Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Public Bill Committee, 17 February 2011.

Clause 151

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I beg to move amendment 628, in clause 151, page 100, line 10, at end insert—

Good morning, Mr Benton. Yet again, it seems very early in the morning. I do not know what it is with this place; 9 o’clock is the usual time to go to work, but it always seems so early here.

We are towards the end of the Bill, but the clause introduces a significant and important change to the law on universal jurisdiction. As the Government will know, that is something we support in general, but obviously we need to discuss certain issues and, no doubt, there are some that the Minister himself will want to put on the record. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman will reiterate that such significant, poignant and symbolic legislation is embodied in all sort of international treaties and conventions. Universal jurisdiction is rightly seen by many people as something that ensures no hiding place for someone who has committed any of the worst crimes that we can imagine anywhere in the world, let alone within our own country. Notwithstanding some of the discussion that we might have on the clause and its implementation, it is worth restating that no member of the Committee would seek to erode its thrust.

We have tabled a probing amendment, which is none the less important. As the Minister knows, controversy has arisen among people who are concerned that the change to the process of universal jurisdiction will allow individuals who may be guilty of serious crimes, such as hostage taking or genocide, to escape or evade justice. There are particular worries that the process will be lengthy and time-consuming. Human rights groups say that it will hamper efforts to bring alleged war criminals to justice, hence our amendment.

Under the Bill, there is to be a requirement for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to a magistrate issuing an arrest warrant when a private prosecutor has laid an information. Kate Allen, the United Kingdom director of Amnesty International, said:

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary change. Unless a way of guaranteeing a means of preventing suspects fleeing can be built into the proposals, then the UK will have undermined the fight for international justice and handed war criminals a free ticket to escape the law.”

She points out some of the dangers. Notwithstanding the fact that she does not agree with the change, she says that if safeguards were built into the policy, they would mitigate some of the danger. As the Minister knows, Justice has similar views.

The whole thrust of our argument this morning will be to suggest to the Government that safeguards need to be built into the Bill to address the worries of Kate Allen and many others about the impact of the change. We support the clause, but delays should not hamper justice. All of us want prosecutions to proceed whenever possible, and the amendment would introduce the necessary safeguard. The establishment of a specialist unit in the Crown Prosecution Service, with people trained in that area of work, who know about it and understand the context of the decisions, would help improve speed and minimise delays. People would also have someone to go straight to rather than, as sometimes happens, being left wondering to whom a warrant should be given, to see whether the DPP agreed to it.

I have suggested in the amendment that there should be a specialist unit in the CPS, but the Minister might also consider, although this is not in the amendment, whether it would be useful to have a specialist unit in the Metropolitan Police Service. Is there already such a unit, or are trained officers available, to whom an immediate reference can be made when a warrant is sought?

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, notwithstanding the proposals in the Bill, serious and valid cases are not lost as a result of delays in obtaining the DPP’s consent to the issuing of an arrest warrant. I will keep my other remarks for the clause stand part debate.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Universal jurisdiction deals with the most serious issues around the world. As has already been said, it is clear that we have to deal with them in a very serious way. There are two issues to discuss. First, is there a need for a change? Secondly, if there is to be a change, is the provision the right way to do it? The amendment relates to the second question, so I will talk about whether there is a need later. I give hon. Members advance notice that I am not yet persuaded that there is a need for a change.

If there is to be a change, the real question is whether the DPP will be able to respond promptly, or be available to make the necessary decisions. That is at the heart of the amendment. I have been concerned about whether there would be capacity, and I understand exactly what the hon. Member for Gedling said, but I was somewhat mollified by the comments of Keir Starmer in his evidence to us in one of the early sittings of the Committee, which seem a long time ago. I suggest that anyone who is listening, or following the transcript of our discussion, should look at his evidence. He discussed extensively the timeliness and availability of resources. There are real issues, one of which is the availability of a team.

In general, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that what Keir Starmer said in his evidence to us is not only his own view or the official view of the current DPP, but what the Government believe the policy of the DPP ought to be. It makes a huge difference whether the DPP will or will not try to act promptly. I look forward to hearing specific reassurances from the Minister on those points.

There is an issue of simply having a team ready and available. It does not have to be a specific team that works only on such matters, but it has to understand the specific timeliness of universal jurisdiction cases, and be ready and prepared to deal with them. Mr Starmer has made it clear that he would need such people, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that. I gave him in advance a list of particular points on which I would like confirmation, to make things easier for us all.

It is not just about having the team ready because, no matter how large a team is, sometimes, as Mr Starmer said,

“time is very, very tight”.

It is also a question whether that team will be able to look at information in advance. Will the DPP and the team be prepared to look at and process the evidence ahead of time, so that when there is a need for an application to happen, it can be done very quickly? Mr Starmer invited people wishing to pursue cases to engage,

“very early in the process.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 124, Q237.]

I seek a reassurance from the Minister that that is what the Government expect from the DPP and the CPS about the team, because that is not always the case.

The submission from Hickman and Rose Solicitors— PR 128—which we received today, is relevant. It refers to its experience of trying to work with the existing team in the CPS, and to the Metropolitan police, which we will come on to in the clause stand part debate. I hope that hon. Members have looked at the letter that it sent round, and which it received from the CPS team. It states:

“I…respectfully ask that you do not…forward any further evidence to this office on behalf of your clients”.

If there will be a system like this, and a team to look at things, will the team look at evidence in advance? When there is notification that someone will be landing within an hour, a day, or a week, the team would then be ready and would not have to start afresh the process of going through a complex legal case. That is a key point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on it.

What test would this team in the DPP be using? How would it establish exactly what was happening? I hope that the Minister will confirm what Mr Starmer said, which was that the team would use a threshold test where time was short. That would be below the threshold normally used to go ahead with a prosecution, although, of course, well above the standard test for an arrest. How would such a team be expected to make its decisions? What would it be looking for? How would it interpret advice from the Attorney-General? In this model, the Attorney-General does not play a key role, but he does play a role in giving commentary on public interest.

Mr Starmer said a number of times during the session that there was a powerful force in favour of a prosecution, because universal jurisdiction crimes are such large things. I would appreciate the Government’s agreement with the DPP that that is the case—that there is a powerful weight in favour of prosecuting and that public interest tests would have to be equally overwhelming to counterbalance that. We do not want the Attorney-General simply to comply with a suggestion of vague general interest. It has to be more substantive than that.

How will the team work and how quick can a response be? It seems that there are three responses that the DPP could give when faced with a request for a warrant. One is to say yes; one is to say no; and, one is not to get round to it quickly enough, so that it does not matter. In the US, that would be known as a pocket veto. I think that we would all be very keen to say that, while we might accept that the DPP could have some say, we do not want to see a default no, simply because the DPP did not have enough time, or a large enough team—whichever process it is—or had not looked early enough, to make a decision. I want the Minister to confirm that the DPP will use best efforts to process claims promptly, to avoid that situation.

Lastly, we will need some way of monitoring the provision, because it is a change. Will the Minister commit to a mechanism to report back on cases, other than parliamentary questions, which would be an alternative? The Government should report to Parliament, not on cases that the DPP accepted or declined, but on cases on which he failed to act fast enough for the situation to be settled sensibly, one way or another. Can we have some way in which Parliament can have a look if, whatever the size, structure or timeliness of the team, it is not able to deliver a decision quickly enough? I hope that the Minister agrees that, if that happened, we might need to revisit this and look at a different process at some stage. That is all I have to say on the amendment; I have further comments on the general principles, which we will come to later.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Good morning, Mr Benton. I understand why the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge have advanced their cases, to ensure that these applications are dealt with in the most timely manner. It is right and proper to do so, because the offences that we are discussing are among the most serious, and they are ones that the Government take seriously, too. We will be having a more wide-ranging debate about the effect of clause 151 in our clause stand part debate.

On the specific issue of the speed with which the Director of Public Prosecutions will deal with these matters, in his evidence to this Committee, which I think we would all agree was clear, he said:

“We have people who can work around the clock and we have enough trained people so that someone is always available.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 126, Q241.]

I can confirm that the people who deal with the applications to which the clause applies are members of a specialist unit in the counter-terrorism division of the CPS. They stand ready to act immediately in emergency cases.

On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge made about early engagement, the DPP was at pains to point out in his oral evidence that his office is encouraging those groups with a concern to engage with it. He said that

“if we can avoid the late situation, so much the better…there is a lot of up-front preparation and engagement.”

Although he was also clear that he could not give an absolutely substantive answer to the amount of time that would be necessary to take a decision, I think we all understood that they would move as fast as possible. He said:

“We would act as quickly as we could, but we must act carefully, because we have a legal test to apply.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 126, Q240-241.]

I do not think that I can usefully add a great deal more, because what the DPP said was clear, but I confirm, as my hon. Friend invites me to do, that we agree that there are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute in a case that has satisfied the evidential threshold. The offences are serious, and the Government share the belief that those who commit them should be brought to justice if that threshold is met. There are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute, and the DPP was right to say so.

The hon. Member for Gedling explained that his amendment was a probing amendment, which I am sure that he will want withdraw. On the specific technicality referred to in his amendment, I hope that by reiterating the DPP’s assurances I have been able to provide as much reassurance as possible that such cases will be dealt with swiftly, and that by early engagement with the DPP’s office, the risk that they may be lost while an application is considered can be mitigated.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I thank the Minister for his reply. The remarks of the hon. Member for Cambridge highlighted some of the issues. It was extremely helpful to have this short debate because the speed and the potential delay concern people. The Minister was right to reiterate the points made by the DPP in the evidence session to reassure the Committee. He was particularly helpful in reminding us that the DPP had pointed out that in essence there already was a specialist unit within the CPS, ready and able to deal with such cases as swiftly as possible; that is an important assurance. Given that we have emphasised some of the points that I think people would want reiterated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

On a point of order, Mr Benton. Would the Minister prefer to go first?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the clause is to require the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant for war crimes under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the few other offences over which the United Kingdom has asserted universal jurisdiction can be issued on the application of a private prosecutor.

The problem that the clause is designed to solve arises out of three things: the principle of universal jurisdiction, the right of private prosecution and the basis on which the courts will issue an arrest warrant. Universal jurisdiction enables certain offences—a very small number—to be tried in the English courts even though the crime took place outside the UK and regardless of the nationality or residence of the offender. A private prosecution may be initiated for any offence, including those attracting universal jurisdiction, if the prosecutor can obtain a summons or warrant from a magistrates court, and courts can issue an arrest warrant on the basis of far less information than would be required for a prosecution to be allowed to proceed. The upshot is that a person might be at risk of arrest in cases where there is no prospect of a successful prosecution. This might happen in relation to a very grave crime alleged to have been committed outside the UK by a person who is not a British citizen, does not live here and, indeed, has no connection with this country apart from being present here.

The problem is not that large numbers of warrants are being issued—the Government are aware of only two—but in the perceptionthat visitors to this country might be at risk of arrest. That such a perception exists is certain and it is not confined to Israel, although the two instances in which an arrest warrant was issued involved Israeli nationals. There are indications that some people may not be prepared to visit the UK for fear of a private arrest warrant being sought. We are concerned in particular that these may be people who are, or have been, in leading positions in their countries, with whom the Government would wish to engage in discussions. This is unsatisfactory and risks damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution and to pursue a coherent foreign policy.

Clause 151 is a modest provision. All that it is designed to do is to ensure that, in universal jurisdiction cases, a warrant is issued only where there is a realistic prospect of a viable prosecution. The Opposition canvassed a different proposal before the general election, when they were in government, which removed the right of private prosecution altogether—the previous Government also recognised, as the hon. Gentleman has noted, that there was a problem. However, this proposal does not go as far as to remove the right of private prosecution altogether, nor does it, as some have alleged, interfere with universal jurisdiction. It does not, as some have suggested, allow war criminals to come to Britain with impunity. Any genuine war criminals who are under that misapprehension might have a disagreeable surprise if they put it to the test and the DPP, as we have just discussed, has reaffirmed the seriousness with which these matters would be decided in the public interest. Private individuals will still be able to apply for a warrant, provided there is a realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. Suspects will also continue to be liable to prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is likely to be more appropriate for offences of such gravity.

