15 Oct 2013 : Column 617
I have been in the House for eight years and I thought that I was unshockable, but the way in which the Government are seeking to amend section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to redefine a miscarriage of justice is truly shocking. They wish to change it so that, if and only if newly discovered facts show beyond reasonable doubt that the person is innocent, there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nothing less than that will do. Only in those circumstances can someone be given compensation.
I am sure that the Minister will have noted, as anyone else watching the debate will have done, that no one has yet spoken in favour of clause 143, not even the Minister himself yet. If the matter is not dealt with this afternoon, I hope that there will be the opportunity to deal with it in another place. We need to marshal our forces, because the essence of our liberal society is threatened.
The Government’s arguments for introducing an innocence test—there are many arguments; I want to concentrate on the Government’s justification—are, first, that it is needed for the sake of clarity; and, secondly, that it will save money. Neither of those arguments is remotely convincing. Let me turn to the first, about clarity.
The law at the moment is perfectly clear. Three recent authoritative judgments have rejected the innocence test as an affront to the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court did so in the case of Adams in 2011, in which Lady Hale said:
“a person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt...He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”
That was reiterated in the High Court in the case of Ali earlier this year. There was an attempt to widen the definition, but that attempt was well and truly quashed by the High Court. This summer, moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Allen v. the UK, made it perfectly clear that any legislation that calls into question the innocence of an acquitted person would be a breach of article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights on the presumption of innocence.
Therefore, the law is clear. That law has been reiterated by our own Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has been able to assert that
“it is now clear beyond doubt”
that the proposed new test in clause 143 is incompatible with the right to be presumed innocent in article 6(2). Therefore, rather than clarifying the law, it seems that the Government are having a pitched battle with the settled, established law.
The second argument is about saving money. The Bill’s own impact assessment reveals the expected savings to be negligible. According to that MOJ assessment—the Minister looks puzzled; it is on page 4—the effect of the clause will be to reduce by two per annum the number of judicial reviews of Secretary of State decisions, which it estimates will save around £100,000 per annum. Therefore, for the sake of saving £100,000 per annum, we will be trading in the centuries-old principle of the presumption of innocence. The courts have rejected an innocence test not out of some quibbling legalistic technicality. They have rejected it because it is a cornerstone of a fair
15 Oct 2013 : Column 618
justice system. We have a fair justice system and a free society where it is for the state to prove guilt, not for the individual to prove innocence.
The reason for that is obvious. Proving a negative is very difficult and the burden of proof it would place on the individual is extremely onerous. It is for the state with all its resources to make the case of a person’s guilt. The presumption of innocence applies before an acquittal. As Lord Phillips said in the Adams case, any test that requires innocence
“will deprive some defendants who are in fact innocent and who succeed in having their convictions quashed on the grounds of fresh evidence from obtaining compensation. It will exclude from entitlement to compensation those who no longer seem likely to be guilty, but whose innocence is not established beyond reasonable doubt. This is a heavy price to pay for ensuring that no guilty person is ever the recipient of compensation”.
1.45 pm
It is unfair and unreasonable to demand that, after years of being wrongfully imprisoned, an acquitted person should produce some evidential rabbit out of a hat that proves beyond doubt their innocence. They should be able to seek redress for the years of their lives that have been wasted and the years in which they have been the victim of abuse of state power. It is wrong for them to be expected to come out of prison after 16 years, turn into some sort of Inspector Clouseau and find some nugget that will prove beyond doubt that they are innocent. In most cases, that will be a technical impossibility, given the amount of time that will have elapsed since their imprisonment. That means that it will often be the most deserving and the longest suffering who are denied compensation. The point has already been made that the Birmingham Six would not have been able to get justice and compensation under the test that the Government are proposing.
This proposed change is wrong and we need to ensure, either in this place or in the other place, that it does not pass into law. There seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House among those who are against the change that another place may be the best place to deal with it. We wish Members in another place the best of luck.
Damian Green: This has been a serious debate, appropriately, because these are serious issues. Having listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, I believe that there are some genuine misunderstandings about what is proposed and what its effect will be. I will seek to deal with those as briefly as I can. It is a complex issue.
