Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, but he has been speaking for some considerable time and there are at least six other Members who wish to speak before this debate terminates at 6 o’clock. May I gently suggest that he be less generous and make progress quickly?

[Dr Huppert]

I am starting the last page of my speech and I shall try to avoid taking more interventions.

If the Justice Secretary did as I suggest, we could look in the round at everything from simple possession through to murder with a knife. We could have coherent guidelines for these offences and more proportionate sentencing. I want to see that. It would also help us with an evidence-based approach. We could look at the facts and at what makes a difference, and make sure we take the right steps to get knives off our streets and out of the hands of children.

I entirely understand the arguments of the supporters of the new clauses. I understand what they are trying to achieve and I have sympathy with it. I do not fault their intentions at all, but we should look at the consequences, the downsides and the alternatives. We should remain tough on those who use knives to harm other people and we should be tough on the causes of knife crime. We should not do just what looks tough.

Home Affairs

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

He spoke at a reasonable speed; there were just too many words.

[Dr Huppert]

I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and I continue to disagree with what he suggests. One issue he raises, on whether students would have to leave before they graduate, concerns the process of graduation. There is also the question of post-study work visas, which are incredibly valuable. If he talks to the vice-chancellors of Cambridge university and Anglia Ruskin university—two universities in my constituency—he will hear that there is demand. We want people to come here; it makes sense. Once we have trained some of the brightest and best people here, we want them to contribute to the economy. We want them to set up companies that will employ people here locally. I have to say that what he suggests would be incredibly damaging to the economy in my constituency and in many other areas. I hope that is not somewhere we will go.

There are issues around immigration, and huge issues around the rhetoric used. There is far too much negative rhetoric that is, frankly, xenophobic. That is something we have to try to avoid. It has no place in the discussions we are having.

We benefit massively from immigration. We benefit financially—there is a lot of evidence of that—and culturally and socially. It is a good thing for us to do. There are, however, associated downsides and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough was absolutely right to highlight them. The solution is to try to fix those problems. Where people coming in means that we run out of school places, the correct solution is not to throw people out of the country, but to create school places so they can be educated and to make sure there is housing. The correct solution is to deal with the problems. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say—many people have pointed it out—that there are problems with the violation of the national minimum wage. That is why we should ensure that people are paid the national minimum wage and why the Government have acted. We have just had the first naming and shaming of people who have been failing to pay it. Immigration is a good thing and we should tackle the problems associated with it.

It frustrates me that so many people are following the concerns raised by UKIP and trying to tack towards them. That is self-defeating. The more that Conservative and Labour politicians chase the UKIP line, the stronger UKIP becomes, because that tells people that it is even stronger.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—he probably does not—or concede that he sounds terribly out of touch, given that 77% of the public say that immigration is a huge problem? His arguments would carry more conviction if he were prepared even to look at the free movement directive. I have some sympathy with him on non-EU migration, particularly in the higher education sector, but he cannot have it both ways. People want immigration to be reduced, so he must look at—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We have got the point. I am going to keep on saying this: interventions are not speeches. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is waiting patiently to make his speech.

[Dr Huppert]

I think it unlikely that the hon. Gentleman and I will ever reach agreement on this issue—we certainly have not yet. There are concerns but we have to fix the problems it causes, not attack the fundamental basis. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at studies—I do not have the reference immediately to hand—by University College London, for example, that show the fiscal benefits from EU migration. The trend is badly wrong and is being followed by far too many people.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

I do not think that the Secretary of State quite addressed the question put by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), which was whether in principle—if there was a way that did not involve the Bill, did not have ECHR problems and did not cause any other problems—she and the Government would support the concept of humanist weddings.

I am really rising because I am so shocked at the concerns about the extra amendments, which again were inserted at the suggestion of Government officials. The BHA has changed this to suit the Government, and the Government then complain about the changes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr. Huppert, it is not necessary to restate at length a previous question. I remind you that interventions should be brief, not a series of questions. It would help enormously if we stuck to those conventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I beg to move amendment 15, page 10, line 24, at end add—

‘(9) Where a civil partnership formed under part 1, section 96 of the Civil Partnership Act (Civil Partnership with former spouse) is converted into a marriage under this section—

(a) the civil partnership ends on the conversion, and

(b) if both partners so elect, the resulting marriage is to be treated as having subsisted since the marriage dissolved under Schedule 2 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was formed.’.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 25 to 39.

Amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 33, leave out from line 42 to line 4 on page 34 and insert—

‘(2) Omit sub-paragraph (1).’.

Government amendments 40 to 47.

Amendment 13, in schedule 5, page 36, leave out lines 10 to 37 and insert—

‘Section 4 (successful applications): for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—

“(2) The certificate is to be a full gender recognition certificate if—

(a) the applicant is not a civil partner and does not request an interim gender recognition certificate,

(b) or the applicant is a civil partner who does not request an interim gender recognition certificate and the Panel has deceided to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership.

(3) The certificate is to be an interim gender recognition certificate if either—

(a) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the other party to the civil partnership has not made an application under section 1(1).

(b) the applicant is a party to a protected civil partnership and the Panel had decided not to issue a full gender recognition certificate to the other party to the civil partnership,

(c) or the applicants is party to a protected marriage, requests an interim gender recognition certificate and the application includes a statutory declaration of consent from the applicant’s spouse.

(3A) If a gender recognition panel issues a full gender recognition certificate under this section to an applicant who is a party to a marriage or civil partnership, the panel must give the applicant’s spouse notice of the issue of the certificate.”.’.

Amendment 14, schedule 5, page 39, line 39, leave out

‘(by virtue of section 4(2)(b) or (4A)’.

Amendment 18, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—

‘One-off compensation payment to couples whose marriages were annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate

9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—

“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—

(a) the marriage was annulled following the coming into force of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and

(b) the formerly married couple either—

(a) (i) formed a civil partnership with each other within six months of the annulment of their marriage, and continue to maintain their civil partnership, or

(ii) have continued to live together as a couple in the same household since the annulment of their marriage.

(2) The couple shall be compensated from public funds to the amount of £1,000 by way of apology for the distress and costs incurred as a result of the annulment of their marriage.”.’.

Amendment 22, in schedule 5, page 40, line 18, at end insert—

‘Reinstatement of marriages annulled to permit a person to obtain a gender recognition certificate

9A Schedule 4 (Effect on Marriage): at beginning insert—

“(1) This section applies to a formerly married couple whose marriage was annulled in order to permit one or both partners to that marriage to obtain a full gender recognition certificate, provided that—

(a) the couple have continued to live together in the same household since the annulment of their marriage, and

(b) both partners to the former marriage give notice to a registrar that they wish their marriage to be reinstated.

(2) When notice is given under (1)(b), the marriage shall be reinstated with effect from the date the couple give notice to have it reinstated.”.’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 5, page 40, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—

‘(a) the registration of qualifying marriages,

(b) the registration of qualifying civil partnerships,

(c) the issue of replacement marriage certificates displaying the new details of the parties to the marriage but maintaining the original date,

(d) the issue of replacement birth certificates where the application is shown on the certificate, with the consent of the other parent named and—

(i) where the child has reached 16 years of age, the consent of the child to whom the birth certificate relates,

(ii) where the child has not yet reached the age of 16 years, the consent of the other parent named on the birth certificate, where present.’.

Government amendment 48.

Amendment 12, schedule 7, page 50, line 37, at end insert—

‘24A Section 12 (grounds on which a marriage is voidable): omit paragraph (h).’.

[Dr Huppert]

We now move on to a rather different subject, but it is still an important one that affects a number of people greatly. A range of issues apply specifically to people who change their gender, who transition between genders or who are transgender. There may not be a huge number of people in that category and they may be a small minority, but they have been subject to some of the worst discrimination over many years and decades. Indeed, that has happened partly because there are not as many people in that group as in other groups.

Another group that we will not talk about specifically today is that of people who are intersex and who do not associate with one gender for a range of reasons. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has tabled some amendments to clarify the position for such people. I assume that it is clear that the Government’s intention is that marriage will be equal and will not exclude those who do not identify as male or female. I assume that there is no intention to discriminate. We therefore need to focus on the specific issues for the small group of people who are transgender.