I reiterate that the Government’s commitment to tackling grave international crimes is something we take extremely seriously and we are confident that the proposed change is entirely consistent with it.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I thank the Minister for that introduction; he was right to start the debate on this important clause. We believe that it is essential—as, indeed, do the Government and all members of the Committee—to maintain universal jurisdiction so that, even where a crime has been committed by someone outside one state, and even where there is no link between the prosecuting state and the suspect, the victim or the place of crime, prosecution is possible and, as I have said, there is no hiding place for those who have committed some of the worst crimes imaginable. This historical right has been seen as an important constitutional safeguard against the failure of the authorities to prosecute and, in that sense, we must do all we can to protect it. We all agree that that is important. However, the proposed change has been prompted by controversy over recent efforts by private prosecutors to obtain arrest warrants in respect of foreign political and military figures who have been visiting or, indeed, proposing to visit the UK.

As the law stands, the arrest warrant can be made by the magistrate before the consent to prosecute, which is required from the Attorney-General. That has caused some controversy. The Justice Secretary told us in November that in the past 10 years, 10 applications were made for arrest warrants under universal jurisdiction, only two of which were granted, as the Minister has said. I shall give some interesting examples: in April 2002, an application by Peter Tatchell for the arrest of Henry Kissinger was refused. His arrest was demanded on the grounds of war crimes in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In September 2005, an application for an arrest warrant was granted against Major-General Doron Almog, the former head of Israeli forces in the Gaza strip. He avoided arrest, however, after his plane turned around after landing at Heathrow airport and returned to Israel. The Minister alluded to the case in December 2009 of Tzipi Livni, Israel’s former Foreign Minister, who cancelled a visit to the UK after having an arrest warrant issued against her. In response to those cases and others, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband), said that the Government were looking at how to avoid such situations in future. Now the coalition Government have come forward with their own proposals.

As we said before the election, the law should change to bring arrests into line with prosecutions. The Government propose that the Director of Public Prosecutions must give consent to an arrest warrant in the same way in which the Attorney-General must give consent to a prosecution. The proposal will not change the standards for prosecutions or reduce the likelihood of a successful one. Cases that are strong enough to get the go-ahead by the Attorney-General for prosecution should also get the go-ahead from the DPP for arrest. Importantly, the proposal does not prevent private citizens from applying for an arrest warrant, as the Minister has said. It does, however, seek to address some of the concerns that have been raised. Andrew Dismore, the former MP and Chair of this House’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, has said:

“I would like to see our courts protected from being used as campaign forums by politically motivated groups that are not really interested in justice, but are interested in scoring party political or other political points in this long-running conflict in the middle east, which is not going to be resolved in courts of law.”

I have mentioned the case of Henry Kissinger to demonstrate that the matter does not only concern the middle east. Andrew Dismore continued:

“Our courts have been left dangerously open to political manipulation and being brought into disrepute. There is a way forward by allowing the Attorney-General”—

obviously the proposal is not about the Attorney-General but the DPP—

“to decide whether this should happen. The Attorney-General is, in the end, responsible for deciding which prosecutions should go ahead, based on the likelihood of both a conviction and a public interest test. We may have the embarrassment of leaders being arrested but no prosecution following on from that.” —[Official Report, 12 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 200WH.]

Andrew Dismore referred to the Attorney-General, and there was criticism that that in itself would politicise the judicial process. The proposals, which are better and more sensible, are for the decision to grant an arrest warrant to be made not by the Attorney-General, who makes the prosecution decision, but by the DPP, which is an important change.

The Bill does not prescribe, however, how the DPP should reach a decision about whether to give consent. Which factors, such as the weight of evidence or the likelihood of prosecution, should be taken into account? Will the Minister comment on that? Will he confirm that the changes will not weaken our ability to prosecute those who are guilty of serious international crimes? Can he explain how the involvement of the DPP will prevent international criminals having time to return home and escape prosecution? It would be useful for the Minister to set out why diplomatic immunity is not, in itself, a sufficient safeguard. Will he confirm that the measure is not simply a consequence of lobbying from the Israeli Government? Will he say how our system compares with those of other countries, so that we have some context? What does he expect in terms of the liaison between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General?

We believe that the law should be changed so that private citizens can secure an arrest warrant, even when there is no prospect of a prosecution. We support the proposals to change the law to bring arrangements for arrest more into line with those for prosecution. However, it is extremely important that such changes do not reduce the chances for successfully prosecuting those who have committed serious international crimes. That is what people would expect, and that is what they are concerned about. As the Bill goes through Parliament, with this change in it, it is incumbent on us in Committee and on Report, as it is incumbent on the other place, to ensure that those concerns are addressed and that reassurance is provided.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

As I said briefly when we discussed earlier amendments, I am not persuaded that there is a need for a change. I do not think that a sufficiently strong case has been made about why the current system is not working. In 10 years, two warrants have been granted and at least eight, perhaps more—of course, we do not know the details—were rejected, which suggests that the system is working quite well in filtering out claims that have no merit. The case of Mr Tatchell was given as an example, and it was concluded that the system seems to be functioning.

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not necessarily the frequency of the incidents but the damage that can be done to British international relations and the reputation of the Government?

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Indeed, but we already have a process that filters out the least meritorious. We have no idea what would have happened to those two warrants if there had been a process involving the Attorney-General or some other system. It is entirely possible that they would have been granted in any case. I will come back to why it does not address the concern that I think my hon. Friend is heading towards. I do not think there is evidence to suggest that warrants have been unreasonably issued. It is not clear that those two were issued in cases in which the DPP would have said that they would not be. It is hard to tell, because the DPP did not examine them, but it is not clear.

There has been a lot of talk in the press and among some lobby groups that a person simply applies to a magistrate. That is rather unfair and dismisses the role of the people who actually make the decision, which is in the special jurisdiction of the senior district judge at Westminster magistrates court, not a magistrate somewhere who happens to be free on a Thursday evening. It is taken very seriously. Evidence from Hickman and Rose cited one example in which there was a lot of analysis and discussion. A lot of care and attention went into one particular case that they dealt with, which shows that such cases are handled sensibly.

There is a risk of people doing things purely for grandstanding. I accept that grandstanding will happen, but I do not see how that changes anything. If somebody wishes to pick—I will not pick on Mr Tatchell—a case to get publicity, they will still be able to do that. They will simply say that it has gone to the DPP, and they will still be able to generate publicity. If they know that they have the sort of case for which the senior district judge would not grant the arrest warrant, they can still get the publicity in the meantime. The measure does not solve that problem at all.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I do not doubt the passion with which the hon. Member for Cambridge speaks about the issue, but one of my concerns is the use of selective cases. For example, the arrest warrant is often used against Israeli politicians. There have been many examples of its not being used. There is the example of a former dictator in Pakistan who was accused of crushing political opponents. He came to the United Kingdom to address the Cambridge university students’ union. He came for a week and no one took any notice of him. According to The Times in 1999, another individual was suspected of supplying on an industrial scale most of the machetes that were used in the Rwandan slaughter, and he stopped over on holiday. Less high profile war criminals were also living here, such as senior officials of Saddam Hussein’s regime—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which is that the police are not doing a sufficient job. If one asked Hickman and Rose, which deals with such cases, it would agree that the police should be doing the work wherever possible. He makes a good point for the police. If there are serious cases—I do not know the details of the cases to which he has referred, so I cannot comment on what the police should be doing—the police should have resources to look at them, which will be a better situation for us all.

One problem with private prosecutions is that we cannot mandate that private individuals should prosecute whomever we feel they ought to, so I would have no problem with someone taking up a private prosecution, if there is evidence but the police are not prepared to act. The hon. Gentleman’s comments support my argument that the police should do that.

Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton North, unless there is a situation where it is not possible for an arrest warrant to be granted—for example, in the case of a foreign dignitary who has diplomatic immunity coming for some talks—there is still a risk that people will face that when they come to Britain. He argued that they face a risk and will be concerned about coming here, which will continue to apply unless they know that there is a zero chance of anything happening. I am concerned, because if that is the case, we are not giving the DPP sufficient freedom and independence. If we give those people some sort of assurance, I will be worried about the role of the Attorney-General. I am sure that that is not what the Government want to do, but if that is the case, they will always have that worry. Unless people are absolutely sure that there is no evidence that could lead to a successful prosecution, they will have that concern, so I do not think the problem will be solved. Therefore, I am not persuaded that there is a need for change. However, I have heard the comments, and I accept the fact that a majority among Committee members, unless I hear otherwise, believes that there is such a need.

Several methods of change have been proposed. The original one was to say, “You cannot have any private prosecutions,” but that would be a problem. Private prosecutions of any kind are rare in this country, but it is important that they exist as a safeguard if, for some reason, the police and the CPS do not go ahead—I think that we agree that it is important to have private prosecutions as a safety net.

The next suggestion was that the decision should be made by the Attorney-General. There is a logic to that, in the sense that it would be the Attorney-General who would have to agree to continue the prosecution, but it would mean that the decision would be taken at an immediately political level. It would put an Attorney-General who wanted to be fair in a very difficult position, and it would place the law in the difficult position if the Attorney-General felt bound to do whatever was in the Government’s best interest. I am pleased that neither option has been proposed. The proposal in the Bill is the least bad step, given that I do not see the need for change. I am still concerned, as I believe that the case is unique—the DPP has said that. There are no other examples where his consent is required for an arrest, and of course, there are roles for people later on.

I will be interested to listen to the Minister’s response to the suggestion by Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty to put the DPP on notice, which I believe is the situation in a number of other countries—or a rough equivalent, as not all legal systems fit—where the DPP is told of the arrest happening and has the ability to step in. That would remove my concern about a pocket veto, where the DPP just does not get round to acting fast enough. I am interested to hear from the Minister why that cannot be done. Although Mr Starmer was careful to neither support nor oppose the changes, he seemed open to the suggestion.

I want to clarify some of my earlier points. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I have misunderstood the Government’s position, and I would be grateful if he did so. He confirmed that the Government’s opinion is that the DPP should take evidence and process it ahead of an application. If that is the Government’s position, it is welcome—again, I look to the Minister to correct me if I am wrong. We have already heard that the DPP will have a team ready. The Minister did not comment on the idea that the threshold test should be used when time is short. I would be grateful if he were to confirm that the Government intend that, where time is tight, the threshold test would be used as Mr Starmer outlined.

The Minister has commented on the powerful weight in favour of prosecuting such cases, and I thank him for that, because it is an important safeguard against over-politicisation of the process. I would like confirmation that the Government intend that the DPP should not wait too long. We must avoid the pocket veto situation, and we want a yes or a no from the DPP within the time frames available. Again, I hope that that is the Government’s intention and, if I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me.

Will the Minister support a mechanism to report back on cases when the DPP does not act fast enough? That does not mean that it will be the DPP’s fault—he might have been given insufficient evidence or too much evidence, too late, that he cannot consider. However, it would be helpful to know of cases when he did not make such a decision. If he were to say, “There is no evidence here,” I would have no problem. I am interested in cases when he has not got around to looking at matters. I hope that the Minister will respond to the specific issues that I have raised. I take from his silence so far that I have understood clearly what he has said.

I am not wild about the change, because I do not see the need for it. I accept the mood of members of the Committee who feel that we should go there. It is the lowest step, and I am mollified by the approach of Mr Starmer. The change will not do much damage to our ability to prosecute such cases. I hope that it will work out. We shall have to keep an eye on whether it does work or whether it hinders our abilities.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Does the hon. Member for Hendon, whose intervention I curtailed, want to contribute to the debate before I call the Minister to speak?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

No, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge raised the issue rather well that I wished to intervene on, which was the selectivity of people using the current system of universal jurisdiction.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I will endeavour to answer all the questions put to me by members of the Committee. First, the hon. Member for Gedling asked how the decision would be taken. The public interest factors that the DPP will consider are a matter for him. He made it clear in his evidence session that the factors are clearly set out in the code, and he explained how he would attempt to reach a judgment. I shall not elaborate on anything further that the DPP said at the time, because he set out his views quite clearly so it would be wrong for me to attempt to do so. The code is available for anyone who wishes to see it.