As we have heard, amendment 95 seeks to maintain the current definition of a “miscarriage of justice” derived from case law, which is therefore subject to ongoing litigation. Amendment 184 goes further and would prevent us from creating a statutory definition of a “miscarriage of justice” at all, leaving the definition subject to the shifting view of the courts. Over the years, the courts have provided complicated definitions of a miscarriage of justice, which are often confusing to a lay person and are by definition subject to change over time. In this instance, it is unlikely that an applicant for compensation would know what
“properly directed as to the law”
15 Oct 2013 : Column 619
means in a particular case. That would have disadvantages for applicants, who will find it difficult to know whether they have a valid claim, or to understand the Secretary of State’s decision on their case.
Emily Thornberry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although there has been a challenge in respect of the case of Adams in the Supreme Court, the position has not moved and the law on the definition of miscarriage of justice has been settled since 2011?
Damian Green: I will come to the Adams case in a moment, if the hon. Lady will be patient.
Many disappointed applicants seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision, because they do not fully understand its basis or because the case law is unclear. In practice, very few such claims succeed, and they place a significant burden on the applicant involved and on the taxpayers who have to fund them. Therefore, the purpose of clause 143 is to restore the law to the pre-2011 position and to make the definition of a miscarriage of justice more consistent, clearer and easier for the public and potential applicants to understand. That is fairer than using an obscure and confusing definition, or continuing to work, as we have to now, with a definition that is subject to unpredictable change. We are firmly of the view that the provision is compatible with our international obligations and the convention rights. I am conscious that we are in discussions with the Joint Committee about that and that we hold different views on the matter.
Simon Hughes: Although this issue is being dealt with very carefully, there is clearly a difference of view, and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made the case for the legal justification. Rather than just have a battle at the other end of the building and a lottery of an outcome, will my right hon. Friend undertake to facilitate a meeting of all those interested in both Houses with members of the relevant Committees so that we can hear evidence and try to do the job properly, and see whether the Government have adopted the right position or we need to do something else? I would far rather we got it right and were really clear and all signed up than we had a maverick outcome that satisfied very few or nobody.
Damian Green: I am happy to continue to engage in the discussions that the Departments have been having with the Joint Committee or anyone else, but I regret to say that I am not sure that having a meeting at which a definitive view could be arrived at would be possible, as that would be subcontracting the right of Parliament to be that Chamber—that is the purpose of this House and the other place, and I do not think it is constitutionally right to try to subcontract that to a meeting of experts.
The nub of Members’ complaints about clause 143 is that it is in some way incompatible with the presumption of innocence—I do not think I am traducing hon. Members in saying that—and that is the issue we need to address. Of course the Government recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence and we would not introduce legislation
15 Oct 2013 : Column 620
that cuts across that. We consider that article 14.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives effect, provides only for compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not commit the offence. In the Government’s view, that is the proper definition of a miscarriage of justice. Compensation should not be payable where the basis for the conviction being overturned does not demonstrate the applicant’s innocence.
The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) brought up the European Court of Human Rights. We are aware of its decision on this issue and we have written in some detail to the Joint Committee on Human Rights about it. However, we continue to consider that this provision would not interfere with a person’s fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We take firm support for this view from the Supreme Court in the Adams case, which held unanimously that the presumption of innocence is not infringed by the current arrangements for compensating a miscarriage of justice. In our view, the proposed change does not alter that analysis. As the European Court acknowledged, more than an acquittal is required to establish that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Through clause 143, we are determining where that line should be drawn.
Under clause 143, there is no requirement for a person applying for compensation for a miscarriage of justice to “prove” their innocence. What is determinative is the fact on which the conviction was overturned. So, for example, if a person’s conviction is overturned because DNA evidence comes to light showing they could not have committed the offence, it is only right that they should be compensated. Following the coming into force of clause 143, they will, as now, be eligible for compensation.
The proposed new test for determining eligibility for compensation does not require the applicant to demonstrate his or her innocence; it focuses on the new fact. When the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in the case of Allen that the presumption of innocence is engaged when deciding whether to pay compensation for a miscarriage of justice, the Court made it clear that states were entitled to conclude that more than an acquittal was required. This clause will enable us to say, for the first time in statute, what beyond an acquittal is necessary for there to have been a miscarriage of justice. It introduces for the first time some certainty in the process.