Last Friday was IDAHO—the international day against homophobia and transphobia—and I spoke to people who have suffered such discrimination at an event in my constituency. My constituency is perhaps uniquely blessed in having not only a number of people who are out about the fact that they are transgender—many people, for understandable reasons, are cagey about admitting that they are transgender—but a number of transgender people who have been elected to the local council. Indeed, we had the first transgender mayor in the country. She was very proud of that role.

There is far too much transphobia, which many people have to face. Like other hon. Members, I have worked with Trans Media Watch, which keeps an eye on the truly disgusting articles that appear in the press about people who are transgender. I heard a number of awful stories at a recent event. To give one of the many examples, Lucy Meadows, a primary school teacher, killed herself after a very nasty article came out in the Daily Mail shortly after she transitioned. That is not acceptable in society, and we need to make a stand against it.

Sometimes, such things happen because people wish to be actively nasty. Sometimes, problems are caused for people who are transgender because of problems with the legislation that we produce. We do not always think of people who are transgender when we are writing legislation and there can be unintended consequences. I do not believe that this Government or the last Government have ever intended to discriminate against people who are transgender, but it has happened by accident.

We have had a few specialist debates—for instance, about which gender of police officer should search people who are transgender. I proposed that we should just ask people whom they wished to be search by, which would resolve the problem.

Summer Adjournment

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in this debate. I have chosen to speak about an issue that, although it is of great importance in my constituency, is not just a local, parochial issue. Rather, it should concern all of us, because if we do nothing about it, we risk losing a large part of what makes the places we represent unique.

The health and diversity of our town centres and high streets are at risk. They are increasingly dominated by chain stores and businesses that have a national profile. This is now so much the case that it is often difficult to tell different places apart when we go shopping. The phenomenon has been dubbed the “clone town” by the New Economics Foundation.

We are fortunate in Cambridge to have several streets that buck the trend of the “clone town”. One road in particular, Mill road, has been renowned for decades for its vibrant mix of independent shops and restaurants from all around the world, yet not even Mill road is immune to the danger of slowly becoming another “clone street”. A couple of years ago there was a major campaign to prevent Tesco from having one of its express stores there which, sadly, failed. It became Tesco’s 14th store in Cambridge—there are now 15 in Cambridge—and now Sainsbury’s wants to open one of its express stores further down the road.

I do not want to criticise these businesses. They are successful British companies that employ a large number of people, and they did not get where they are by missing opportunities to expand. It is entirely reasonable for them to want to acquire new locations, sell more products and make more profit, but they do cause harm. They drive other shops out of business, employing a range of tactics.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I help the hon. Gentleman? The clock is not ticking down. When he resumes his speech, he will have two more minutes, which will mean he has had his four, without my intervention being counted, of course.

[Dr Huppert]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall do my best to comply.

Such chain stores drive other shops out of business, and we need to have some tools available to limit their growth. Local people should be able to find an appropriate balance between the convenience of the familiar and the excitement of the eclectic.

This has been a live issue for a number of years, and Cambridge city council has worked with the Local Government Association and Lord Greaves to table an amendment to the Localism Bill in the other place. This amendment—153AKC, according to the other place’s rather opaque numbering and lettering system—has become known in some circles as “the Cambridge amendment” because of the key work done by Sian Reid, leader of Cambridge city council. It sets out in simple steps how we can give local communities the tools they need. Put simply, the amendment adds to the duties of a local planning authority the requirement to assess the vitality and diversity of local shopping areas. It does not bar specific companies; it does not set targets for the number of independent retailers; it would not, in itself, have any bearing on the current make-up of our high streets; but it would give local communities such as Cambridge the freedom to decide whether a planning application will add to, or detract from, the vitality and diversity of the area. In some areas of the country a Tesco store may increase the viability of the high street, whereas in others, such as Cambridge, it would decrease it. Communities will get the decision they want.

It was clear in the debate on the amendment in the other place that many people shared the concerns I have set out. The question is: what can, or should, be done about it? This does, of course, require people to vote with their feet as well, but I hope that Members on both sides of the House will agree that giving local authorities the right tools to strike the right balance is desirable, and I also hope that the Government will support the Cambridge amendment and allow communities around the country to have more say on their high streets, such as Mill road.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Julian Huppert and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.