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the fact that we already entrust the DPP with discretion in several other areas?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am happy to confirm that. It is why we ask the DPP to exercise his judgment according to the principles that are set out and to act in the public interest.

Secondly, the hon. Member for Gedling asked me to confirm that the proposals will not weaken the ability to bring to justice people who are alleged to have committed the most serious crimes. I discussed that matter in relation to an earlier amendment, but I repeat that the clause will not remove the right of private prosecution. It does not interfere with the offences of universal jurisdiction, and private individuals will still be able to apply for a warrant. There is no intention to weaken the ability to bring criminals to justice, when they have committed very serious crimes. All we are saying is that there should be a realistic prospect of a viable prosecution taking place. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee have set out why that might not happen under the current arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the time taken, a matter which we dealt with in an earlier debate to everyone’s satisfaction. I repeat that the DPP said in his evidence that he would act as quickly as he could. Diplomatic immunity would not help all concerned who might be the subject of warrants because serving Heads of State, Governments and Ministers of Foreign Affairs have immunity from criminal jurisdiction. Immunity can attach to other senior Ministers who travel by virtue of their office, but it does not extend to all Ministers, and warrants have been served against persons who are not serving Ministers, including Members of Parliaments in other countries.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the position of Israel, and he asked specifically for an assurance that this is not a measure that simply responds to the concerns of the Israeli Government. I can confirm that the question of arrest warrants for universal jurisdiction offences has been under review for a considerable period—he noted that it was under review by the previous Government—and the Government have repeatedly made clear our commitment to addressing existing anomalies. He also pointed out that Henry Kissinger was subject to an attempt to issue a warrant.

The hon. Gentleman asked about systems in other countries. It is true that other countries with legal systems similar to our own allow private prosecutions—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—but we are not aware that other countries have the same problem as we do in respect of the ability to issue warrants and the lower threshold, as a consequence, that has to be met in order for the warrant to be issued, which is the whole basis of our concern.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about liaison with the Attorney-General. That was also covered in the DPP’s oral evidence to the Committee, when a number of us probed that quite carefully. The DPP and the Attorney-General will each have distinct legal functions in respect of the case, and the conventions according to which they carry them out in relation to one another are, in general terms, articulated in a protocol published in July 2009. If the Attorney-General’s consent is requested, it is likely, although not inevitable, that that request would be made after the DPP has taken his own independent decision in the way he described to the Committee. There may well be further evidence, or other relevant information or representations before the Attorney-General, which may not be available at the time that the DPP is considering the case. The DPP was at pains to point out that his office was independent and that he would take the decision independently, albeit with the normal consultation.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Just to reiterate, this issue is extremely important. The hon. Member for Cambridge raised the point, which the Minister rightly pointed out came up in the evidence sessions, so the independence of the DPP vis-à-vis the Attorney-General is important. Clearly, people do not want the Attorney-General to take the decision to agree the arrest warrant, because of concerns about the politicisation of the process. People are seeking the reassurance that, although it is the DPP who gives consent to the arrest warrant being granted, the Attorney-General cannot influence it through discussions that may take place. The protocol and the points that the Minister has raised—and, indeed, that the DPP made in the evidence sessions—are extremely important, so that people are aware that the Government are seeking to do all they can to maintain the integrity and independence of that DPP decision.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The DPP said in his oral evidence that

“the code is clear, and I am clear, that the decision is the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, taken independently”.––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 129, Q254.]

He also pointed out in his evidence in another place that his decision would be reviewable. He was quite clear that he would take his decisions on an independent basis. He was equally clear that it would be proper for him to consult a number of people, including the Attorney-General.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Does my right hon. Friend think that a judicial review would be helpful in this case, given the time-sensitive nature of most of these decisions?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the significance of the fact that a decision is reviewable. Decisions must be taken properly, and the DPP pointed out that the decision is reviewable, so if it is not taken properly it can be exposed in the courts. I appreciate that that would not necessarily deal with the timing issue, but it is one of the safeguards that ensure that decisions are taken on a proper basis.

Michael Ellis (Conservative, Northampton North)

Does the Minister accept that it is possible for the High Court to act with considerable expedition in certain circumstances? That is an extra safeguard on, for example, injunctions against newspapers and periodicals for defamation actions being obtained very quickly. That might assist the Minister, along with the deterrent effect.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am not sure how helpful my hon. Friend is being—[ Interruption. ] I do so enjoy this legal advice. I am not sure whether I wish to explore any further the idea that the High Court could issue an injunction against the DPP, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point that the processes need not necessarily be lengthy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has found himself in a minority in the Committee in arguing the need for the provisions. There is a general agreement between the Government and the official Opposition, although not between all hon. Members, that there is a need to act here. The previous Government decided to take action, and we are taking a slightly different approach, the reasons for which we have explained. My hon. Friend conceded that there is a risk of grandstanding, but went on to say that under the arrangements the pressure groups could still get publicity. I disagree with him, and think that he misses the point. Those groups could perhaps still get publicity, but we are seeking to address the real fear that people cannot visit this country without running the risk of a warrant being issued against them, and that fear would not be addressed if we took no action.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I am interested to hear the Minister’s comments on the helpful suggestion in the written submission from Hickman and Rose, which stated that

“genuine victims making genuine applications would have no complaint if frivolous or vexatious applicants were made the subject of wasted costs orders”.

That might be a more effective way to reduce grandstanding.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am happy to look at that proposal, but I hold that requiring both the DPP’s consent and a minimal evidential threshold is perfectly reasonable, and I do not think that a case has been made against that position.

My hon. Friend raised a couple of other issues, and I apologise if I did not address them earlier. One was that the director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, suggested in evidence to the Committee that it might be better to put the DPP on notice of an application for a warrant, so that the arguments could be put to the magistrate. The DPP has not previously considered that, and I do not know what his further advice might be, but my hon. Friend will recall that his immediate response was:

“I am not sure whether it would make a considerable difference, because we would probably apply the same approach.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 130, Q74.]

The Government believe that the consent formula is better, because it makes it clear that the director must be put in possession of the evidence on which to base his decision.

Finally, my hon. Friend sought confirmation on the threshold. The DPP said that he would assess the case on that basis if time were very tight, but I reiterate that the Government’s position is that that is an independent decision for him to make.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The hon. Member for Cambridge made a point about the monitoring of decisions to ensure that the change, which, as the Minister knows, we support, does not have unintended consequences and works as we all expect it to. I know that all legislation is monitored, but it is particularly important that we respect these individual cases and the concern people have that this may lead to people escaping justice who one would want to see brought before the courts. Does the Minister have any comment on that?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The hon. Gentleman knows that the general formulation is that the Government keep all aspects of such policy under review, as we have indicated today. We recognise that fears that have been expressed about this change, but they are not properly grounded and I have sought to answer them today. However, the Government’s determination to ensure that criminals are brought to justice is undiminished, including in relation to very serious offences where universal jurisdiction applies. It is proper, therefore, for us to ensure that there is no adverse effect on that process, if Parliament agrees to implement that change; I do not believe that there will be.

Clause 155

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Obviously, different powers will come into play at different points, subject to their passage through Parliament, which is the case with all legislation. With respect to the debate we have had about the commencement of the universal jurisdiction part of the Bill, when does the Minister expect that to become law? Will it be immediate? Does it become law as soon as the Bill obtains Royal Assent?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Yes, on Royal Assent.

New Clause 9

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 3—Police reform: minor and consequential amendments.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

The Government new clause and the Government new schedule amend relevant provisions in previous legislation to bring them in line with the changes contained in the Bill. They insert a replacement clause 99, giving effect to a replacement schedule 15. I will explain to the Committee why we need to make these changes at this stage.

As the Committee knows, we are abolishing police authorities in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan Police Authority, and replacing them with police and crime commissioners and, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. As a consequence, we have to change all the references to police authorities in Acts of Parliament affecting England and Wales. There are well over 500 of these references in all. Some of them are being changed by the main provisions of the Bill, which we have already debated, but others are of less significance and fall to be dealt with as consequential amendments. Some of this work was done prior to introduction and was reflected in the original schedule 15, but there was not time prior to introduction to make all the necessary amendments. That is why we now wish to substitute a new and complete schedule 15 now, which contains all the necessary consequential amendments.

We have debated all the substantive points in relation to police and crime commissioners already, during our consideration of the main clauses of the Bill. There is nothing further in these amendments that I believe is of particular note or controversy. In the majority of cases they simply replace references to police authorities, references to police and crime commissioners, to the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and to the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority. Where it is necessary to include all three, a reference to local policing bodies is substituted. In a few cases, the reference to a police authority is replaced by a reference to the chief officer of police, because the legislation in question concerns police staff who are going to be employed by chief officers in the future.

I will draw attention to some of the additions. Paragraphs 135 and 386 of new schedule 3 deal with the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Equality Act 2010 respectively. Inserting references to police and crime commissioners and the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime ensures that those bodies will be subject to the same equalities duties as police authorities are now. Paragraphs 332 to 336 deal with the Children Act 2004 and ensure that PCCs will have the same responsibilities to promote and safeguard the welfare of children as police authorities do now.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Those are not minor and consequential amendments, as the Minister suggested at the outset. The fact that he has highlighted them is important, and the Committee should bear in mind what the Government are saying. Making PCCs subject to the effects of the 1976 Act and the 2010 Act is important, and child protection is an important issue that concerns people. The Minister is making a significant statement, and I thank him for it.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those paragraphs were actually in the original schedule 15, but I mention them now to reassure the Committee that they have been retained in the new version. We discussed those matters in an earlier sitting, and we agreed that they were important. Therefore, I hope that all hon. Members will support the new clause.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My intervention was obviously not clear. I was trying to highlight the importance of what the Minister was saying—not that I had not realised that they were in the Bill.

New Clause 12

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 6—‘Police: complaints. ’

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

New clause 12 relates to new provisions to deal with police complaints. The police complaints system is an important safeguard in holding the police to account. The focus of the system should be to allow people who are dissatisfied with the provision of a policing service to make a complaint, and for that complaint to be appropriately dealt with. The Independent Police Complaints Commission, as guardian of the system, conducted a review following four years of operational experience which found that the statutory provisions for the handling of complaints included some processes that are either no longer necessary or are unnecessarily bureaucratic, which can go against the effective handling of complaints. New clause 12 is a result of that review. The changes will make the police complaints system more effective and efficient. They will afford additional discretion to the police service to deal with low-level complaints, with the focus on dealing with the complainant’s dissatisfaction, rather than on bureaucratic processes.

Turning to the specifics of the changes, we intend to allow the IPCC greater flexibility in carrying out its functions. The minimum number of commissioners required in the IPCC will be reduced from 10 to five, and the IPCC will no longer require the consent of the Secretary of State for the delegation of its functions. The changes will remove the provision that currently excludes complaints relating to the direction and control of a force from being handled in the police complaints system. Currently those complaints are dealt with under a parallel process of informal resolution governed by Home Office guidance. We are also changing the definition of the conduct that can be the subject of a complaint, making it clear that decisions, as well as acts, omissions and statements, are included.

The changes will simplify the process for complainants by ensuring that all matters of concern about the standard of service provided by the police are addressed within a single system. Complaints of a nature set out in regulations, such as those that are vexatious or an abuse of the complaints system, will no longer have to be recorded by the police. That will remove the bureaucratic process that requires police forces to record complaints and then apply to the IPCC to dispense with them.