I should say in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that the clause will have no impact at all on the very valuable work being done every day by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and nor will it change the basis on which a conviction is overturned.
Emily Thornberry: I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the wording of amendment 95 reiterates the wording in the settled case law I have been telling him about.
Damian Green: Yes, indeed, and I have addressed directly the cases the hon. Lady raised.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 621
We are returning the law to where it was in 2008 under the previous Government, where following the decision of the House of Lords in Mullen, compensation was held to be payable only where a person could be shown not to have committed, or to have been demonstrably innocent of, the offence for which he was convicted.
As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Adams, it is difficult to glean exactly what the framers of the ICCPR intended on this point from the papers now available, and nor is there international consensus on what the ICCPR requires in this regard. Signatories to the ICCPR have some latitude in determining the requirements of article 14.6. For example. New Zealand and Canada restrict the payment of compensation for a miscarriage of justice to cases where the applicant was innocent. Further, while the Supreme Court in Adams ultimately held that eligibility for compensation was not limited to cases of innocence, four members of the Supreme Court, including the current Lord Chief Justice, considered that compensation should be payable only in cases of innocence. We are therefore confident that what we are doing achieves the aim of creating a more readily comprehensible test which meets the Government’s policy objectives, while also complying with our international obligations.
We recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence, and there may simply be a disagreement in this Chamber as to whether we are breaching it, but I can assure the House that there is no intention of doing so, and I am firmly of the belief that clause 143 does not do that. All it does is require compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not in fact commit the offence. This, in the Government’s view, is the proper definition to be given to a miscarriage of justice
I hope I have cleared up what I think are genuine misunderstandings about the effect of clause 143, and I urge the Members concerned not to press their amendments.
New clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Power of community support officer to issue fixed penalty notice for cycle light offence
‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (powers of community support officers) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 1 (power to issue fixed penalty notices)—
(a) for “in respect of an offence” there is substituted “in respect of—an offence”;
(b) at the end there is inserted “, or an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
(i) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11A (power to stop cycles)—
15 Oct 2013 : Column 622
(a) for “has committed an offence” there is substituted “has committed—
(b) at the end there is inserted “, or
(b) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.’.—(Damian Green.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Damian Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 16—Control of new psychoactive substances—
‘(1) Any person supplying, or offering to supply, a synthetic psychoactive substance including but not restricted to—
(d) a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis,
which is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication will be subject to a Synthetic Psychoactive Product Order prohibiting its supply.
(2) Any subsequent breach of that Order will be an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) This section does not apply to alcohol, tobacco, or any drug currently scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968.’.
New clause 26—Assault on workers in public facing roles—
‘(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and(b) (i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or (ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally.
“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 623
New clause 27—Long-term police authorisation requiring independent approval—
‘( ) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows—
(a) after section 32A (Authorisations requiring judicial approval) insert—
“32AA Long-term police authorisations requiring independent approval
(1) This section applies where a relevant person has granted a long-term authorisation under section 29.
(2) The authorisation is not to take effect until such time (if any) as the relevant independent body has made an order approving the grant of the authorisation.
(3) The relevant independent body may give approval under this section to the granting of an authorisation under section 29 if, and only if, the relevant independent body is satisfied that—
(i) there were reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
(ii) the relevant conditions were satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
(b) at the time when the relevant independent body is considering the matter, there remain reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the relevant conditions in relation to a grant by an individual holding an office, rank or position in a relevant law enforcement agency, that—
(a) the individual was a designated person for the purposes of section 29,
(b) the grant of an authorisation was not in breach of any prohibition imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(a) or any restriction imposed by virtue of section 30(3), and
(c) any other conditions that may be provided for by the Secretary of State were satisfied.
“relevant law enforcement authority” means—
(a) a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) the National Crime Agency.
“relevant judicial authority” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales,(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session, and(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.
(a) an individual holding an office, rank or position in a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) an individual holding an office, rank or position in the National Crime Agency.
“relevant independent body” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.
“long-term” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.”.’.
