Spring Adjournment
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that we will now have a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches right across the piece.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
I move the motion on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. It uses the Hollobone method.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Before I call the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I have been asked by Mr Speaker to remind him of his ruling yesterday, when he said:
“I strongly deprecate the abuse of parliamentary privilege to flout an order or score a particular point…It is important…that we recognise the need to temper our privilege with responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 653-654.]
I trust the hon. Gentleman will not test the patience of the Chair today.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 151, in clause 28, page 21, line 9, leave out ‘5 or’.
Amendment 152, page 112, line 15, leave out Schedule 5.
Mark Reckless
New clause 6 deals with the police and crime panel and, specifically, the powers that it may or may not have in respect of assessing and setting the precept. Ever since I first considered the issue of elected commissioners and their proper role, I have found the issue of budget setting particularly knotty and difficult. As a strong proponent of elected commissioners, I see a good argument for giving them the power to set the precept and the budget, and just letting them get on with that. I can see the argument that they have the mandate, so surely they should make the decision.
However, I have at least a slight concern about giving such significant budget-setting power over a whole electoral term to one individual. That is why I am attracted to some of the ideas we have heard, including from colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, about the police and crime panel. There has been a very positive, highest common factor rather than a lowest common denominator approach, and the Bill has been improved through the interchange of ideas between Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members.
We have heard about the capping arrangements of the Labour party in recent years. There was capping under previous Conservative Governments but it seemed to become almost standard in Labour’s 13 years in government for Ministers to set a number—it was never quite clear how they determined that number—over which anything, regardless of the circumstances and however low the council tax base, was capped by central Government. That approach seems wrong to me and we have a proposal to deal with it in relation to local government: instead of having a Secretary of State—I assume for Communities and Local Government—capping a council above a certain level, that Secretary of State would have reserve powers to require a local referendum in an area where he considered an increase to be excessive. That strikes me as a reasonably sensible balance, and certainly an improvement on the status quo and the current capping power.
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.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the last debate, I heard a Member make a comment about another Member in this Chamber. The language that they used certainly was not parliamentary. Will you take some action, or advise me on how I might make a complaint against the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for the comments he made when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) stood to make an intervention?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
If it had been within earshot of me, obviously I would have dealt with it straight away, but I did not hear anything.
Police
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
May I remind the Minister that Northamptonshire police’s grant funding will decrease by 5.1% next year, when it should have decreased by only 0.9%? That is due to the damping formula, under which Northamptonshire police will lose £3.4 million in 2011-12 and a further £3.7 million in 2012-13. They are subsidising forces throughout the country. Will the Minister promise to look at this matter for next year’s grant?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May we have shorter inventions too, please? Will the hon. Gentleman give me that promise for the future?
Nick Herbert
I have met my hon. Friend and his local chief constable. He knows that I consider this matter very carefully, and he made his points very well on behalf of his constituents. I will discuss damping in a moment, but my hon. Friend’s comments reflect the fact that there will always be differences of view in this House between Members whose police forces benefit from damping and who therefore do not wish to see any change in its application, and Members whose forces have, effectively, paid out under damping and who desperately wish there to be a change. It is therefore not possible for the Government to satisfy everybody. We have had to take decisions in the round, and in accordance with what we consider to be the best and fairest way to address the totality of policing in this country.
As I have said, I decided to apply damping at the level of the average cut. As a result, each force will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2011-12 and 2012-13, thereby ensuring that no one force will face an unacceptably large reduction in its budget. This mirrors the approach we took in the in-year savings following the emergency Budget and, importantly, it is what police forces were expecting and planning upon.
