Private Rented Sector

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

That still seems to be a recipe for letting agents wilfully to turn people down on the basis of their credit checks, or to be very difficult in order to make money. That is the problem I have with that proposal. Letting fees should be limited and capped, but I am happy to talk further to the hon. Lady about that. I expect that 15 seconds is not quite long enough to resolve the disagreement on that.

We should get rid of letting fees. Studies in Scotland by Shelter which have been mentioned found that the increases in rent that one might expect did not take place.

Transparency, to which the Government are committed, is welcome. I support that. There is such an imbalance in power between the tenant and the landlord—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is up. I call John McDonnell.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we go through the Chair.

[Dr Huppert]

I was somewhat surprised by the original amendment passed in the other place, which was backed by many, including Labour peers, because it wrote into law discrimination that I would not be happy with. We have rules about behaviour that is unfair—behaviour that is too harsh—but I was really surprised to see an amendment that said there should be one set of rules for people in social housing and a completely different set of rules for people in private housing. If someone’s behaviour is causing problems that are sufficiently serious to be dealt with under the Bill, the form of tenure should not matter. I was very disappointed by that amendment and very pleased that the Government corrected it. What we now have corrects that problem and I am happy to support it, because I would not have been able to support the previous version from the Lords.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry, but both new clauses, which are Government new clauses, go together. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote against, he has to vote against them together.

Question put (single Question on new clauses moved by a Minister of the Crown), That new clauses 12 and 18 be added to the Bill.—(Mrs May.)

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed students’ concerns many times. Does he agree that a similar argument applies to the student visitor visa? Will he join me in opposing any proposal to clamp down on those arrangements, on the ground that it would also damage our colleges?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I point out to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) that quite a lot of Members are waiting to get in, including Dr Huppert? Perhaps if he takes fewer interventions, we might get to the hon. Gentleman.

Cycling

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I can see the hon. Gentleman is in free wheel, but I am going to put on the brake. We said 10 to 15 minutes, so I am sure Dr Huppert will have finished in a couple of minutes.

[Dr Huppert]

We all benefit from improving the take-up of cycling. To quote the president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King:

“Implementation of the Get Britain Cycling recommendations would bring tangible business and economic benefits by reducing congestion, absenteeism, NHS costs and by producing a more creative and active workforce.”

There speaks the voice of the automobile, and I entirely agree with him.

Despite these benefits, Governments for decades have not sufficiently supported cycling. There has been massive investment in road infrastructure, but little for cycling; cyclists have often had small-scale provision, if any. Individual Ministers have tried, but they have not always received the support they need. I pay great tribute in particular to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who I believe is the longest ever serving Minister with responsibility for cycling. However, he is not able to deliver as much as he or I would like. He has done things such as announce extra money over the summer for the local sustainable transport fund, but we need more and it needs to be sustained.

Many Ministers face a culture that points the other way—that focuses on car drivers only, to the detriment of others and without realising that fewer cyclists will result in more cars on the roads. I hope that one of the outcomes of our report and this debate will be to provide support for Ministers of all parties who want to make that difference—to turn welcome comments, such as those made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, into reality.

On 12 August the Prime Minister said that cycling will be at the heart of future road developments. I hope we can make sure, through the impetus of this debate, the “Cities fit for cycling” campaign run by The Times, the excitement of the Olympics and the double Tour de France victory, that that will become a reality.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Lady raises the issue about women, which is clearly important. That is why it is disappointing that at the end of the 13 years of the Labour Government, 28% more women were unemployed than at the beginning. Does she accept that, of the 2 million poorly paid people who will be lifted out of income tax, a huge proportion—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, he should put in for it. He is not going to do it through an intervention.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 1, after ‘believe’, insert

‘on the balance of probabilities’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 27, clause 3, at end insert—

‘(aa) explain, as fully as possible consistent with the public interest in non-disclosure, the reasons why they are satisfied that the conditions in section 2(1) are satisfied.’.

Amendment 5, page 13, line 41, clause 28, at end add—

‘(5) In section 67(3) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Rules of court about disclosure)—

(a) in paragraph (c) after “that”, insert “subject to paragraph (ca) below”; and

(b) after paragraph (c) insert—

“(ca) that in relation to a final designation, the material disclosed by the Treasury on which they rely is sufficient to enable each designated person to give effective instructions to a person appointed as a special advocate to represent that party’s interests;”.’.

Amendment 11, page 29, line 28, schedule 1, at end insert—

(fa) leave out rule 79.2.’.

[Dr Huppert]

I am delighted to move amendment 2, and to speak to amendments 3, 5 and 11, which are also in my name. They reflect recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Members might wish to see its more detailed report if they have not done so already. The amendments are all about ensuring proportionality and a fair hearing.

We should clearly be able to restrict funds that help terrorists in their activities, but people who are accused of such activities should not automatically lose their regular status in this country. We have a great principle in this country whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty; it is a great British tradition and one that we should support. We should also accept, however, that errors are made in legal processes, by the court and by Governments, and that is why we should have principles of fair hearing and high thresholds before we take state action.

Amendment 2 is about errors and the thresholds that we require. How can we be sure that the courts or the Treasury are making the right decision? How much error is acceptable? Various thresholds are already used for various decisions. We have the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt, which roughly equates to our saying that we do not accept even a 1% error—to the extent that we can attach numbers to it. Then, we have the civil standard, or the balance of probabilities, whereby we want to be sure that we are probably right. We want at least a 50:50 chance—in other words, with the balance of probabilities, we say that we want to be wrong less than half the time; we want to be probably sure that we are right.

If we go any lower with a threshold, we take steps—we punish people—when we say that we believe that they were probably not involved in the given situation. That is the consequence of a threshold below the balance of probabilities. None of us wants that, and none of us wants to take steps against people when we think that they were probably not involved in the first place.

I accept the principle of a lower threshold for interim designations. It is more akin to arrest, which takes place at a much lower threshold, but that is not the same as the permanent designation. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider their proposal. They should consider taking such steps against people only when the Treasury believes that they were probably involved, rather than on the basis of anything lower.

Amendment 3 is a simple requirement. A fair hearing must mean knowing the accusations—the reasons why the Treasury believes that somebody has been involved in funding terrorist activities. The amendment includes an important safeguard for public interest in non-disclosure, so damaging information would not come out, only that which we could afford to release. Again, I should have thought that we all agree with such a position.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have said that, effectively, the amendment’s intention will be achieved but they do not want to see it in legislation. I am always concerned, however, about the principle that we should not write things into legislation but trust in the benevolence of Governments—this or any future Government. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, will he clearly commit to disclose such reasons subject to the public interest requirement, as the amendment says—even if that takes place in a non-legislative way?

Amendments 5 and 11 deal with the hearing itself. Section 67(3)(c) of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 puts a heavy weight on the principle of non-disclosure. Although that is an important principle, we must counter it with the principle of a fair hearing. Currently, the balance goes far too far in the direction of non-disclosure.

In the case of AF, it was held that similar rules are not appropriate to control orders, so I find it hard to see why the courts will not in time hold the same principle on terrorist asset freezing. There are more details on that reasoning in the Joint Committee’s report. The courts have yet to take such a decision, but surely as a principle it would be better not to go through costly legal action, but to save time by making the changes now.

There is a review of the use of sensitive material in judicial proceedings, and I welcome the fact that there will be a consistent approach. If the Minister will not agree to including such safeguards in the Bill, will he commit to the Bill being updated when the review is complete in order to reflect that consistent approach and to introduce a better system throughout those areas? I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s comments on all those suggestions, and I hope he takes on board what has been said.