New clause 31—Annual review of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act—
‘(1) The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation shall monitor and publish a report to Parliament providing an analysis of the application of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 624
(2) The report shall include an assessment of those persons stopped, questioned or detained who have protected characteristics within the meaning of section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (The protected characteristics).
(3) A Minister of the Crown, must not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’.
New clause 32—Sunset provision for Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000—
‘(1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 shall be repealed, five years after the commencement of this Act, unless continued in force by an order under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide—
(a) that those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding five years from the coming into operation of the order; or
(b) that those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
New clause 34—Public order offences committed against constables in private dwellings—
‘(1) In section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(a) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
(2) In section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(b) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
(3) In section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(3) Subsection 2 and subsection (4) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.’.
Government amendments 51 to 55
Amendment 148, in clause 127, page 98, line 17, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert
‘Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed.’.
Amendment 150, page 98, line 18, at end add—
‘(2) The Secretary of State shall by order make any amendments to Schedule 7 or 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 recommended by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to limit the scope of its application.’.
Amendment 136, in clause 144, page 116, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
Government amendments 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 78 and 79 to 81.
Amendment 149, page 146, line 26, leave out schedule 7.
Amendment 151, in schedule 7, page 147, line 15, at end insert—
‘Power to stop, question and detain
1A (1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) Paragraph 2(4) is repealed.
(3) After paragraph 4 there is inserted—
4A An examining officer must ensure that all questioning, beginning at the commencement of the examination, is recorded and retained for as long as is deemed necessary, which must be no less than one year, so that it may be used in any complaints process that may follow.’.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 625
Amendment 179, page 147, line 16, at end insert—
‘Limits on duty to give information and documents
1A In paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “A person who is questioned” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below”.’.
Amendment 178, page 147, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2A) A person questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 may not be detained under paragraph 6 unless the examining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that he is a person falling within section 40(1)(b).’.
Amendment 180, page 147, line 33, before paragraph 3 insert—
2A In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before ‘An examining officer’ there is inserted ‘Subject to paragraph 9A below.’.
Amendment 181, page 148, line 20, at end insert—
3A In paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “An examining officer” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below.”.3B In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 9 there is inserted—
“Data stored on personal electronic devices
9A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule—
(a) the information or documents which a person can be required to give the examining officer under paragraph 5,
(b) the things which may be searched under paragraph 8, and
(c) the property which may be examined under paragraph 9,
do not include data stored on personal electronic devices unless the person is detained under paragraph 6.
(2) “Personal electronic device” includes a mobile phone, a personal computer and any other portable electronic device on which personal information is stored.”.’.
Amendment 156, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘(4) The copy, and information derived from it, may be used for no other purposes than those specified in subparagraph (3).’.
Amendment 182, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘Audio and video-recording of interviews
4A In paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, the words “if the interview takes place in a police station” are omitted.’.
Amendment 157, page 148, line 38, at end insert—
‘Right to silence
4A In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 18 there is inserted—18A Right to silenceNothing in this Schedule—
(a) imposes a duty on a person to respond to questioning; or
(b) allows inferences to be drawn from their silence.”.’.
Amendment 152, page 148, line 42, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 6(1) the words “Subject to paragraph 8” are omitted.’.
Amendment 153, page 148, line 43, after ‘7(1)’, insert—
(a) the words “Subject to paragraphs 8 and 9” are omitted;
Amendment 154, page 148, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3A) Paragraph 8 is omitted.’.
Amendment 155, page 149, line 1, at end insert—
‘(4A) Paragraph 9 is omitted.’.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 626
Amendment 183, page 150, line 2, after ‘officer’ leave out
‘at such intervals as may be specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the code of practice’
‘(2A) The first review shall be carried out as soon as is reasonably practicable after the time of the person’s detention and not more than one hour from that time.
(2B) Subsequent reviews shall be carried out at intervals of not more than 2 hours.’.
Government amendments 84 to 86 and 91.
Damian Green: I propose to run through the Government amendments in this group briskly, so that other Members can speak to their amendments. Given the linkage to the Government amendments on low-value shop theft, I also intend to touch on amendment 136 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). With the leave of the House, I propose to respond to the other non-Government amendments in this group when winding up.
