Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between Keith Vaz and Elfyn Llwyd

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) who has brought a great deal of expertise on cybercrime to the House. As we approach the last 12 weeks before Parliament must be dissolved, some might have thought that the temperature would rise. However, we have a crime Bill that will pass through the House of Commons not unchallenged by the Opposition, but with their support and that of all the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a recognition of the fact that we are dealing with very serious issues on which there is common ground. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and support the Government’s agenda, with the caveats expressed by the shadow Home Secretary in such a constructive way. I am not quite saying that peace has broken out, but it is good to see Parliament working together on an issue of such importance.

This would be a Christmas tree Bill, but we have passed Christmas and are now in the new year—I am not sure what the parliamentary term is for so many different parts of the Home Office’s agenda put into one Bill.

[Mr Llwyd]

The “next Christmas” Bill.

Police Pensions

Debate between Keith Vaz and Elfyn Llwyd

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Let me begin this important debate by paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of police officers across the United Kingdom. They do a unique job that is without parallel in the public sector. We are rightly proud that our police service is the best of the best. The Minister and I saw for ourselves very recently such acts of bravery when we attended the police bravery awards evening, organised by the Police Federation.

The whole country saw the danger that officers put themselves in every day to keep our community safe when two young unarmed and exceptionally courageous officers, Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, lost their lives in the line of duty. Thanks to the police and other stakeholders, there has been a 40% reduction in crime over the past 15 years. It was police officers who, along with the Army, were responsible for the safety and security of the magnificent Olympic games this summer after we were all let down by G4S. As we hold this debate in the warmth of Westminster Hall, police officers are out saving lives, helping people in towns and villages to escape the rising floodwaters.

As this is the first debate with the Minister since he has taken over his new portfolio, may I congratulate him on winning his asylum appeal and moving, after seven long years with the immigration brief, into policing? He must be missing the UK Border Agency terribly, but I can assure him that we will keep him very busy with policing issues.

I am also pleased to see so many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House here today. They will forgive me if I take a limited number of interventions because time is short, but I promise that I will acknowledge their presence at the end of my speech.

The Government’s proposal to increase the pension age to 60 is wrong. The Winsor review found that the average age at which police officers currently retire is around 50 to 51. Some police officers may want to continue to serve and work beyond that age, but it is unfair and unjust to mandate them to serve until the age of 60.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. May I make two brief points? First, is it not distasteful to change a contract of employment halfway through and, secondly, given the special nature of the work that these brave men and women do, should we not be careful about expecting them to defend us on the streets at the age of 60 plus?

[Keith Vaz]

I have a quick answer to both questions, which is yes and yes, and I cover them both in my speech. If we expect police officers to stay on until the age of 60, it is a matter of fact that some will find their roles harder as they become older, as people like me know. Those officers will have to be relocated to back-office positions, which are precisely the functions that the Government are urging forces to cut while maintaining front-line numbers. The consequence of these proposals for police officers and forces will be seriously damaging.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Keith Vaz and Elfyn Llwyd

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I have made my point, so I will move on to the substance of this important debate, because others wish to speak.

I support the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) on new clause 17, the amendments tabled by the Official Opposition, and new clause 43 and amendment 162, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).

However, I am against clause 12, which threatens through secondary legislation to limit advice and assistance at police stations. I shall not speak for long, but it is important to deal with one or two aspects of the measure. Clause 12 could thwart the fundamental right to legal advice when held in police custody, which frankly is a time when individuals are at their most vulnerable. That the Government did not consult on that measure has been widely criticised by many, and not simply those who allegedly want to raise money. The Lord Chief Justice is not dependent on legal aid, as far as I am aware.

I spoke in Committee of the importance of people having legal advice and assistance when they are detained in police stations. No consultation was held, but the measure was pushed through. Clause 12(3) is particularly worrying, because it would allow the Lord Chancellor to introduce regulations requiring the director to apply means-testing provisions if he or she considers them appropriate. It is well known that advice and assistance on arrest are not currently means-tested. The introduction of that in a police station is utterly inappropriate. What is more, as the Bar Council has pointed out, experience over the years shows that errors and abuses at police stations are responsible for very many miscarriages of justice, which cost not only lives, but finances.

