of the independents, who do not have that responsibility and are a piece of undemocratic grit in the system. However, it will be local decision making that makes a difference. Local people should have a say in how their precept should be set and how their policing should be run. That is what I would like to see. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) has moved the new clause for discussion, and I hope that the Government will consider it carefully.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It feels as though I have entered a meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, which is where I was yesterday, but I am not going to talk about the Metropolitan police in quite the same way today.

I sympathise with some of the arguments about localism which have been advanced by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who spoke in favour of the new clause, but I say to them that, although there may be a natural constituency in some police authorities, in many there is not. In the South Wales police area, for instance, it is not easy to conceive of a single constituency of interest. The area does not exist in any other denomination, as it were, and it crosses local authority boundaries, brings together Swansea and Cardiff, which is something extraordinary in itself, and brings the valleys together with two of the three big cities of south Wales, so it would be very difficult to come to a really local idea.

The new clause is primarily about money, however, so I want to ask the Minister a few questions. I realise that he may not be able to answer this evening, but I hope that he will write to me on some of these matters, because they are—in relation to chapter 6, in particular—quite important.

The Bill partially determines the way in which somebody is elected, but there is a great deal more work to be done on exactly how the electoral system will work—for precisely the reason that I mentioned: the constituencies do not exist. New constituencies are being created, and we need to ensure that, in terms of how elections are managed, there is some consistency within the constituency that we create. I just wonder whether—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

As we envisage the situation, the public will be able to decide whether to go with the police and crime commissioner’s precept, but only when a precept is excessive. Under the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) proposes, however, the public would decide every time a panel vetoed a precept, unless the commissioner and the panel were able to reach an agreement within two weeks of the vote. We have not gone down that route, despite considering it very carefully, because referendums are very expensive and the police and crime commissioner would have to pay for them on each occasion. If the commissioner’s amended precept is not excessive within the Localism Bill definition, regulations will require the proposal to go again before the panel. Following that, the police and crime commissioner will be able to set the precept without a referendum. He or she must consider the panel’s recommendations. Where the panel has voted again to reject that precept, he or she must publish the panel’s alternative precept and its reasons and must set out in the same document why he or she did not implement the panel’s proposals.

I accept that the public must have a role in deciding what precept they pay, and under our policy they will have one, or potentially two, opportunities to do this—once when they elect their police and crime commissioner, and again when a police and crime commissioner sets an excessive precept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Clwyd]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head as usual, and I shall develop that argument in a few minutes.

We still have obligations under the Geneva conventions —they are obligations, and not discretions or permissions —to bring before a court persons suspected of committing the gravest crimes against humanity when we are able to do so. This change in the law will undermine our commitment to those Geneva convention obligations.

Why, then, are the Government seeking to change the law? The Justice Secretary, yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary, last Thursday, set out clearly in replies to questions in the Chamber the reasons why the Government are seeking to do so. The first reason that they gave was that it is too easy to obtain an arrest warrant. They suggested that anyone could turn up on a frivolous pretext, spin a yarn to the court and walk away with an arrest warrant—put a penny in the slot and out comes a warrant! I cannot believe that that argument has carried any weight with anyone at all.

[Dr Huppert]

I share the right hon. Lady’s deep interest in human rights and I absolutely accept her point. May I, however, go back to what she was saying earlier about the arrest process? Does not she accept that a prosecution is more important than an arrest, and that whether or not the clause is passed, the Attorney-General’s consent will still be required for a prosecution, making the issue a political one? Are we not having the wrong debate? Should not we be debating the Attorney-General’s role in private prosecutions?

[Ann Clwyd]

That is certainly a subject for future debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said in Committee:

“I am not persuaded that there is a need for change…I do not think that a sufficiently strong case has been made about why the current system is not working.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011; c. 684.]