I appreciate that different forces have different views on this decision, as do hon. Members, and I understand why forces such as the West Midlands and Dorset—and, indeed, Northamptonshire—are keen to see damping phased out or removed entirely, while others such as Cumbria and Cheshire welcome its retention. As I have said, in making decisions such as these I must, of course, think about policing as a whole. I also appreciate the wider case against damping, and there is a strong argument for moving at the right time to a full application of the formula, recognising the policing needs of each area, but doing so now would have created real difficulty. I should also point out that the vast majority of funding that forces receive is allocated according to the formula. Therefore, force level allocations will remain as I announced in December.
Historically, there have been a number of ring-fenced grants to police forces. The Government’s general approach has been to remove ring-fencing and to roll funding into the main grant so that forces have greater local flexibility in determining how resources are spent. That has been the case for the rural policing fund. From 2006-07, it had already been amalgamated with four other specific grants to create what is known as rule 2 grant, but we are now rolling that into the police main grant. I want to emphasise, especially to Members representing rural constituencies, that as result of my decision on damping levels the decision on rolling this grant into the main grant means that no force will be worse off.
In some instances, I believe the case for ring-fencing grants remains strong. Outside London, the neighbourhood policing fund will be ring-fenced for the next two years to ensure the continuing funding of police community support officers, who play a valuable role in community policing. When police and crime commissioners are introduced, it will be up to them to make decisions over funding. In London, where the Mayor can already exercise this local determination, the ring fence is being lifted now, but the fund is being maintained at £340 million next year and £338 million the following year. When some Members make their allegations about cuts in front-line policing, they might like to note that that ring-fenced fund has been maintained.
The counter-terrorism specific grant has been relatively protected with a 10% cut in real terms over four years. This is a cut of just 1% in cash terms, and must be seen against a very rapid increase in resource and capital spending—some 49% in the last four years. The Government and the police service are confident that there will be no reduction in police effectiveness in this crucial area, where savings can be made but where well over £500 million will continue to be spent each year.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I agree that the police can save money, and they might start to do so by addressing some of the equality and diversity politically correct drivel on which they waste millions of pounds each year. If the Government were simply cutting the police budget and savings could be found, that would be fine. However, the problem with the Government’s argument is that they are doing this against the backdrop of restricting the police’s ability to use the DNA database to catch criminals and trying to restrict further the use of CCTV cameras which also help the police catch criminals, and they are releasing people from prison and having fewer criminals in prison. They cannot do all those things with fewer police.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
As I have already said, we must have much shorter interventions.
Nick Herbert
I always know it is a mistake to take interventions from my hon. Friend, but no doubt it is a mistake I will continue to make. I enjoy his interventions, but I note that, although it seemed to me that Opposition Front-Bench Members were giving lots of nods to what he said, they have still not understood the importance of ensuring a proper balance between security and liberty in this country. In spite of everything the new leader of their party has said, they have still not understood that.
There are also areas beyond the HMIC’s report—this comes directly to the point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—where savings can be made by forces working together. There are 2,000 different IT systems across the 43 police forces, and some 5,000 staff. We estimate that savings of some £330 million could be found through joint procurement of goods, services and IT. The vast bulk of these savings —around a third of a billion pounds or more—will be additional to the savings identified by HMIC.
The time for just talking about IT convergence, collective procurement, collaboration, sharing and outsourcing services is over. We cannot afford not to do these things, and we cannot afford to delay, so, where necessary, the Government will mandate the changes required. That is why I am about to lay regulations before Parliament to require the police service to buy certain IT vehicles, and so on, through specified national framework arrangements.
Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are being informed by television that Mr Andy Coulson, one of the most important figures in Her Majesty’s Government and one of the Prime Minister’s closest aides, is now resigning. As the House is sitting, I believe that it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come to the Commons, explain why that is happening and give the public the full details here in the House of Commons, rather than burying the news on a day when, frankly, an awful lot of other news is taking place. This is the Commons, where the Prime Minister should—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is not a point of order, as the right hon. Gentleman, who has long been a Member of the House, knows. The fact that a member of the Prime Minister’s staff has resigned has nothing to do with the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Before we get carried away, I should say that that has absolutely nothing to do with the House. Neither of the points made is a point of order.