New clause 11 follows up a debate in Committee initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who raised some important points about the powers of police community support officers. In particular, he proposed that two new powers should be conferred on PCSOs: first, that they should be able to issue a fixed penalty notice for riding a bicycle without lights; and, secondly, that they should be able to search someone for controlled drugs.
I gave a commitment to consider my hon. Friend’s proposals over the summer, in the context of the specific role that PCSOs play in our communities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is an inconsistency in PCSOs’ powers around cycling. They can issue a penalty notice for riding on a footway, but not for riding without lights. Extending their powers in respect of cycling, as provided for in new clause 11, would end this anomaly and complement their important engagement role. Being on foot patrol, they are well-placed within their communities to increase awareness and educate people about the importance of cycle safety. Backing this up with the power to issue a penalty notice could enhance the impact they have in their neighbourhoods.
The power to search for controlled dugs is more complicated. We do need to keep a clear distinction between the role of a PCSO and that of a constable. We need to be mindful of the risk that new powers could increase the element of confrontation in the role of PCSOs and detract from their presence on the streets. It is vital that we get this right and, accordingly, we are still considering whether such an expansion of powers is appropriate. I assure my hon. Friend that I will let him and the House know the outcome of that consideration as quickly as possible.
2 pm
Amendments 51 to 55, 65, 70, 71, 77 and 84 to 86 simply make various consequential amendments to the provisions in the Bill relating to the creation of the police remuneration review body, which will operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to take account of the fact that the Scottish Government have now introduced their own legislation to establish the police negotiating board for Scotland. The amendments ensure
15 Oct 2013 : Column 627
that various statutory references to the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom which are being amended by the Bill, will now apply to the PNB for Scotland.
Amendments 79 to 81 relate to the new powers to seize invalid travel documents. They do not change the powers, but simply improve the drafting to ensure that there is absolute clarity. The amendments clarify that, although a constable, immigration officer or a designated customs official may authorise a person to carry out a search for travel documents on their behalf at a port, this power may only be exercised away from a port by a constable. The amendment restates that reasonable force may be used if necessary when exercising the new search and seizure powers.
On low-value shop theft, clause 144 is intended to improve the management through the courts of the high volume of shop thefts involving goods to the value of £200 or less by enabling them to benefit from procedures applying to summary only cases. In particular, offenders will be able to plead guilty by post and, in turn, the police will be able to prosecute suitable cases directly as “specified proceedings”, without the need to involve the Crown Prosecution Service. That will simplify procedures and enable swifter justice in such cases. Although clause 144 makes low-value shop theft “summary only”, it preserves the defendant’s right to be tried at the Crown Court, through subsection (2) of new section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Amendment 136, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, would remove that subsection. The Government have been clear that they will defend the right to trial by jury; it is an historic freedom that is rightly protected by the coalition’s programme for government. Although the statistics suggest that the right is not often exercised in cases of shop theft—last year, only 700 out of 77,000 cases went to the Crown Court—we see no reason to depart from that general principle. In this instance, I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider his amendment.
Government amendments 61, 69 and 73 are consequential on those changes. Amendment 61 will ensure that a range of powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 available to the police and others to deal with indictable offences, which currently includes all theft from shops, will remain available to deal with the theft of goods of a value of £200 or less. That means that magistrates will still be able to issue search warrants, the police will be able to enter premises to search for evidence or arrest suspects, and store detectives will still be able to arrest suspects. I hope that that provides some reassurance to some retailers that I know have been anxious about this. The amendment also ensures that the equivalent PACE provisions applying to service personnel are similarly amended to preserve relevant powers of investigation. This will ensure that cases of shop theft can continue to be investigated and pursued appropriately and rigorously by the police, while providing that where individuals are to be prosecuted in court, that can be done more efficiently and effectively.
Jack Dromey: I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.
Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old,
15 Oct 2013 : Column 628
excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.
What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jack Dromey: Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.
On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.
Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration
15 Oct 2013 : Column 629
does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.
Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.
It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.
Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.
We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.
New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.
We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly
15 Oct 2013 : Column 630
young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.
Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind) rose—
Jack Dromey: I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.