I hope that he still holds that view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I had much experience of disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman on this matter when the Bill was in Committee. I am now trying to understand how he squares what he is saying with what is actually happening. As we have heard, eight of the mere 10 applications that have been made in 10 years were rejected by the district judge, so the threshold is clearly higher than he is suggesting. Moreover, the clause does nothing about the process of applying for an arrest warrant. People could still apply for one; there would just be a delay before it could be granted.

[Michael Ellis]

I have a feeling that any Member of Parliament who was subject to the arrest warrant would not be so cavalier as to consider that one or two instances were nothing to worry about. We ought to have a system that applies fairly across the board.

According to a case study, in March last year the former Vice-President of Bosnia, Ejup Ganic, was arrested at Heathrow airport after Serbian judicial authorities issued an extradition warrant. He was accused of conspiracy to murder 40 Yugoslav People’s Army soldiers in an attack in May 1992. He was subsequently released on bail when the judge remarked that the arrest warrant issued by Serbia had been politically motivated. It was reported that Serbia had yet to produce any real evidence, and that most of its supposed evidence consisted of news articles about the incident. City of Westminster magistrates court blocked Ganic’s extradition in July last year. The presiding judge—who, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), had considerable experience—said that he had been led to believe that the extradition proceedings were

“brought and being used for political purposes, and as such amount to an abuse of the process of this court”

Having worked in the criminal justice system for 17 years, I am concerned about the way in which the English legal system is perceived abroad, and the ramifications of some of the incidents that have occurred. For generations, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of peace conferences and other such meetings. The very recent meeting to discuss Libya is a classic example. Circumstances in which people were fearful of entering this country because an extremely low threshold might result in their arrest would be injurious not only to the reputation of the United Kingdom’s legal system, but to the UK’s overall reputation for being a place where peace can be sought and arrangements can be made across the negotiating table. It is not in the interests of world order and international peace for obstructions to be placed in the way of people wishing to enter this country in the way that they have been doing. That does not, of course, apply to only one country; there are several other examples.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

There seems to be a fear, including in apparently authoritative newspapers, that the provision will grant immunity from prosecution, but all it does is raise the test to the same level as for prosecutions that occur by the thousands per week in this country. Whenever there is an allegation against an individual—whether for murder, shoplifting or anything in between—the Crown Prosecution Service has to consider two tests: whether it is in the public interest to proceed, and whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction. No one suggests that the need to consider whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction in those contexts in effect means immunity from prosecution for everybody, and that is all that will be applying here.

[Dr Huppert]

This brings us on to what I consider to be an important point. Shortly after an arrest, the Attorney-General has to engage with deciding whether to continue with the private prosecution; that is one of the weaknesses of the private prosecution system. Does the hon. Gentleman think that one way in which this clause might help with prosecutions is that it would be hard for the Attorney-General to overturn a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions, because he could not come up with the claim about the relevant person being just a magistrate? In fact the Attorney-General might find that he was in a weaker position, and it would be easier to proceed with a prosecution.

[Michael Ellis]

I am not concerned, as my hon. Friend appears to be, about the Attorney-General, because safeguards are built into our system in this country. The Attorney-General has been in a position similar to that envisaged in the Bill for decades, and there is no evidence whatever that that has been a problem in other areas. There are prosecutions in this country that can take place only with the consent of the Attorney-General, and there are other prosecutions that can take place only with the consent of the DPP—I myself have been involved in one or two of them—but no one is suggesting that those cases involve political interference. The reality is that we have to have safeguards against the misuse of a process that has increasingly been employed in highly controversial circumstances and has deeply injurious effects on international relations and British relations. As I have already enunciated, my primary concern is to maintain the good standing of the English legal system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

That is one reason why I said that if the DPP is to take decisions he will need to do so swiftly. As I have said, justice must not be denied by being delayed. We believe that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police should play a strong role, as they have in the past, and must not be hit by the cuts. That is why we tabled amendment 154—to ensure that there is no delay and that wherever possible things are dealt with as speedily as possible so that the arrest warrant is granted where appropriate, and we can secure a prosecution.