Low-level complaints, described by the IPCC as relating to police officers being rude and late, will be the responsibility of police forces, which will have the flexibility to determine how best to respond to the complaint, whether by investigation or by other methods such as mediation. A complainant will have a right of appeal to the chief constable. Police and crime commissioners will be able to ensure that chief constables have fulfilled their duty in the handling of such complaints.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Do I understand that the Minister intends to introduce regulations to identify what is meant by low-level complaints? Clearly, if someone is being rude, the police should not necessarily always have to send that matter to the IPCC—that is a sensible change—but where is the line drawn?

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

It will be determined in regulations. That is my understanding. I emphasise that police and crime commissioners will also have a role, which is another reason for the new clause.

Commissioners will have the same responsibility that police authorities have now to keep themselves informed about the handling of complaints, but they will also have an additional power to direct chief constables to take action in case of a failure to deal with a complaint appropriately. I do not wish to set up an entirely new complaints machinery in the office of the police and crime commissioner, as that would be an unwelcome duplication. However, we think that police and crime commissioners should have a role in ensuring that low-level complaints are dealt with properly.

In cases where a complaint reveals that a police officer’s performance is unsatisfactory, the IPCC will have the power to recommend and direct that unsatisfactory performance proceedings be brought against them, which is the same power that the IPCC has in respect of misconduct matters. The IPCC will retain its oversight of the whole system and direct involvement in dealing with the most serious complaints. It will continue to have the power to call in any complaint that it determines should be referred to it.

The measures will improve the handling of police complaints by removing bureaucratic processes from the system and ensuring a focus on dealing with the complainant’s concern. Committee members may note that the written submission from the Independent Police Complaints Commission says:

“The Independent Police Complaints Commission is pleased that the Government has tabled an amendment to the Bill to give effect to some of the ideas generated by our review of the police complaints system”.

It concludes:

“The IPCC is committed to increasing confidence in the police complaints system and it will continue to work with Home Office officials to deliver this aim within the framework set by Parliament.”

I believe that the changes will deliver an improvement to the complaints system. We wanted to consult carefully with the IPCC before introducing the measures, which is why I have introduced them at this stage. I also wanted to introduce them in Committee rather than on Report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I did so to give him a bit more time to consider before Report whether he is happy with the proposals, and perhaps to discuss them with the IPCC. I believe that they represent a sensible improvement and reflect police and crime commissioners’ new role.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The Minister was right to put the schedule to the Committee in the way he did so that we could consider it. To be fair, I need to look at it in a lot more detail myself and to go through all the different points. I have been in touch with the IPCC, and it is satisfied with the Minister’s proposals.

There is some scope for discussion. As always, the devil is in the detail, which is why, as the Minister rightly said, the document will say in a couple of places that the provisions are subject to further regulations. The big issue is what counts as a low-level complaint. That is not easy to define, and it is even difficult in regulations; sometimes, it is a matter of professional discretion. At one level, it is easy to say that these things should not involve a huge amount of bureaucracy and time, with things going up to the IPCC and so on.

There is always scope for those involved in a complaints procedure to see what they can do to sift out vexatious or trivial complaints, or complaints that could be dealt with by someone asking, “Can’t you say sorry?” That is not to trivialise people’s complaints, but people do not always want millions of pounds of compensation or for others to be dragged through the courts and sacked; they just want someone to listen to their problem, to act on it and, if necessary, to issue an apology. Of course, there are times when that is not appropriate, and more serious action must be pursued. In some circumstances, however, that is not the case.

Will the Minister say a little more about what role he sees for the police and crime commissioner in the complaints process? Some of this will come out later, but what complaints do we envisage going to the police and crime commissioner? The chief constable is responsible for operational matters. If somebody complains about an operational matter that they feel a police officer has got wrong, we would automatically assume that that would initially be a matter for the line manager of the sergeant, inspector or superintendent involved. Obviously, if the matter is serious and it is not resolved, it will go up the tree to the chief constable. What sort of complaints does the Minister envisage going to the police and crime commissioner? Not operational matters? Some operational matters? If so, which ones? There is a lack of clarity about what the provisions mean.

At the moment, people have the right to take a complaint to the IPCC. I apologise if this is in the Bill and I have not seen it, but is the ability to make such complaints still available to an individual? Does the new schedule retain the right for somebody to take a complaint about policing in their area to the IPCC for it to consider?

The new schedule also gives the IPCC a new power to direct unsatisfactory performance procedures. Will the Minister say a little about what powers he envisages the IPCC having to direct such procedures? Why is that change included? My understanding is that the IPCC does not have that power at the moment, but the new schedule includes such a power. There is always an issue about performance, but we are talking about complaints about performance, rather than performance itself. Again, I would like some clarification of that issue. As regards the membership of the IPCC, the Minister referred to the number five, and my understanding is that that is a minimum, not a maximum. It is not that there will be five commissioners, but that there can be five or more.

With those few questions, which begin to address the more detailed issues, I will leave it there. The Minister is right to try to make the system less bureaucratic and easier, but the provision relates to the fundamental rights of people to be able to complain about the police, and to have an independent body to look at that. There is a lack of clarity about the role of the PCC, and I would like the Minister to say more about that. The issue of what constitutes low level is extremely difficult.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because those are important matters, and the provisions will slightly change the system, so it is important that we all understand how it will work. I am due to write to him about several issues, and I am happy to do so before Report to set out how the new system will work for each type of complaint, so that he can see how it will work and that we can all be satisfied that it will deal with complaints in the right way.

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue of low-level complaints. There were 31,259 complaints recorded by police authorities in England and Wales in 2008-09, of which 41% were dealt with by local resolution. The vast majority of complaints fell into two categories—21% under incivility, impoliteness and intolerance, and 24% under other neglect or failure in duty. There should be capacity to deal with those kinds of complaints, which are important to members of the public, but are not the result of misconduct and need to be investigated at a different level. Such complaints should be dealt with by the organisation through local resolution, while ensuring that there is a right of appeal to the chief constable if the complainant is not happy.

That brings two matters into question. First, is the right to go to the IPCC still available? The answer is yes. Secondly, what is the role of the police and crime commissioner? I have considered that matter carefully, because one question I asked myself was whether the PCC should take responsibility for low-level complaints, although the IPCC would remain in charge of issues relating to misconduct. I concluded that the problem was, as I have said, that we would have to set up an entire complaints machinery in each PCC’s office, which would duplicate the complaints machinery in each force.

It is better that PCCs have oversight, as they will be under a duty to keep abreast of all of their force’s activities. They will focus primarily on the direction and control of the force, but we will give them a specific power to direct chief constables to take action on complaints, where there has been a failure to deal appropriately with a complaint. That is an additional safeguard so that, where an appeal has gone to a chief constable and someone is unhappy, there is oversight on how that matter has been dealt with. Of course, the PCC has a particular role on complaints against the chief constable.

I think that we have arrived at a sensible balance. To some extent, the situation will evolve, depending on how far people address future complaints to the PCC rather than to the force, although that might still result in the complaint being handed to the force, and the PCC wanting to be certain that it has been appropriately dealt with. In general terms, the deputy mayor for policing in London said that when the change in arrangements was made in London, there was a big increase in the volume of correspondence received by the Mayor as that position became more visible in relation to policing. That is not the same as saying that they should have formal responsibility for a complaints procedure. We want to avoid unnecessary duplication.

I would be happy to write to the hon. Member for Gedling, setting out in a little more detail a map of procedures on different complaints that shows how we can be sure that we are not unintentionally creating any kind of lacuna or fettering the right of complaint. I do not believe that we are, and the IPCC would have told me and the hon. Gentleman if that had been the case.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It would be helpful if he wrote to me, and copied the letter to other Committee members, showing how the new schedule would work. It is a fact of life that schedules have a lot of the detail. There is an enabling clause, with a related schedule with pages of detail. That detail is extremely important. While everyone would want the complaints procedure to become less bureaucratic, in a democracy it is important in maintaining confidence in the police and ensuring that they are accountable in the way that we would all want—I know the Minister agrees with that. If he set out some of the issues that I have raised—dealing with vexatious complaints; what “low level” means; and some of the processes involved—that would be extremely helpful.

The Minister should consider further what the role of the PCC will be. I accept that we do not want to set up 43 mini IPCCs or whatever around the country, attached to the PCC’s office, duplicating the role of the IPCC. The Minister said that he envisages a role for the police and crime commissioner. That is fine, but people reading our proceedings and people seeking to implement the legislation need to know a little more about what that role is, particularly when it comes to matters of operational independence, which we will come to later. It is about complaints, not about civility, but about other issues that arise. I know that there are measures on misconduct, but if that role is blurred, there will be a problem. I will leave it there, but the Minister’s offer to write to us will make a lot of difference.

There were one or two specific things that I asked about things such as unsatisfactory performance procedures and how they will work, but the Minister will no doubt answer those in his letter. Some of those questions on the procedures are extremely detailed, so it would be helpful for all of us to receive a letter that sets that out.

New Clause 2

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is going to be one of the most glorious speeches I have ever made. It will go down in the annals of history that at 10.23 am, two minutes before we adjourn, I made this speech. We will obviously continue the debate in the afternoon sitting, but this is an extremely important new clause. One of the things that the Minister may want to check with his officials is when a draft memorandum of understanding or code of practice, whatever we want to call it, will be issued on how the relationship between the PCC and the chief constable will work, because I will press him on that later. The Minister knows how important I, and people out there, think the code of practice is. It gives us a template to take this forward. It would help the Minister’s case enormously to have a draft available to discuss with people.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Good afternoon, Mr Chope. I welcome you back to the Chair and members of the Committee back to our last sitting. Unfortunately, judging by the Home Office programme, it seems that we will have more Bills, but I do not know whether we will all be members of the Committees that consider them.

Interestingly, I remember that when the Government were in opposition they said that it was ridiculous for the House to consider so many Home Office Bills in one year. I know that this is their first year in government and they are flushed with enthusiasm and excitement, but I remember being lectured at great length about being unable to scrutinise and plan such Bills properly—but that was in a different era.

The new clause is extremely important. Our debate on the Bill has been interesting—we have agreed with much of it in principle, but have sometimes disagreed, or required clarification, on its detail. That has not been the case with the provision for a single individual to be responsible for a police force, and the establishment of the police and crime commissioners. We will return, on Report, to the matter of one person being responsible for a huge geographical area, about which various concerns have been expressed by a range of stakeholders. It would be interesting if the Minister published all the responses that the Home Office received to that consultation, rather than only a summary. Publishing such a summary is usually a good way of hiding the fact that there has not been much support for a measure.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

No.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Perhaps the Minister will demonstrate that I am wrong by publishing all the responses.

The flaw at the heart of the Bill is that there is no proper check and balance on the work of the police and crime commissioner. I hear that concern everywhere I go. The Minister, people who surround the Prime Minister, and one or two others do not agree, but that does not alter the fact that the vast majority of people recognise that failure and its huge bearing on operational independence. Such concern is shared by the hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cambridge, judging by the number of amendments that they tabled to strengthen the power of the police and crime panel over the commissioner. The police and crime panel is a toothless watchdog. We have no draft of the memorandum of understanding between the commissioner and the constable on operational independence, which makes the concern even more acute.

People talk about operational dependence. I remind the Committee that the Metropolitan police have stated:

“Accountability is essential to securing an efficient and effective police service, as is the operational independence of Chief Officers.”

The Minister will say that he agrees, but those concerns are real. It has also stated:

“New governance structures must have operational independence as their overriding principle… Chief Officers must have the ‘space’ to do the job they were employed to do”.

Under the new clause, the Minister could say that he understands those fears and concerns, and knows what people are saying, but that they have no need to worry. He could say, “Don’t worry about it. I know there’s a problem, but the Bill sets up the new model in such a way that it won’t cause the problem people think”.