In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.
2.15 pm
David T. C. Davies: I know that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as quick as I can.
I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, which is why I wanted to speak. My speech can be short, because I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. I particularly support new clause 26 on public-facing workers. I have little need to add anything. He was absolutely right in everything he said. In fact, only yesterday, I dealt with a lady, a retail worker, who had been spat at at close range. Obviously, I meet many rail staff who—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—are the victims of daily verbal and physical abuse. We have already heard about nurses, too. I absolutely agree with the new clause and told my Whips that I would support it and vote for it, if it came to a vote.
I am saddened that I am unable to do so, however, because of new clause 34, about which the hon. Member for Stockport will speak in a minute. I ask her to think very carefully about that, because the clause would reverse some of the good work that would be done by new clause 26. It would take away some of the rights that police constables, who are, after all, public sector, public-facing workers, should have. They should have the same rights as nurses, rail staff, bus drivers and the rest. That is important because police officers are often called to domestic dwelling houses late at night, in cases where drugs and drink can be involved, and they will suffer horrendous verbal abuse and, sometimes, threats of physical abuse. I do not think that police officers
15 Oct 2013 : Column 631
should have to put up with that any more than social workers or anyone else who goes into a private dwelling house.
New clause 34 might also have unintended consequences. I am not trying to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong, but sometimes neighbours might ring to allege that domestic violence is taking place and, when the police officer arrives, they might find one angry male—I am sorry if that is a stereotype, but it is often the case—under the influence of drink and shouting, swearing and so on. If neither of the people in that house is able to make an accusation, the fact that one person is drunk and shouting might be enough to allow a police officer to remove them from the premises by arresting them under the Public Order Act 1986. That is not something that police officers do lightly because they know that any arrest needs to be proportionate and that they will have to take somebody in front of a custody officer, who will not take kindly to arrests made without due cause. I ask the hon. Lady to think very carefully about her new clause.
If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington wishes to propose his new clause on some other occasion or to table an early-day motion, I will fully support him. I offer him my public support and I will vote for such protection for public sector workers. I would not do so, however, at the expense of police officers, who are also public sector workers like all the others.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab): I want to say a few words on new clause 34. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for giving me his views on it, but I think there might have been a misunderstanding.
The new clause would change the law to make the use of racist or other abusive language in a dwelling house an offence when it was directed at a policeman. I was recently contacted by a serving police officer from my constituency who was present when a colleague from the Greater Manchester police was called a “nigger” in a private house. Under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, no offence is committed if the “harassment, alarm or distress” takes place inside a dwelling house—that is, somebody’s house or flat. I was surprised by that because, like many people, I was under the impression that racist abuse was an offence wherever it was committed. However, this is not the case. I was shocked to hear that somebody could not be charged with the offence because it took place in a dwelling against a police officer pursuing his duty.
My amendment would make it an offence to use racist or other abusive language against a police constable who was present in a dwelling in the execution of his duty. The police officer from my constituency described attending a property where two men were aggressively arguing. One was very drunk and called one of the police officers a nigger. The officer described seeing her colleague abused and she told me, “I was quite horrified he had to endure this kind of abuse. I felt very frustrated and helpless that we could not charge the offender with any offence.” I am sure that this is by no means an isolated case and I suspect that other professionals such as social workers and health visitors have also been subject to racist abuse when visiting a person at their home address. It does not seem right to me or, I suspect, to the public that if the police officer had been called a
15 Oct 2013 : Column 632
nigger in the street, an offence would have been committed, but none was committed because it happened inside a house. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment that I propose.
Simon Hughes: I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 178 to 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.
We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.
The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.
Dr Huppert: I shall do my best to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate.
I welcome Government new clause 11. It is right to extend powers to PCSOs, allowing them to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. I am a huge champion of cycling. I was delighted when the House passed a motion to get Britain cycling. One of the banes of my life in that context is cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. Anything that we can do to get people to cycle safely and legally will make it easier for those of us who want to extend facilities for cyclists. There are sensible ways forward. In Cambridge we have been using a “lights instead of tickets” campaign to make sure that people get their lights. I welcome the new clause as a sensible step forward.