Mr Djanogly
I am delighted to pull the House back to the important issue of succession.
I was just saying that the property of the killer’s parents was distributed according to the statutory intestacy rules. The intestacy rules are a default regime; they apply where a person has not exercised his or her right to make a will or to the extent that his or her will is not valid. Their aim is to safeguard the deceased person’s family by providing for them from the deceased person’s estate in a manner that is thought to mirror the wishes of the average person had he or she made a will.
Generally speaking, an intestate estate will pass to the surviving spouse or civil partner and the deceased’s children first, but if the deceased is not survived by either of them, then other blood relatives of the deceased will inherit the estate in a strict order of priority set out in section 46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. I am not going to read out the rules, but if any hon. Members wishes to know more about them, I shall provide the information.
When there are no known eligible blood relatives to inherit, the estate is dealt with by the Treasury solicitor. On receiving the estate, the Treasury solicitor will make full inquiries into the estate and will advertise for eligible kin in the hope of distributing the estate. If there appear to be no eligible kin, or none can be traced, the estate becomes “bona vacantia” which means “ownerless goods” and it will pass to the Crown, the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster, depending on where in England or Wales the deceased lived.
When a minor inherits on intestacy, the property to which they will be entitled is held on trust. The terms of that trust are specified in the intestacy rules. Basically, the trustees will hold the property for the benefit of the child until he or she reaches the age of 18 or marries or enters a civil partnership under that age.
All that may seem relatively straightforward, and hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that the grandchild in the DWS case would have inherited their property on reaching the age of 18, or marrying or forming a civil partnership before then, but there is a devil in the detail and, sadly, there was a family dispute that led to litigation. That culminated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2000 in the case Re DWS (Deceased). By that time, it was agreed that the son himself could not inherit because, as he had murdered his parents, the forfeiture rule prevented it. The forfeiture rule is a common law rule, applying the general rule of public policy that a person is not able to benefit from their wrongdoing. It is illustrated by the 1892 case of Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, when it was held that a person is not entitled to benefit from the estate of a person he or she has unlawfully killed.
A person who is convicted of the unlawful killing of another, or of aiding, abetting or counselling another to do so, is automatically disqualified from inheriting from his or her victim under the forfeiture rule. However, persons convicted of manslaughter or other offences less serious than murder may still be permitted relief to inherit the victim’s property by the court under the Forfeiture Act 1982.
The question for the court in Re DWS (deceased) was who would receive the grandfather’s property. Had the son died before his father, the property would have gone to the son’s only child, who was aged only two at the time of the murder and was also the grandfather’s only grandchild. However, the son—that is, the killer—was not dead, but merely disqualified from inheriting because of the operation of the forfeiture rule.
The relevant provision of the intestacy rules setting out the statutory trusts contained in the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provides that the grandchild will inherit only if his or her parent has already died. The court accordingly decided that the law did not allow the grandson to take the property. Instead, it was decided that the property would have to go to the estate of the dead grandfather’s sister, who had also died by the time of the court case. Thus, in this situation, not only is the killer disqualified from inheriting, but so also are all the killer’s direct descendants. The Court of Appeal expressed concern that this may have been an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the present intestacy rules.
In July 2003, the then Department for Constitutional Affairs, whose responsibilities in this regard have been assumed by the Ministry of Justice, asked the Law Commission to review the relationship between the forfeiture rule and the law of succession. The terms of reference were as follows: first, that in conjunction with its work on illegal transactions, the Law Commission should review the relationship between the forfeiture and intestacy rules; secondly, that the review should be carried out with reference to the difficulties highlighted in the case of Re DWS (deceased) and should explore ways the law might be reformed to prevent apparently unfair outcomes of this sort; and, thirdly, that the review should also consider any ancillary areas of succession law that might produce analogous outcomes—for example, disclaimer and attesting beneficiaries.