The Minister regards the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives as a dinosaur and its members as people who will not vote for their own demise at Christmas, people who are out of touch and standing in the way of the progressive nature of the new Government determined to bring democratic accountability to policing that has never existed before. I know all about the idealistic out-of-touch vision of where policing should go. Let us consider APACE, a body that the Minister listens to and agrees has greater validity than the Association of Police Authorities, although the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is a great fan of APA and often quotes it in support of his amendments. APACE says that

“There will be issues which the commissioner will consider legitimate in their governance but which chief constables will argue are a matter of operational independence. Examples include a promise to increase visibility of police officers in neighbourhoods or the use of sensitive counter-terrorism powers. Strong governance, together with the minimisation of potential conflict and confusion, will only be ensured by high quality and carefully crafted legislation.”

The new clause would give the Minister the opportunity to have the carefully crafted legislation wanted by APACE.

Paul McKeever, the chairman of the Police Federation, said that the

“commissioner should not be allowed to impinge on that operational side of policing. That is the sort of area that needs to be clarified as the Bill goes through Parliament, to ensure that there is an understanding and that we do not have bickering.”

The Association of Police Authorities, which I cannot resist quoting—notwithstanding the Minister’s view of its membership—said:

“The proposed system could therefore incentivize PCCs to seek conflict with Chief Officers”,

alluding to our earlier point about PCCs elected on a particular mandate to pursue a particular style of policing and to encourage chief constables to change how areas are policed.

What are we proposing? The new clause is meant in the spirit of helpful co-operation to the Minister. I shall put it on the record again that it is absolutely essential that the draft or even a draft of a draft of the code of practice defines the responsibilities of the police and crime commissioner, vis-à-vis the chief constable under the new model of governance, and that the Minister has confirmed that he is taking that forward.

Discussions are going on at the Home Office and, presumably, with ACPO and others to develop the draft. I accept that it is not an easy process, none the less it is an essential process. How much easier it would be for the House of Commons to debate whether the Minister has found a way of resolving the tension between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable if we had the draft in front of us and understood some of the principles that he expects to operate under the new model. Will he give us some idea of the things that will be included in the draft and tell us about some initial thinking?

Will the Minister not just say that he expects the draft as soon as possible, but say when we can expect the draft of the draft? Notwithstanding our difference on the issue, I honestly believe that each member of the Committee is now interested in seeing a copy of the draft. When it comes to the Bill being debated on Report and beyond, people will want more information and certainly a copy of the draft of the code of practice. I understand the problems, but the chief constable of the West Midlands police authority said that it would help the Committee’s deliberations and the understanding of those outside Parliament if the code of practice were available.

The code of practice is of such importance, as is people’s concern about the politicisation of policing. They are worried across the board that the model will lead to politicisation. Under the new clause, when the Minister has moved beyond the draft code of practice identifying the operational independence of chief constables when dealing with police and crime commissioners, it should be laid before Parliament, so that hon. Members and Members of the House of Lords have the opportunity to discuss the draft, with its approval being subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That would give some reassurance to those who have articulated concerns about politicisation.

I do not want to be too long, so I will finish with this thought. Surely, if every police authority, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, local authorities and individual Members of Parliament— virtually everyone—are united in their concerns and worries about the new model, the Minister should try to deal with that by adopting the new clause. The alternative is that the code of practice is agreed somewhere, but what scrutiny will Parliament or any Member have over it? Parliament should scrutinise it, because it is of such importance and is such a fundamental part of the new model that the Minister wants.

If the Minister rejects the new clause, it is incumbent on him to explain how the draft code of practice will be arrived at, who will agree it and what process will be followed to bring it about. I say again that I have respectfully and politely asked the Minister to accelerate the production of the draft, so that we can consider it. I cannot say how strongly I feel. I am opposed to the principle of the Bill, but I feel extremely strongly that the draft should be made available to us, certainly before Report, because Parliament is entitled to have it when considering something so fundamental. I respectfully ask the Minister again to tell us when we can expect the draft to be put before us, so that we can see exactly what the new code of practice will encompass.

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

Good afternoon, Mr Chope. I accept that that issue is important, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised it.

First, on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the number of criminal justice Bills, it is worth noting that the last Government presided over 50 such Bills, which was equivalent to creating a new crime every day between 1997 and 2010. There is, of course, a difference in approach, because the Protection of Freedoms Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be piloting through this House is seeking to do the opposite; to look at where we can deal with unnecessary legislation and burdens and protect liberties. It is a fundamentally different approach. This police and crime Bill does not create new criminal offences; it seeks to secure greater accountability of policing. We are not introducing criminal justice Bills in the same way that the previous Government did.

I will not let the hon. Gentleman’s description of police and crime panels as “toothless” go. He is repeating this, but we had an extensive debate about police and crime panels during which I noted that the panels now have powers of veto in two key areas, as well as a lot of other powers. It is not possible to say that a body is toothless when it has the power of veto over a proposal made by a democratically elected figure, which the police and crime commissioner is. That is simply an inappropriate description. It is valid to argue that it should have more powers, but to say that it is toothless actually takes a rhetorical attack on police and crime panels rather too far.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of what he has called a code of practice on the operational independence of chief constables, and that has been an important debate in the Committee. I will not rehearse our discussion, but I will respond to what he is trying to secure through this new clause. First, I reiterate my commitment on Second Reading to introduce what I then called a protocol to govern this relationship. I said on 13 December:

“The Chairman of the Committee suggested that a memorandum of understanding might be the means by which that”—

in other words, operational independence—

“could be achieved. That is a good idea and the Government have already said that we will sit down with ACPO once the Bill is enacted and agree an extra-statutory protocol—I am sure that we can discuss these issues as the Bill makes progress--that will set out the terms of agreement to ensure that operational independence is protected. There is agreement between us and ACPO--it is important that the Opposition understand this—that we should not seek to define operational independence in the Bill. That is a matter for case law.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 769.]

So although the terms “memorandum of understanding”, suggested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and “protocol”, which I proposed, having discussed the matter with ACPO, have been used interchangeably—I may, myself, have used the term “memorandum of understanding”—it is the proposal for an extra-statutory protocol to which I committed myself on Second Reading. I was clear then that what I envisaged was that we should negotiate that with ACPO once the Bill was enacted. I see no reason why we should not begin work on this protocol. Indeed, I have already invited ACPO to do so. It is important that we make progress with this.

I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that this is something in which Parliament will take an interest during the progress of the Bill. I also understand the force of his argument that this is something that Parliament will wish to debate when it is agreed. I take both of those points. I cannot commit now to an absolute deadline for when this document will be agreed. I cannot commit to that, because it requires us to sit down with ACPO and others. I just draw to his attention the fact that the memorandum of understanding in Northern Ireland—governing the new policing arrangements—has been under discussion for 11 years. I appreciate that that is Northern Ireland and there are particular sensitivities, but it is still not agreed. I do not want to be unrealistic and set an artificial timetable that cannot be met.

I accept the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman tabled the new clause—that it would help the Government to make progress. It would be helpful to everyone if we could make progress with the protocol and that is what I am saying to ACPO as well. I made the concession to have such a protocol precisely because I wished to reassure ACPO, and others considering the proposals, that we were serious about ensuring operational independence.

We need to be careful about the content of the protocol and giving further clarification. I hold to what I said, which is that we are not seeking to define operational independence in the document. It is right that we maintain the basic architecture, as we do in the Bill, that chief constables have control and direction of their forces. That is restated in the Bill and we do not seek to define operational independence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Chris Sims, the chief constable of the West Midlands force. In his evidence to us, he confirmed that he did not wish to see operational independence defined. I believe that that is still the view of ACPO.

So we need to be careful about how much detail such a protocol should have. The protocol should clearly define, for the benefit of the parties concerned, their roles and responsibilities in a way that makes it easier to understand—rather than having to simply read the legislation—and which also draws on historical precedent. For example, such a document might use the words “operational independence”, which are not actually used in any legislation about control and direction. As to whether the protocol should go into any greater detail, that is highly questionable. We would then trespass into the area of seeking to define a relationship and a mode of operation that has been debated for many years in the courts. Ultimately, should there be a breakdown, that would have to be settled in the courts and I do not think we would get anywhere by that.

The various different parties would like clarity—as much clarity as we are able to give them. Those parties are not just the chief constable or the police and crime commissioner. There are others in this new relationship too. The police and crime panels should have clarity about what their role is and what it is not. There are some who still believe that a police and crime panel should be about scrutinising a force. The protocol would have to remind police and crime panels that their job, as set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner and his actions. The protocol, therefore, is intended to be a clarification of the responsibilities and working arrangements of the new bodies.

Another party to that relationship is the Home Office, and central Government. What is the role of the Home Office in the new landscape and of other agencies that form a part of the new national landscape; for example, the national crime agency? Once we start to consider that they too will be involved—the national crime agency is not involved yet as we have not introduced the legislation to create it, though we have announced that we wish to create it—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that this is not a document that will be drafted overnight. Equally, it is clearly a document that we need to have in place before 2012, because that is when those offices will take over and the elections will be held. That is in well over a year’s time, of course. I am not suggesting that it should take that length of time to agree, but it would be unwise of us to be pushed into an artificial timetable to draw up this document.

There is also the question of the extent to which the document is affected by debate in this place and in the other place. I want the hon. Gentleman to understand that I am not dismissing what he is saying. It is desirable that Parliament should debate this and that something should be available for further stages of consideration of the Bill. I am realistic about not committing to an artificial timetable that I might not be able to deliver on, because it does not involve only the Government. That is the point.

Finally, we could further consider whether the protocol should be a statutory code of practice. This is not statutory guidance that then becomes part of the definition of operational independence itself. That would be a real problem. We need to be clear on what this is not. We can come to whether there should be statutory approval of the protocol in due course, but we are not yet at a place where we can decide that. I am trying to recognise the force of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes; I am not dismissing them and I accept that he is making them in good faith. I want to make rapid progress with ACPO in drawing up this protocol. I recognise that it wants the protocol, too, and that it would be helpful to further consideration if we had a draft, but I cannot commit to a firm timetable at this point. Also, this should not be a statutory document subject to statutory approval before we have discussed the nature of the document further with the various parties. This is an ongoing debate, not the end of the debate.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I thank the Minister for his reply. I will not return to the PCP. He knows my views on the PCP, and every time I say that it is a toothless watchdog, he gets up and explains why it is not. I did note that he said that it was a valid to comment to make, if someone thinks that the PCP should have more power, which is exactly my point—I think it should have more power, so it is obviously a valid point. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the protocol should not define operational independence. That is a generally accepted point. I also accept his point on not having an artificial timetable.

Before I return to the new clause, I understand that it will take a while to negotiate and come up with something that is not just a draft, but a proposal for discussion and adoption. However, in discussions in Committee, on Report, and when the Bill goes to the other place, we need to see what it will look like. I am not asking for a document to be put before Parliament for agreement; I am asking for a document that will give us some idea of what it will look like and some of the things that it will contain. That would be helpful for the Minister, rather than his talking about this nebulous idea of a protocol, without our being sure of what it is. I know that that will be difficult, and that it will take time to put together and that there will be disagreement and debate. If such a proposal can be drafted, however, it would be helpful.

The Minister recognises the force of what is being said in the new clause, which goes to the heart of the Bill—he will know that from his meetings and discussions with lots of different people. Notwithstanding the model that he is setting up, if he does not get it right, there will be problems. He has agreed that Parliament should be involved in a process—he did not commit himself to what that is—of discussions on the protocol when it is finally put together. I look forward to that, because I think it is important.

I will press the new clause to a vote, because seeing the division of opinion in the Committee on the new clause is an important way of ensuring that we, as a responsible Opposition, keep pressure on the Government to ensure that some of the commitments made by the Minister in what was a reasonably helpful response in many respects are met.

New Clause 3

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I had the great pleasure of being able to do drugs with the Under-Secretary on three consecutive days. Two days ago, we discussed the details of the membership of the Committee, and yesterday we discussed the details of specific drugs. Today, I would like to talk about some of the principles underlying the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

There have been a number of discussions over many decades about how successful has the approach in the 1971 Act been. Has prohibition worked? Opposition Members raised concerns about that in yesterday’s Delegated Legislation Committee. The original idea of the 1971 Act was that it would not take long until the drugs were not around, and that the supply of such classified drugs would simply stop. That has definitely been a failure: there is no doubt that there are illegal drugs and large black markets around. I therefore believe it is time to start thinking about whether we are going in the right direction.