Amendments 90, 104 and 125, which are in my name, would ensure that as a matter of course advice and assistance would continue to be made available for individuals held in police custody—they would not be subject to any means or merits testing. Amendment 104 would remove the word “station”, and amendment 125 would remove the need for a determination by a director. Furthermore, amendment 90 would remove subsection (9) and state in its place that:

“Sections 20 and 26(2) do not apply”.

The first point clarifies that means-testing cannot be introduced at police custody. Negating the application of clause 26(2) would ensure that the Lord Chancellor was unable to replace advice in person at police stations with

“services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means.”

Clause 12 has a grave potential to destabilise access to justice for some of the most vulnerable in our society. As Liberty has pointed out:

“Justice requires that, as a bare minimum, all individuals taken into police custody have access to legal advice and representation when facing criminal allegations with the potential loss of liberty, disruption and damage to reputation they entail.”

As anyone who has practised criminal law will know, the first couple of hours in custody can be crucial in determining whether a case goes further, even on to an interview. Most people, when facing a police interview, particularly for the first time, are unable to think clearly and may not be cognisant of their best interests. As I said in Committee, at the very least the initial interview at the police station should proceed on the basis that the solicitor will be paid for the first couple of hours. It seems that the Government were unwilling to listen to that concession.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point which I support completely. However, there is another aspect to this matter. The solicitors who are available to give such legal advice usually have great expertise in the criminal law. If legal aid is removed and there is means-testing, the wrong type of professionals—those who do not have the expertise—will be available to give advice.

[Mr Llwyd]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I note from my own experience that such people are highly qualified for the work that they do. If two hours are spent with a solicitor who is well-versed in procedure, a lot of work can be done and people’s reputations can be saved. It is vital that we do everything we can to retain that provision. I am not doing any special pleading for lawyers. I appreciate that there should be paring back in some areas of legal aid, but this is a fundamental matter of access to justice and it is important that the Government listen.

It is worth noting Liberty’s point that attempting to introduce means-testing when an individual is in police custody is likely to be “unworkable” because it

“requires documentary verification of financial resources”,

which an individual in custody is clearly unlikely to have on his or her person. That would again result in inevitable delay and the wasting of resources.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Debate between Keith Vaz and Elfyn Llwyd

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is obviously knowledgeable about the internal workings of these issues. He is also right that we need to look at the big picture more than at the immediacy of some of the things we are doing. One problem in the past was that we did not think carefully enough about counter-terrorism legislation until some great event occurred. Then there was a great hoo-hah—quite rightly—and Members in all parts of the House became concerned and wanted to pass legislation. He is right that the Bill is not being introduced with that immediacy, which means that we have an opportunity to look carefully at what is being proposed.

I have always welcomed the unity of the Front Benches on terrorism issues, although in my 23 years in this House I have found that, with one or two exceptions, whenever the word “terrorism” appears in any order or other legislation, there tends to be cross-party support. The exception was when the previous Government rather hastily marched some of us through the Division Lobby in support of 90 days’ detention. On reflection, we realised that that was not the right thing to do.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall the unanimity of view on the Dangerous Dogs Act, but it was not very good law.

[Keith Vaz]

I think that was 1874, which was before even I entered the House, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I meant the Dangerous Dogs Act 19—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Shall I vacate my seat while you two have a chat? Please can we have no sedentary interventions?

[Keith Vaz]

I give way to the leader of the Welsh nationalists.

[Mr Llwyd]

I was referring to the latest Dangerous Dogs Act, which was passed in 1991. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that there was unanimity across the House on that legislation, but it was thoroughly bad law.

[Keith Vaz]

The point that the leader of the Welsh nationalists makes is absolutely right. Even though there is unanimity of purpose, it is important that we look carefully at the legislation and scrutinise it, for the reasons that all those who have spoken so far have set out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) is no longer in his place, and I am not sure where he has disappeared to. However, notwithstanding the support from the Opposition Front Bench, I am sure that when he gets to Committee and takes off his jacket—as the Minister will do too, in these dramatic confrontations that occur in the Committee corridor—they will be able to discuss the finer detail of the Bill.

