---

Point of Order

3.31 pm

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his statement yesterday on child abuse in Clwyd, the Secretary of State for Wales referred to parliamentary privilege and implied that he did not want further discussion of the matter in Parliament. This morning, Madam Speaker, I conferred with your excellent Clerks and was told that, from this evening, the matter will be sub judice. I appreciate the difficulty of establishing such an inquiry when witnesses are required to give evidence, but I have a copy of the 400-page report and its appendices, and I have read it. I disagree with the Secretary of State's view that it is defamatory. The report should be published. I find it rather odd that, on the day that the report is available in the House, we are to have no further discussion because an inquiry has been established.

Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. It is true that I have power to waive the sub judice resolution, but the House will understand that I am unable to do so in the abstract. I can do so only in respect of some specific proceeding--that is, a debate, motion or Question. If the motion that will come before the House this evening is agreed and if I receive a request to waive the sub judice resolution in relation to a specific proceeding, I shall consider the matter at the time.

18 Jun 1996 : Column 684

Public Order (Amendment)

3.33 pm

Ms Estelle Morris (Birmingham, Yardley): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the power of arrest of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

There is general agreement across the House that too many of our constituents' lives are blighted by crime and anti-social behaviour. There is, of course, great concern about serious crime, but many of my constituents express particular concern about an increase in abusive, threatening, disorderly and intimidating behaviour on the streets.

In 1986, Parliament passed section 5 of the Public Order Act, which gave police officers the power to arrest a person if he or she was engaged in offensive behaviour and continued to behave in such a manner after a warning had been issued. That Act tidied up and replaced previous laws that had given police the powers to act in similar circumstances. Indeed, it appears to be one of the few pieces of legislation that gives police the power to arrest in cases of disorderly and intimidating behaviour.

As early as 1987, Professor A. T. Smith, of Reading university, warned that Parliament might have passed a flawed law. As it is written, section 5 of the 1986 Act requires that the police officer who gives the warning must be the same police officer who made the arrest. Almost by definition, scenes of disorder involve many people and are attended by many police officers. It is quite clear that the police officer who gives a verbal warning cannot always be the same police officer who goes on to make the arrest. That clearly is not what Parliament intended.

In October 1993, police were called to a doctor's surgery in Durham, where two men were behaving in a threatening, abusive and insulting manner. They were arrested under the Public Order Act 1986, but were later acquitted of all charges because the officer who gave the warning was not the officer who subsequently made the arrest.

The case went to appeal and was rejected by Lord Justice Kennedy. However, Lord Justice Kennedy said at the time that he was

"unable to discern any Parliamentary purpose in the wording as it presently stands"

and that

"it would merit further Parliamentary consideration at an early date."

Last year in Birmingham, a crowd of youths were involved in a disturbance close by my constituency. They were warned about their behaviour by the duty inspector. When the behaviour persisted, a man was arrested. To the frustration of the police and the public, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to take the case to court because the arrest had been made under the 1986 Act and was unlikely to stand up in court.

In Hampshire, people involved in scenes of public disorder after a demonstration were taken to court, but the action collapsed because of this flawed legislation. During the recent demonstrations over the Newbury bypass, police again found themselves hampered by the confusion caused by the Act. Manchester police have experienced similar difficulties because of that confusion and have now instructed their officers not to use that section of the Public Order Act 1986 at all.

18 Jun 1996 : Column 685

It is 10 years since Parliament passed this flawed piece of legislation. It is nine years since warnings were given, and two years since a High Court judge effectively suspended the use of that section and called on Parliament to reconsider it. All that is required is for one word to be changed in section 5(4). That one change is the substance of this ten-minute Bill.

A number of Home Secretaries have failed to take the necessary action. The result is that the police do not have the power to deal with a serious and growing problem.

Defence lawyers inevitably quote Lord Justice Kennedy's High Court judgment as a reason to dismiss future action in the courts. As it stands, the law that we passed gives a licence to those who threaten public order and it fails to protect the public.

Public order offences are not some minor adjunct to criminal offences. Day in and day out, they are a cause of harassment for my constituents, the public and the police. They are the causes of intimidation, disturbance and abuse. They are the incidents of nuisance that make people's lives a misery. They feed the fear of crime that traps people in their homes, because people are too frightened to go out on the streets.

In 1980, one in five crimes resulted in a conviction in the courts or in a caution by the police. By 1994, that figure had slumped to one in 10. Unless we amend the law, the situation will deteriorate even further.

A decade ago, Parliament passed a bad law. Our constituents, the police and the community have a right to expect us to act quickly to put it right. It is our job to close dangerous loopholes that help law-breakers.

With the co-operation of the Home Office and the House, this ten-minute Bill could become law before the recess. We have a long, hot summer ahead of us--a time when, sadly, disorderly and anti-social behaviour often increases. We would be failing our constituents and those we charge with protecting the peace if we lost this opportunity to remedy this flawed piece of legislation. I am grateful to the sponsors of the Bill, who represent both sides of the House, and I hope that it will receive the support of many other hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Estelle Morris,Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. James Pawsey, Dr. Lynne Jones,Mr. Patrick Thompson, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Roy Thomason,Mr. Keith Bradley and Mr. Warren Hawksley.

Public Order (Amendment)

Ms Estelle Morris accordingly presented a Bill to amend the power of arrest of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

18 Jun 1996 : Column 686

Opposition Day

[15th Allotted Day]

Benefit Fraud

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.40 pm

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury): I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the recent report from the Social Security Committee on measures needed to tackle housing benefit fraud; is appalled at the complacency of Her Majesty's Government's response; endorses the proposals made by the Committee; believes that further measures are urgently required to root out organised landlord fraud in the housing benefit system, to step up the number of home visits to claimants, and to clean up the National Insurance number system; and affirms its belief that accuracy and efficiency in the spending of social security funds is vital for those in need and for the taxpayer.

Let us first establish the principle--fraud, wherever perpetrated, in the benefit system or in the tax system, is wrong. In the benefit system, every pound that is defrauded is a pound less for those in real need or for the taxpayer. The accurate spending of the social security pound is good for claimants and for the nation as a whole, and the greater the accuracy that can be achieved, the more we shall be able to restore and maintain confidence and faith in our welfare state.

There should be no dispute on either side of the House about that basic starting point for our discussion. It is when we move on to determining the nature and extent of that fraud and how best a Government can set about tackling it that we start to enter a debate between the parties.

There has been some debate in recent weeks about how much fraud is in the system, and much of that discussion has focused on the extent of housing benefit fraud. In the survey of housing benefit fraud that the Government carried out recently, they estimate that there is £1 billion of fraud. The Select Committee on Social Security heard evidence that it might be twice as much as that. I emphasise the word "might", because the Select Committee was cautious in advancing that figure. It also said that it might be greater than £2 billion. At no stage has the Select Committee or the Opposition said that the amount of housing benefit fraud is £2 billion. We have said that it is likely that the Government's estimate is an underestimate.

---