A lot of work has been done. One of the previous incarnations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced an extremely good and detailed report, which suggested that more work should be done to look at alternatives. Someone called Cameron even sat on that Committee and supported its conclusions. [Interruption.] He was younger at the time. There is a time to start looking at what is happening. I accept that there will be many different opinions in Committee and outside on what a better solution could be and on how well the 1971 Act is working.

The new clause aims not to push the debate in one way or another, but to say that there should be an independent assessment. We regularly assess and review all sorts of aspects of legislation. I think the Minister referred earlier today to the fact that all legislation is kept under review, and that should apply to this matter as well. An independent assessment of the issue might be helpful to understand some of what is happening.

I am pleased and delighted that, during the debates in the previous couple of days, the Government made it clear that they are committed to an evidence-based drugs policy. That has to be an extremely good way to go. The new clause would reaffirm and strengthen that commitment. It would put regular reviews on a statutory footing and ensure that they happen independently. It would also reflect the speed of change in this policy area. Two days ago, there were comments on the fact that the Misuse of Drugs Act dates back to 1971, and that various other provisions are simply outdated. An independent assessment would enable us to find out and check that the legislation is fit for purpose and that we have learned from what has happened in the years since 1971.

An independent assessment would give the Secretary of State a firmer basis on which to base policy judgments, which would be helpful. We have had a commitment to evidence-based policy in, for example, advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but it is harder to do that on a wider spectrum without large-scale measures. As a result of the assessment, I hope that we might be able to come up with something that works better. We might come up with something that would be cheaper in terms of police and medical support time, and hopefully something that may further reduce harm. We might not, but it would be worth at least starting to think about how we could assess the Act to find out whether we are on the right lines and whether there is a better alternative that would help more people around the country.

Much as I would love to hear the Minister agree so that we nod the new clause through, I am not expecting that and I do not plan to press the measure to a vote. I hope that in somewhat slower time the Minister will be able to think through the options and think about whether there is a way for Parliament to start such a review process that would apply to this and future Governments. We could have rational discussion on what is the best way, rather than being tied in to a decision that was made in 1971, which seemed very sensible and appropriate at the time. It has simply not worked as well as people thought it would at the time. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Clive Efford (Labour, Eltham)

The hon. Member for Cambridge has raised an important point. I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. The hon. Gentleman is asking for an opportunity to air concerns about drug regulation, which, as he has pointed out, is rapidly changing and developing. Professor Iversen referred to 40 legal highs that are out there and being advertised on the internet, which is a cause for concern. He is not expecting 40 temporary drugs orders to be implemented to try to tackle them, but that demonstrates the need for us to keep the policy under review.

We have had differences in the past. Under the previous Government, there was some controversy in relation to Professor Nutt, who published opinions that went beyond his remit as chair of the council. More recently, there was the controversy involving Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, who similarly had some strange opinions that were not entirely in keeping with his role on the council. Such controversies indicate that it is right for Parliament to have an opportunity to review the position on drugs regulations and legislation.

Professor Iversen asked for certain measures to be included in the Bill, particularly on the need to consult before a temporary drugs order was imposed, but that is not what the Government intend. They intend to deal with the matter through the protocol. But how can Parliament police the protocol if we do not have an opportunity to discuss how drugs regulation and legislation are operating? A review reported back to Parliament would provide that opportunity. After all, there are areas of public service that we regularly debate in Parliament, and we get an opportunity to review what is taking place.

The hon. Member for Cambridge has also highlighted how the 1971 Act was intended to bring abuse of drugs to an end. Clearly, that has not happened. There is a difference of opinion about whether we should legislate at all. The Under-Secretary was present yesterday for the debate in which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) expressed some strident views about drugs regulation, and the futility of it, and how it is not had any implications. In Parliament there is a wide range of views on how we should approach drugs regulation and monitor how effective it has been. In his evidence to us, Professor Iversen suggested that, regarding the classification of drugs under categories A, B or C and the recategorisation of cannabis from B to C, then back from C to B, there was a constant decline in the use of cannabis from 2000, and the change of classification had no impact at all.

There are areas that we need to keep under review and it is right for Parliament to do so. Professor Iversen pointed out that drugs are being manufactured out there that are going straight from the chemistry laboratory to being advertised on the web for people to use. That is a concern, so a review of how the legislation is operating with a report to Parliament would be beneficial.

We should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge for proposing this probing new clause. It is important that Parliament should have oversight of how things are going with regard both to regulating drugs and how the legislation is being applied, and to the activities of the ACMD and its relationship with the Government. That can be strained at times, as both this Government and the previous Government have experienced, so I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

We have a good relationship with the ACMD. As a Minister, I have attended two of their council meetings, which is probably two more than many Ministers have visited the ACMD in years gone by, although I know that some Ministers have done so. It is an important relationship, and I value the advice that the council provides to Government, as reflected in the working protocol that hon. Members have received as part of the Committee’s considerations. The way in which we look at that advice underlines the evidence-based approach. I would stress the importance that is placed on such advice and the statements that have been made in the Government’s new drug strategy.

It might be helpful if I clarified the purpose of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. For four decades, that Act has provided the UK with a coherent legislative framework to meet its international obligations for effective measures to restrict the availability of drugs and their misuse, to protect public health and welfare. In our judgment, it is not in the interests of the UK to challenge its international obligations or to signal its intentions to depart from them.

In the UK, the Misuse of Drugs Act has established a drug classification system based on drug harm, which is well recognised and which provides the criminal justice system with a stable and enduring system that continues to serve its purpose. There is no system of control, or even a system of structuring drug-harm classifications, that is obviously better than the current one. The Misuse of Drugs Act also provides for the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, whose independent expert advisory role to successive UK Governments in shaping the UK’s drug policy is widely acknowledged. Its statutory duty is to keep the situation in the UK under examination in respect to drugs, and it advises on measures which ought to be taken to prevent the misuse of drugs.

The impact of domestic and international prohibition policy on levels of consumption and production globally is key in any meaningful assessment and analysis of the 1971 Act. We do not accept that meaningful figures can be ascribed to the likely public and individual health cost or that it is possible to properly assess the impact of drugs on productivity and industry or on industrial or traffic accidents. Those fundamental difficulties point up the question of whether the task is an appropriate use of research funding. In our judgment, it would not be a proper use of public money. The UK’s successive drugs strategies have already provided the opportunity to review periodically and develop our approach to drugs issues on key aspects of this policy area, such as prevention, reducing supply and effective recovery from dependency.

While the legislation is important, it is only one part of a broad social policy area. To make a comparison with some of the issues that we discussed yesterday, I have to admit that we had slightly more focused discussions on tapentadol and amineptine, but there was still an interesting debate on broader social issues, such as education and public health. Matters need to be viewed in that context, which is why we are developing an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness and value for money of the current drugs strategy.

We also recognise the multiple aspects of drugs issues and are examining the community reintegration of drug-using offenders, for example, as part of the sentencing review. Proposals to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act focus matters in a slightly narrow way. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, but the underlying issue is that the area is complex with a number of different factors, and focusing resource attention on a three-yearly review of the Act is perhaps going in the wrong direction.

We prefer to consider the effectiveness of the new drugs strategy and to have a proper framework. In so doing, I hope to promote a debate on drugs policy by looking at the evidence and taking advice from the advisory council. We want to drive the issue forward and deal with the three matters highlighted in the drugs strategy of reducing demand, restricting supply and promoting recovery. I am not seeking to make a direct partisan point, because the mistake has been happening for several years. For too long, we have not focused enough on how we can take people down the path to recovery to lead meaningful lives and be reintegrated into society so that we do not have the revolving door of offending, and all the pressures that that puts on communities and the Government as a whole.

I welcome this small debate, as I welcomed the debate that we had before Christmas on the legalisation of drugs. While I did not agree with the approach that was taken, it is important that we continue to debate such matters, continue to challenge and continue to look at the evidence. That is an approach that I am comfortable in taking, so I hope that, for those reasons, my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

I thank the Minister for his comments as I do the hon. Member for Eltham, who is coming from a similar direction on such issues. I agree that the matter is complex, and I very much welcome the Minister’s helpful focus on recovery and treatment. Several countries in Europe treat drugs policy principally as a matter for public health rather than principally a matter for the criminal justice system. That is an interesting balance, and I am delighted that the Government are moving more towards the health-based approach rather than criminalisation. That is excellent.

Drugs policy operates on several levels, from the details of which drugs to classify to how the ACMD works. They are all important, and I am delighted that the Minister has such a good relationship with the ACMD and takes its advice so seriously. However, it is still set in a certain direction. The ACMD is not completely free. It has certain tasks, and its role is to issue advice in that direction. Similarly, the strategy is a wider document. It covers a range of issues, but the approach in the strategy is underpinned by the legislation around it. I hope, at some stage, that that will be looked at, and the Minister will be aware of the serious interest in such matters by Members from all parts of both Houses. Obviously, I shall not press the new clause to a Division. I am sure that the Minister will continue to listen to the voices of those who are interested in such matters. Perhaps at a later stage he will support a similar motion or even propose such a provision himself. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Accountability of licensing authority—

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

The two new clauses return us to the issue of the late night levy, on which we had a fairly lengthy and at times heated debate.

New clause 4 would require police forces, in areas where the late night levy applies, to provide details of how it has been spent and the amount of additional policing that has been made available in that area, and to report that to the local authority. The report would be a written record that had to be produced each year, within 12 weeks of the end of the levy period. It would have to include details of the amounts received through the levy and spent by the police in providing policing, and details on the impact of the levy on crime and disorder in the area covered. That is the purpose of both new clauses. New clause 5 deals with the responsibility that would be placed on the licensing authority, and it is almost a mirror to new clause 4 in that the requirements are identical. The licensing authority would also need to provide a report within the same time scale.

The new clauses are meant to be helpful to the Government, because we know that the coalition is committed to transparency. It wants to open up spending and to ensure that everyone is aware of where every penny is spent. The new clauses fit well with the Government’s intended aims. They also fit well with the localism agenda, which we have also referred to at various times in the Committee, and the need for local areas to be clear about what is spent. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government might find the new clauses very attractive, given his comments about transparency.

The key issue is accountability. As we know from the previous debate, at the moment a licensing authority has an opportunity to decide whether it wants to have a late night levy in its area. We have discussed how it would cover the whole geographical area of that local authority. Under the proposals set out in the Bill as it is drafted, if a late night levy is taken out by the licensing authority, there is no obligation to ensure that the money raised is spent in that area, or is specifically used to fund additional policing or resources for that area. It almost seems as if the late night levy will go into the general pot of expenditure for the police, the local authorities and other bodies that might be able to access that funding.

The new clauses attempt to achieve transparency, so that people can see how much money is raised by the late night levy. The impact assessment mentions that between £9 million and £15 million might be raised by it. If the new clauses are accepted, a clear figure for that would be identified, as would specific details on how much policing is provided.

I can see the Minister of State looking at me over the top of his glasses. He will recall that we had an interesting discussion about how much additional policing will be provided from the late night levy. In that earlier debate, I requested information about how the 70:30 split specified in the Bill for the distribution of the levy had been arrived at, and what the evidence base was for the decision. We had a rather heated exchange about that, and I am still unclear how the Government reached that formula. It would be helpful if the Minister enlightened us today on that 70:30 split.