In October 2003, the Law Commission published a consultation paper, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”, which considered the problem raised in Re DWS, and discussed whether a similar problem arose in other contexts. The consultation paper provisionally proposed that in cases such as Re DWS there should be a “deemed predecease” solution—that is, where a person forfeits a benefit on intestacy through having killed the deceased, the estate should be distributed as if the killer had died immediately before the deceased. The Law Commission also proposed that the deemed predecease rule should apply where a gift under a will fails because of the forfeiture rule.
Firearms Control
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) giving way?
Chris Williamson
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?
Police Funding
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just before I call anybody else, let me say that there have been quite a few complaints about the temperature in the Chamber. I can assure hon. Members that, as always in this Chamber, the temperature is now rising. The problem has been fixed.
Guy Opperman
No, you are wrong. The promotion is delightful, but it is premature. Mention has been made of “Strictly Come Dancing” and other things, but I was not in the House of Lords then. Instead, I was probably somewhere near the Old Bailey. My point is that even Ed Balls has conceded that there is more to do on accountability.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. When Members are mentioned they must, of course, be referred to by their constituency not their name, and there must also be no references to “you” or to “me”—after all, I have made no decisions in this area.
Guy Opperman
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has said that there is more to do in respect of accountability, and there is more we can do to deepen local and force-based accountability in policing.
Police Grant Report
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Flint
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the £2.6 million of cuts that his area is going to face. There are choices to be made. We said that we would cut the deficit by half over four years, but your Government are suggesting that we go faster and harder, posing the risk of going back into recession, putting more people out of work and affecting employment in both the public and private sectors. We will watch very carefully to see whether the outcomes that you have chosen to pursue are really in the best interests of the country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Lady is a very experienced Member, who should not use “you”. I am sure that she did not mean it.
Caroline Flint
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the outcomes of the decisions that his Government have made over the course of the last few weeks.
There is concern across the country about the announcement of cuts in police funding. I have listened to some of the comments made by Government Members. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has left the Chamber. I believe that she asked why we were spending money on police buildings. One reason why we did that over the past 13 years is that some of the buildings were not fit for purpose. If we are to modernise our police force and have civilian staff carrying out jobs such as following up on crime reports by using the best technology we need buildings that are fit for purpose. It is about investing in a police force for the 21st century.
We should also look at the partnerships created over the past 13 years. It should be recognised that the police cannot do the job of ensuring the safety of our communities, neighbourhoods and streets on their own. They have to work with others in local government, and I worry about how the cuts in the police grant will affect partnerships that have been nurtured with local authorities and community organisations. As those partners will be affected by cuts as well, the pot that is available to them, enabling them to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in a flexible, dynamic, innovative way, will be further diminished by the lack of flexibility that is being imposed on police forces and local authorities throughout the country.
My constituents will be keen to know how the £3 million cut in funds for South Yorkshire police will affect them, particularly given the Government’s refusal to provide the guarantee to protect overall police numbers which we included in our manifesto.
Caroline Flint
I agree with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman is making—illiteracy among prisoners is a big problem—but what I do not understand, and what I ask him to clarify, given that we have tried everything else with many of these burglars, is why they cannot learn to read and write during six months in prison.
Mr Deputy Speaker
May I just remind the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) that we are dealing with the police grant? We have strayed into discussing prisons, and although I know there is a connection, we are stretching it.
Mr Jackson
I know that we could wander the byways and highways of penal policy for ever, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I graciously accept your admonition on that particular point and I shall return to the police grant, before you rule me out of order.
We have to be realistic about what we are being asked to accept today.
Caroline Flint
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is plenty of time, and as the hon. Gentleman has accused me of suggesting a policy that I did not suggest, I should have the right to intervene.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order. The debate can continue until 3.47 pm, but it is up to the Minister to decide whether to accept an intervention.
Defendant Anonymity
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I remind Members that there is a 12-minute limit on speeches?