[Dr Huppert]

I shall try to be brief because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I have written an article today for “Liberal Democrat Voice” if anyone wants my comments in full—I am sure that hon. Members read it frequently. [Interruption.] There is only one version—unlike what happens with the Labour party, whose members seem to give different messages from the back, the front and the side.

I want to talk about how the system would work, and I urge hon. Members to look at the transcript of the DPP’s evidence to the Public Bill Committee, which was very detailed and very reassuring for those of us who want to make sure that prosecutions go ahead. He made it clear that a team was available, as has just been mentioned, and that it would be ready to act. He understood the issue of timeliness and advanced the idea of using a lower threshold test when there is not enough time to gather evidence. Importantly, he also offered to look in advance at evidence about people who we know should be prosecuted, so as to be ready to go at very short notice—to update what would be required and to be able to go ahead. I was very encouraged by that.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I am the chair of the all-party group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has made the point that there are more than 400 war criminals in Britain, but is the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) aware that only 29 of them are being pursued by SO15? Does that not demonstrate that we have to separate the wheat from the chaff? Clause 152 will do that: it will get right to the heart of the matter and ensure that we have the evidence base to ensure that war criminals are prosecuted.

[Dr Huppert]

The role of the police is important. Private prosecutions are the wrong way to go about dealing with such people. If a private prosecution has to be used the state has failed to go ahead—but I would like to see it do so. Private prosecutions are an essential safeguard where the state has failed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

I shall give way once more, but then I want to conclude and allow other hon. Members to speak.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the provision has been introduced because of the arrest of one individual? We are changing centuries of our law and tradition for the sake of one person.

[Dr Huppert]

My position was well summarised by an Opposition Member who spoke earlier. It is a shame that there has been a conflation of two separate issues—one about Israel-Palestine and the whole sordid tale there, and the other a legal debate about what the system ought to be. I wish it were possible to have that discussion.

The DPP made it clear that he would talk to the Attorney-General, but he said five or six times that there would have to be a very powerful weight in favour of prosecuting, because the crime is one of universal jurisdiction. The public interest would have to be overwhelming. I take comfort from that, because I am concerned that at present the Attorney-General can stop any process going ahead. We do not have a functioning private prosecution system in this country, because the Attorney-General can stop any such prosecutions at any stage. Including the DPP in the provision would make it harder for the Attorney-General to do that, because straight after the DPP—a recognised independent person—said, “Yes, there is a case. This person can be prosecuted,” the Attorney-General would be faced with the prospect of saying, “Actually the DPP is wrong. He doesn’t understand this,” and trying to end it.

The provision makes prosecutions easier, and it is prosecutions that I am concerned about. I should like to hear more about how the Government will make sure that the police take stronger action. I should like to hear whether they agree with recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, that would weaken the role of Attorney-General in terminating private prosecutions. My remaining concern is about the fact that the DPP may decide not to go ahead because the evidence is too weak. If that is genuinely the case, I do not think that any of us would have a problem with it. However, what worries me are cases in which the DPP does not get round to making a decision because there is a pocket veto. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will report on such cases. If there are a large number of them in which a pocket veto is exercised and no proper decision is made, I hope that the Government will look at the matter again and make sure that there is due process.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There are two minutes remaining, as I will call the Minister at 6.54 pm.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

We heard one Liberal Democrat voice. May I, in the remaining two minutes, quote the Liberal Democrat document which I have already quoted with regard to Tzipi Livni, who has been mentioned? It says:

“Tzipi Livni, as Israeli Foreign Minister, was one of those responsible for authorising these attacks”—

on Gaza, which deliberately targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure—

“and made public statements that appeared to encourage the Israeli military to use disproportionate force and engage in deliberate destruction with no legitimate military objective.”

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Sir Gerald Kaufman]

I will not give way, because I have only two minutes.

That is the person whom this lot are trying to acquit of the right even to be prosecuted, and even the issuing of a warrant against her. Her parents were terrorists who murdered great numbers of people. She was an Israeli spy in Paris when the Israelis were murdering people all over Europe and were changing the law to suit this war criminal.