The new clauses would allow us to be clear about what the late night levy will deliver for businesses and organisations that will have it imposed on them. How much will the levy deliver for them? How many additional police officers will they see in the area of the levy? How many additional cleaning services, for example, will be provided by the local authority with the money that is allocated to it? Those are the key reasons why the new clauses would be helpful to the Government and to the late night levy. They will provide the transparency that I am sure the coalition wants to see in the Bill.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

As we enter the final phase of our consideration of the Bill, I will try to be helpful to the hon. Lady and positive towards her approach. Although I absolutely agree with the need for transparency, I hope that I can explain how transparency already operates in this case. Her approach strikes me as bureaucratic, given the measurements, the mechanisms, the reporting and the factors that she has outlined. There is a risk that a chunk of a late night levy would be spent just complying with all the new reporting requirements. I take her principal point on transparency, and I will set out why her approach to the administration of the late night levy is not necessary.

We have discussed police and crime commissioners at great length in Committee. The money given to the police from the late night levy will go into the police fund for the force area, held by the local PCC. The police and crime panel will be able to request any documents of the PCC, such as details of the police fund, that are not operationally sensitive and do not compromise national security. They may be scrutinised publicly, and may include any documents on spending money earned through the late night levy. The ultimate accountability of the PCC will be at the ballot box, where the public will cast judgment on how effective they have been in delivering effective policing. The transparency processes already in place will provide an important check and balance.

The new clauses also reflect concerns regarding licensing accountability: how licensing authorities spend their portion of the levy. Following an announcement by the authority that it intends to adopt the levy, the public will be aware of the proportion of the net revenue that it wishes to retain. It will hold a consultation before adopting the levy.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

How does the scheme that the Minister describes compare with current procedures for identifying the funding that premier league clubs contribute to the cost of policing for football matches? There must be a precedent for how we do that.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I am happy to look into that. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a ready response, but I am happy to reflect on his interesting point and consider it further. I promise him that I will look into it.

It is important to talk about the consultation that the local authority will undertake before adopting the levy. The consultation will consider the services that the licensing authority intends to provide with the money it shall retain from the levy—all those questions will be consulted on as part of the process. After the consultation, the authority will write to all affected premises to inform them of its final decision. As part of the process of even establishing the levy, the local authority will set out, in quite a lot of detail, the relevant aspects that will sit alongside. Therefore, having a further mechanism would be bureaucratic in a way that the levy was not intended to be; it is intended to be quite speedy and efficient. The consultation process will draw out a lot of the important transparency issues.

I do not step back from the principal issue that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has sought helpfully to highlight. However, there is a process that will provide an important part of such transparency. The licensing authority, as an integral part of the council, will also be directly accountable to the public for the scrutiny that will be applied. The design of the late night levy is efficient, and light on administration and process. The necessary transparency is adequately provided in the chapter of the Bill under discussion and through the police and crime commissioner.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s comments about consultation and transparency, but what about proposed subsection (3)(b), which requires the report to set out details of the impact of the levy? What opportunity will local authorities and police forces have to measure such impact? How does he envisage that happening?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

That is a powerful exposition of how crime mapping would be a direct method for highlighting and drilling down on policing issues. Transparency will be provided, and police and crime commissioners will be focused on performance and what is happening in their communities. Equally, information will be available to local authorities and their relevant partnerships.

I get the hon. Lady’s point about transparency, but we think that it is being addressed in other ways. We will continue, however, to examine and reflect on the need for information to be readily available. I hope that the hon. Lady is assured that we take the matter seriously, and that other measures are available.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

When late night levies are brought into effect around the country we will certainly want to see how they work and whether they are having that direct impact. On hearing the Minister’s comments, however, and his assurance about keeping the matter under review, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 6

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause relates to fees that local authorities levy on people who make licensing applications. It is drafted to allow licensing authorities to determine the amount of fee to be paid at a local level. Under the new clause, authorities would be required to publish the amounts of such fees and would need to have regard to any guidance produced by the Secretary of State. The proposal also relates to temporary event notices, on which we have debated amendments at length.

The licensing authority would deal with a licensing application, and the proposal attempts to ensure that the full cost of such applications is recovered by the fees that are charged. The new clause takes account of instances in which local authorities and local licensing committees decide to waive fees in specific circumstances, so it would provide discretion.

The proposal is all about the localism agenda and the approach, which I understand the coalition Government are taking, to ensure that local authority areas make decisions that best fit their particular needs. When I was thinking about proposing the new clause, I was conscious that local authorities in the country are different, with different experiences of the late-night economy and licensing. Areas such as Camden or Westminster are very different from ones such as Scunthorpe, and they have very different needs.

Returning to the issue, this is about reflecting that and allowing flexibility. I understand that the Government have stated that they are committed to enabling licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery. As the Bill stands, however, there are no new fee structures included in any of the clauses setting out further regulations. That is particularly disappointing given that some of the Bill’s proposals will add new burdens on councils. Including a new fees framework in the Bill would be a quick and simple way to bring about the implementation of the localism agenda and of full cost recovery.

In the current economic climate, there is a real imperative to make this important change as soon as possible, bearing in mind the major cuts we are seeing to local authority budgets, with some local authorities facing 28% cuts. A new fees framework would also simplify the need for the late night levy that we have just been discussing and that we debated earlier, as money could be recovered specifically by a local licensing authority in relation to the late night situation in its area. The new clause would provide flexibility and a framework for giving licensing authorities a discretion to set appropriate fees for their area, and to reduce or waive fees for individual premises or events, such as charities or those benefiting from small business rate relief.

Will the Minister consider the precedent on fees at the cost-recovery level, which is set out in the Gambling Act 2005? We have referred to that Act before—it is very helpful, because it is in force and we can see how it is operating. Under the Gambling Act, there is a discretion to set the fee level within nationally set bands. I know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have in the past undertaken a high-level review of the premises and licence fees set by licensing authorities in 2007-08. The Department’s overall conclusion from that review was that there is no justifiable concern, from either an industry or licensing authority perspective, about the level of the fee maximum set by DCMS. It sounds as though local authorities were acting reasonably within the bands; they were not all rushing to get to the highest possible level.

Secondly, the introduction of the new system appeared to be working well around the country and has produced a good spread of premises-licensing fees among licensing authorities with no obvious systematic setting of fees at the maximum. On that basis and with the experience of the Gambling Act, it is worth considering how the new clause could help the localism agenda that the Government want to promote. It would also help deal with the varying and very difficult circumstances around the country. The new clause is worthy of consideration in relation to the Government’s approach to licensing.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I broadly agree with the intentions behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. As she may know, in my response to the consultation I said:

“We intend to enable licensing authorities to set licensing fees based on full cost recovery”.

Since then I have been working closely with colleagues across Government to be sure that we achieve that aim in a way that is fair to all sides. There is widespread agreement that the current fees do not cover the legitimate costs of licensing authorities in discharging their functions under the Licensing Act 2003. Licensing fees have not been increased since the Act came into force. I also agree that setting a fee nationally that meets full cost recovery for authorities throughout the country, despite different costs and circumstances, would be a difficult task that certainly does not fit with the Government’s approach to localism. However, at a later stage, I intend to table an amendment introducing locally set fees based on full cost recovery.

Although the new clause has a similar aim to our proposals, it contains some features that we would not wish to pursue. I will explain. First, the new clause enables only some of the fees under the Licensing Act 2003 to be set locally—those relating to premises, licences and temporary event notices. However, fees relating to personal licences and club premises certificates should be set locally as well, because costs for such processes are also subject to local variation and potential deficits against income. To omit them would be inconsistent.

Secondly, the new clause contains no provision to enable constraints to be imposed by the Secretary of State on a licensing authority’s ability to set fees. A nationally set cap on fee levels is needed, albeit I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point, and fee payers would be reassured that licensing fees are not a blank cheque. I intend the cap to be set in regulations, after consultation on the appropriate level.

Thirdly, the new clause contains provision for the licensing authorities to waive any fee. Such an unconstrained power would, potentially, not be fair if fees were to be based on cost recovery. That is because the waiver by an authority of one or more fees would mean that it was choosing to incur a cost and recouping it from other fee payers. To illustrate the point, if the authority waived 25% of its fees, hypothetically, it would be clearly inequitable for other fee payers to fund the deficit.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that we intend to follow through on our commitments. I recognise the spirit in which she moved the new clause but, given my reassurances and the issues I have raised about it, I ask her to consider withdrawing it, in the knowledge that we are dealing directly with the issue and hope to introduce changes to the Bill later.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Local authorities often seem to cross-subsidise certain services with other payments received, so I am not sure I agree with the Minister about waiving fees for licence applications.

Local authorities are now, genuinely, in some difficulty with their budgets, up and down the country, so I understand what the Minister said about returning to the issue shortly. I urge him to do so as quickly as possible, to give some certainty to local authorities and to ensure that whatever regime is brought in will deal with the real problem of the setting of fee levels.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 7

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Thank you, Mr Coaker—[ Interruption. ] I apologise, Mr Chope. I think it is because we are on the home straight now and getting a bit demob happy.

The new clause deals with an amendment that we would like to make to the objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003. As discussed at length in the debate on licensing law, the licensing authorities must always have regard to the licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act when dealing with licensing applications, renewals or reviews. We have discussed the issue of health and the current view that we ought to have more regard to the health of people in this country, and to the effects that alcohol can have on it. At the moment, our licensing objectives are silent on public health and its promotion.

The new clause would allow a fifth objective within the Licensing Act: to protect and improve public health. That fits well with clause 104, which we discussed right at the beginning of the licensing section, which added primary care trusts and local health boards as responsible authorities, so that they could make their views clear to licensing authorities when deciding on licence applications, renewals and reviews. We debated how difficult that would be, because health was not one of the objectives that must be considered by licensing authorities, yet the PCT and the health board can comment on the other objectives.

The new clause ties up nicely with clause 104. It makes some sense of the important role that PCTs and local health boards could play. The coalition Government are devolving public health responsibilities to local authorities, so a lot of attention will be paid to this area. People are very concerned about health and alcohol. We only have to look at The Guardianto see the headline, “Alcohol policy in tatters as health experts revolt”. We all have an interest in ensuring that we have the best possible policy on alcohol and that we give information and support to people who drink. We also need to take steps to encourage sensible drinking.

The Government’s current position on alcohol is rather confused and muddled. Putting this new clause into the Licensing Act 2003 would send a clear message that the Government are serious about ensuring that licensing authorities take health into consideration when making decisions on applications. That is why we tabled this clause. The Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 makes health one of the objectives that licensing authorities have to look at. It is interesting to note that Scotland has looked at other issues relating to alcohol and the policies that we ought to pursue. It would send a clear message if the Government were minded to accept the new clause and make health one of the considerations that must be taken into account.

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

It may not surprise the hon. Lady that I do not agree in any way, shape or form with her characterisation of the Government’s approach to alcohol and how we are seeking to bear down on the harms caused by it. Those were, in large measure, caused by the manner in which the previous Government took to this. Our accident and emergency departments and police have to respond to the problems of alcohol. That is why changes to licensing are proposed in this Bill.

On that note of discord, I will seek to strike a note of accord on the importance of public health. We see merit in making health a material consideration under the Licensing Act. I know that it has been customary in other sittings to refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave her some moments ago, but in this case, it was some days ago. This point came up last Thursday. I said:

“We see some merit in adding prevention of harm to health as a licensing objective, but we want to do it in a considered way, alongside wider work to address the harms of alcohol to health, which is why we indicated in our consultation response that we did not intend to legislate at this stage but would consider the best way to do so in the future.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; c. 528.]

I repeat those words because they directly relate to this new clause. It needs careful consideration because, if it was introduced without that care, it might not be applied in a focused manner. One might seek to argue, for example, that because a particular part of a local authority area suffered from high levels of deprivation or health harm, one could apply licensing policy differently there. Is that an appropriate way of doing things? Such issues need to be examined carefully when applying an approach, which we broadly accept and acknowledge. The Government consider the issue to be important, but it needs to be examined more closely in the context of developing public health policy within local authorities.