We have not had a substantive debate about counter-terrorism on the Floor of the House of Commons since the new Government were formed. It is certainly the intention of the Select Committee on Home Affairs to look at counter-terrorism when Lord Macdonald has finished his review and when Charles Farr, who is conducting the review in the Home Office, completes his consideration of the Home Office issues. I see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), in whose constituency I spent most of the morning. He and the House will know that those issues have to be discussed in great detail. We need to look at control orders, and see whether the legislation passed so far has been adequate to deal with, first, the terrorist threat and, secondly, the civil liberties implications, of which the hon. Member for West Suffolk rightly made mention. That is why what the leader of the Welsh nationalists said is so important. We hope that the Home Affairs Committee can look carefully at those issues, and therefore give a considered view to Parliament when Parliament chooses to discuss the matter.

The figures in the Minister’s written statement, which was helpfully released this morning, I think, applied to the amount in accounts that have been frozen—£290,000— and to the number of people who have had orders revoked. I do not know whether it is just me, but I was surprised at the small figure, given that the City of London and this country in general must have trillions of pounds in bank accounts. Bearing in mind the fact that international terrorism is a global crime—taking into account the concern that we have about our tough legislation on people seeking to come into this country and depositing money here to be used to finance terrorism—I thought that the figure given was, frankly, a bit on the low side. When the Minister—or perhaps his junior Minister—winds up, perhaps he will say whether he agrees, because £290,000 does not sound like an enormous amount to be funding international terrorist activities.

Similarly, on the 205 accounts, it is not clear whether we are talking about 205 people with 205 different accounts, or a smaller number of people with 205 accounts between them. Although we do not want to know who they are—it would be inappropriate, as we know, to discuss individual cases on the Floor of the House—it would certainly help the House to have as much information as possible. Are we talking about fewer people with many accounts, or are we talking about 205 people?

The second issue to do with the figures concerns the number of people who have had their orders revoked. I have not had the pleasure of reading the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report into the issue, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I do not know whether the report looked at the revocation of orders, but I am concerned about those who have had their assets seized, because somebody had reasonable suspicion that they were involved in, or were funding, some kind of terrorist activity, but who have had their cases reviewed and, as a result, had the orders revoked. What happens to those people? Do they get compensation if they had to pay their bills and continued to have living expenses, despite having their accounts suddenly frozen? Do we explain why their accounts were frozen? I am not sure, so I would be most grateful if the Minister told the House what procedure is adopted once an order has been revoked.

I welcome the fact that orders have been revoked: it shows that the system works. If no orders had been revoked, I would have been extremely worried, because people can have reasonable suspicions, but when they look at a particular case, they may come to another view. I welcome the new appeal process in the Bill—there should always be an appeal process in such circumstances—which will presumably mean that more people might challenge the system. It would be helpful to know what kind of information they would have during that process.

Those may seem to be points of detail, but they are terrifically important to anyone who is caught innocently in the system. Indeed, I would also be keen to know whether there had been any complaints by individuals about the way the system operates currently. If there have been legitimate complaints, do the Government propose to ensure that the legislation covers those complaints in some way or another? People might be pretty delighted that their accounts were suddenly frozen, but then suddenly released. However, I would imagine that if any of us in the Chamber did not have access to our bank accounts, for whatever reason, we would be pretty upset. Therefore, it is important to know whether any complaints under the current system have been addressed.

My final point concerns the Macdonald-Farr review. I know that it is not a matter for this Minister, but he will no doubt talk to the lead Minister on counter-terrorism—that is, the Home Secretary—or other Ministers. It is important that we have a timetable for concluding the review that the Government have set up. I recently wrote to the Home Secretary asking for that timetable. It is important that we know precisely at which point the internal review being conducted by Charles Farr is drawn up and when the views of Lord Macdonald come into any consideration. Do they prevail over what has happened? Those are not issues for this Minister; they are issues for the Home Office. However, in the overarching discussions that are no doubt taking place in Government, they are issues to be considered by all.

The leader of Plaid Cymru reminded us—certainly me—that Parliament legislates in haste and repents at leisure. The hon. Member for West Suffolk said that the Bill was not being rushed through, which we welcome, but a timetable in which the legislation has to return to us in seven days is quite fast. I am not sure how many sittings the Minister intends for scrutiny. It is sometimes considered that those who speak on Second Reading wish to sit in Committee, so I would like to make it clear to any Whips who might be present that I have no desire to sit in the Public Bill Committee. If we are to scrutinise the legislation carefully, however, and if it is going to be with us for some time, we should take into account the concerns of the Plaid Cymru leader and ensure that we scrutinise this Bill very carefully indeed.