While I agree with the sentiment behind the new clause—continuing the discussion that we started last Thursday—the Government believe that the issue requires further consideration and work, which we will do. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause in the knowledge that the Government are focused on it and seized of it. We are considering it further in the context of promoting public health and addressing the underlying issues and health and social harms that are caused by alcohol.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

I have listened to the Minister. My big concern is that the Government’s general approach to public health seems to be what is called a “nudge approach”, where people are nudged to do the right thing—

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

And a wink-wink.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Indeed. People are being nudged to do the right thing and not drink too much, on the basis that it will all be okay eventually. I worry about that approach. We have seen in recent months and years hard scientific evidence about what can be done to tackle alcohol abuse.

I have heard what the Minister said, and I assume that we will have a further licensing Act or an alcohol Bill at some point, to which we will need to look forward. I am minded to consider returning to the issue on Report because it is genuinely a big issue for the country. On the basis of what the Minister has said and the possibility that I will bring this back on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 10

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Youth rehabilitation orders: alcohol monitoring requirement

New schedule 4—‘Alcohol monitoring requirement

“An alcohol monitoring requirement Any person specified under section 212A(1).”.’.

New schedule 5—‘Youth Rehabilitation Orders: Alcohol Monitoring Requirement

“An alcohol monitoring requirement Any person specified under paragraph 24A(1).”.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I tabled the new clauses and new schedules to introduce a pilot compulsory sobriety scheme in London. They would introduce a new sentencing power through an alcohol monitoring requirement—AMR. The new power would allow courts to impose a requirement on an offender to abstain from alcohol and be regularly tested to ensure compliance as part of any community or custodial sentence. If the offender failed the test, there would be a quick and coherent process of apprehension—immediate arrest, a night in a police cell and reappearance at a magistrates court.

The new clauses and new schedules are compatible with the scope of the Bill, as they would provide the courts with additional powers on alcohol-related behaviour to complement those of police and licensing authorities. They are also consistent with the objectives of the Bill. The AMR would ensure that alcohol-related violence was tackled not only at the point of sale and supply, but by changing behaviour through clearer punishments.

London experiences disproportionate levels of alcohol-related crime compared with the rest of the country. That poses a huge threat not only to the safety of Londoners but to their general well-being, especially for those who live and work in boroughs with prominent town centres. It also has huge cost implications for the Metropolitan Police Service, the NHS and borough budgets, diverting increasingly scarce resources away from those with genuine need. Although several sentencing powers and penalties are currently available, alcohol-related crimes remain a huge problem and the number of alcohol-related hospital admissions is increasing. The alcohol monitoring requirement could result in rehabilitation for the individual, reductions in repeat offending and the use of custodial sanctions and, most important, a wider impact on society as it would reaffirm that alcohol is not an excuse for criminal behaviour.

The consumption of alcohol aggravates and perpetuates many forms of crime. The proposal could be taken further and used to address town centre violence. A compulsory sobriety scheme could offer support in many cases of violence against women and girls, especially domestic violence. Based on keeping the offender at home with a family and in employment, such a scheme could work in relevant cases, and might go some way to improve conviction rates, where victims are concerned about their partner or the father of their child going to prison. It would also be beneficial on the release of an offender.

To sum up, the three objectives of the alcohol monitoring requirement are to reduce the number of alcohol-related incidents, especially violent incidents; to reduce the cost of alcohol-related crime to statutory services, including police, health and local authorities; and to support a long-term shift in public attitudes to the use of alcohol by making a clear statement about the acceptability of behaviour surrounding alcohol consumption, supported by clear consequences.

Julian Huppert (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge)

Would the sobriety test be something that someone could opt to have as part of the requirement or would it be imposed on them without their agreement? Would it be tied up with rehabilitation processes?

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I hope that the legislation makes it clear that the test would not be foisted on any individual. An individual would have to accept the requirement to undertake the sobriety test. It would not be compatible with someone who had alcohol problems; that would simply be a waste of time. But it would be enforceable on an individual for whom alcohol played a significant part in their behaviour, especially in domestic violence and other alcohol-related crimes.

Diana Johnson (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North)

Will the hon. Gentleman reassure me on my understanding of the new clauses? First, do they limit the conditions that already exist on the use of alcohol treatment orders—that is my reading of the conditions set out in the new clauses? Secondly, I note that the Government are consulting on rehabilitative outcomes at the moment. Earlier in the month, the Minister talked about what outcomes would be useful, and how we should look at dealing with alcohol and drug misuse. Is the proposal not putting the cart before the horse? Will it not be better to wait and see what the Government’s consultation comes up with, and how that might fit with any amendments?

James Brokenshire (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the deputy Mayor of London on introducing the proposal for a sobriety scheme. The Government certainly support new and innovative ways of tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder. I have met the deputy Mayor to hear more about that proposal, and the issues associated with applying a South Dakota-type scheme under our law. Officials from my Department and the Ministry of Justice will continue to meet him to explore his suggestion, because we want to encourage local initiatives and to work with local agencies and the Mayor’s office to develop policy proposals in more detail.

It will be important to develop a clear business case for the proposal, and to ensure that it is targeted, effective and affordable. We will then consider how the aims of such a scheme might be accommodated into sentencing legislation, ensuring it is proportionate and fits with British structures. So we will continue to discuss with the Mayor’s office the benefits and best practice of the scheme which has operated in South Dakota, recognising that there are differences between the American and British legal systems. We will therefore consider how a sobriety regime could be instituted here and what benefits it might provide.

I do not propose to comment in detail on the new clauses that my hon. Friend has tabled. Suffice it to say that some issues of detail will need to be examined. There will need to be a detailed examination of the cost benefits and establishing how the proposals will fit within the criminal justice system and the practical operation.

This is an interesting proposal that deserves further consideration as part of our approach to alcohol-related crime and breaking the patterns of offending. So we will keep this issue under review, and I will continue discussions with Kit Malthouse, the deputy Mayor and his team. We will examine the proposals in further detail and how the pilot might be operated.

I am sympathetic to the objectives of the proposal and, with the assurance that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon that we will continue that discussion, analysis and examination, I hope he will withdraw the new clause. I thank him for raising this important issue this afternoon. As this will probably be my last contribution to the debate in Committee on this Bill—I am sure everyone will be most grateful for that—I thank Committee members for their contributions and for the constructive manner in which Opposition spokesmen have raised a number of points to improve the Bill. We look forward to continuing to engage with them in a constructive way as we move forward with the Bill.

Matthew Offord (Conservative, Hendon)

I hear what hon. Members have said on both sides of the debate, especially the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I do not see AMRs as a replacement for drug treatment orders; I see them as being in addition, and in addition to some of the other sentences that are available to the courts and also to the prosecution service.

The AMR could work as part of a suspended sentence as an alternative to incarceration, or as part of a community sentence. It could be a useful tool to focus on the violence against the person and criminal damage which have been seen in many of our town centres and local communities.

In addition, I would like to see the scheme used in conjunction with other legislation for young people. It could be integrated into the intensive surveillance and support order, which is already available to the court as part of the youth referral order.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister’s comments. I believe that this is a good proposal. Perhaps it is not appropriate for this Bill. I will look for alternative legislation in which we can take it forward. I would therefore like to withdraw the motion.

New Schedule 3

New Schedule 6

Nick Herbert (Conservative, Arundel and South Downs)

May I take this opportunity, Mr Chope, to thank you and Mr Benton for your chairmanship of the Committee. I thank those who have worked so hard behind the scenes to ensure the smooth operation of the Committee. I thank the Clerk, of course, and the people who have been painstakingly and patiently transcribing our proceedings and keeping abreast of things, even when the Opposition spokesman and I were not. We are very grateful for their help. I thank the Doorkeepers, who did not have too difficult a job to do. For very obvious reasons, Government Members were present at all times to ensure that we were able to carry the day. I would particularly like to thank the Home Office officials who have been here to support the Government. They have worked very hard to ensure that we have been in a good state with the Bill, which is a priority in government legislation. They have been a great support to Ministers. I thank them very much for their work. It is hard work for officials to keep up with the pace of amendments that are tabled. They often have to work very hard and very late, and I am grateful to them.

I would like to thank all members of the Committee for the way in which we have discussed the legislation. I know it is a commonplace at the end of Committee proceedings to say, “We have had a good debate and we have considered the matters well,” but I genuinely think that we have had a good debate. We have got to the heart of the issues in the legislation in relation both to policing and to the alcohol provisions. The Government are pleased that the integrity of our proposals has remained intact. Nevertheless, we have been able to make a number of improvements to the legislation. Ministers have conceded that important points have been raised, including by the Opposition, and we have undertaken to go away and give further consideration to them. Having said that, we have had full consideration of the issues. We have not been constrained by time, nor have we had to curtail debate. Its constructive nature will be helpful to those outside this place who are concerned about the issues and want to ensure that we are addressing them fully, so I thank Committee members for the way in which we have debated them.

I would particularly like to thank the lawyers. Where would we have been in consideration of the Bill without the depth, expertise and, indeed, quality of the free advice that we so regularly received? Even though some of the advice was not legible, it was nevertheless immensely gratefully received.

We meet here in this Committee room—I just noticed towards the end of our proceedings—under the portrait of Sir Robert Peel, a great Conservative Prime Minister before the idea of Liberals was invented. He was a social reformer, a repealer of criminal law and also a Home Secretary and founder of modern policing. Sir Robert Peel’s dictum,

“the police are the public and the public are the police”,

and the principles that he established, by which we have policing by consent and a professional modern police force, are ones to which we and the police force continue to subscribe today. I regularly evoke Peel’s principles as we find our way into describing how modern policing should operate. It seems fitting and timely that we should conclude our Committee proceedings under Sir Robert’s watchful gaze.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I want to start by agreeing with everything that the Minister has just said. I particularly thank you, Mr Chope, and the other two Chairs, Mr Streeter and Mr Howarth, who chaired a couple of sittings when you were away on other business, for the way in which you have chaired the meetings. I join the Minister in thanking all the staff who have helped proceedings of the Committee, including the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I also mention Mr Rhys, who has been very helpful with the amendments that we have tabled and with giving professional advice on ensuring that they at least conform to the rules and regulations of the House. I also thank the other two shadow Ministers, the Whip and the Back Benchers. It has been extremely helpful at times to have two minutes to find where I am while they make a contribution. I also thank them for the validity and rigour of their contributions. I am grateful for the help of all my hon. Friends.

I agree with the Minister on the quality and standard of our debate. There is a big difference between us, but I have always thought that we can get angry about the principles of Bills, without getting angry with each other. That usually makes a huge difference. When I first started teaching, I once called a pupil, “You stupid kid,” and it caused a bit of a row with the parents. I was told by an older teacher, “Don’t call the kid stupid, call what they did stupid.” The point I was going to make was exactly the same, but not with the word “stupid”.

In all sincerity, I have appreciated the way in which the Minister has conducted the debate and discussions with me, and I hope that we have improved the Bill. This is slightly tongue in cheek, but I thank the Liberals for demonstrating something that I had never seen before. They moved amendments, and then voted against them. That was amusing to us. The hon. Members for Edinburgh West and for Cambridge are new Members of Parliament, but have contributed significantly to the deliberations of the Committee. Having slightly taken the mick, I should say that their contribution was important and interesting. I also thank the hon. Member for Northampton North for his advice all through the proceedings of the Committee. He must be good at it, because at the end the Minister started to try to steal my legal brief.

We have scrutinised the Bill and the two Whips have worked extremely well to ensure that we had time to discuss it. Hopefully, the scrutiny that the Committee has given it, whether we agree with all the Bill or not, at least helps to improve some of the detail. We look forward to continuing the debate and discussion on Report.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

I, on behalf of my fellow Chairman, thank you for your kind and generous comments. Thank you for the respect that you have shown to the Chair throughout. I add my thanks to the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and to the shorthand writers for all the work they have done. This Committee has been conducted in an exemplary fashion, with good humour throughout, which has facilitated a proper discussion of the Bill. The only sympathy I will express is for the only Committee member who has not been able to utter a word. I express my thanks to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth for being here throughout and listening to the proceedings.