I shall spend most of my time talking about schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I have tabled a series of amendments. There has been particular controversy
15 Oct 2013 : Column 633
recently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, because of the detention of David Miranda, the partner of
The
Guardian
journalist working on the Edward Snowden leaks. This has led to the Independent Police Complaints Commission taking the Met to the High Court over failure to address complaints and how schedule 7 is used. This is a very broadly written power. It should not be a surprise that it has expanded from its original use in Northern Ireland in the 1970s to become worse and worse as illiberal Governments have made it even heavier.
It seems to me that it is not right for people who “look like terrorists” to be detained. That is exactly what happens under schedule 7. StopWatch has done a huge amount of work on this. Last year there were 64,000 schedule 7 stops—a huge number. Twenty-seven per cent. of those stopped for under an hour were Asian, much more than their proportion in the community, and 77% of those stopped for more than an hour were from ethnic minority populations. We should not consider that acceptable. StopWatch cites some chilling quotes from one man Glasgow who said that
“the first thing you ask your friend is . . . not how was the holiday, it’s did you get stopped and what did they ask you?”
If we are setting up a power that creates huge concern in the Muslim and ethnic minority populations, that will separate people from the bulk of our country and is deeply alarming. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and David Anderson QC have also commented on how damaging that is.
This is a matter that Liberal Democrats have been concerned about for a long time. It is not just about David Miranda, who has the support of The Guardian. It is also about people who are detained routinely. That is why my party has debated this and why I tabled a range of proposals. There are many concerns about schedule 7. One option would be to get rid of it. There are alternative powers in section 47A. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There are other options that we have looked at. I would like to see us committed to David Anderson QC’s proposals to limit the scope of schedule 7. The Government should introduce provisions to that effect in the other place.
I have also proposed implementing proposals that my party made at our conference. They include getting rid of the principle that authorities can stop people without any suspicion at all, restoring the right to silence for those who are detained, and questioning to be recorded from start to finish. Restoring confidence and the basic principles of the rule of law to that process and making sure that data collected are not used inappropriately should be important in the case of David Miranda. I also propose a statutory principle of annual review and a sunset clause. The Government should look at these proposals and I hope they will take advantage of the process to make sure that that happens. I am glad that that is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I would love to deal with the proposals made by the Opposition and their proposals to ban synthetic caffeine, but in the interests of time I will allow the Minister to respond.
Damian Green: I am grateful. I shall be brief.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 634
On new clause 26, as I said in Committee, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the clause. The work of a great number of people, whether within the public or the private sector, brings them into face-to-face contact with members of the public, and we know that some of these people suffer violence in the course of their jobs. It is essential that we are satisfied that the law adequately addresses this issue. However, I do not think the new clause is necessary to achieve that. There is already a range of offences that have general application and that criminalise violent behaviour and they would already apply in the context envisaged by the clause. Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so could well result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. So I do not think the clause is necessary, although as I said, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.
New clause 27 seeks to introduce a system of independent authorisation for undercover policing operations. I announced to the Home Affairs Committee in June our intention to legislate to enhance oversight of undercover law enforcement officer deployments. This can be done through secondary legislation and I will lay the appropriate order before the House shortly.
The changes will mean that law enforcement agencies will need to notify the Surveillance Commissioners, all retired senior judges, at the outset of undercover operations and get their prior approval for every deployment that lasts longer than 12 months. In addition, I am increasing the rank of the authorising officer. Deployments of undercover law enforcement officers will be authorised at assistant chief constable level or equivalent. Deployments lasting longer than 12 months will be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent. The rank of an authorising officer for emergency deployments will increase from inspector to superintendent level or equivalent. These changes will promote the highest standards of professionalism and excellence in this most sensitive area of policing and therefore achieve the aims of new clause 28. I hope they will be welcomed by the House.
On schedule 7, there is clearly debate on whether this requires further modification along the lines proposed in some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. For the purposes of the debate today, I put it to my hon. Friend and to the Chair of the Joint Committee that it is premature to consider making such changes because the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of these powers in the case of David Miranda. The Government, sensibly, will want to examine carefully any recommendations he makes in his report, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will want to do likewise. It would be wrong to pre-empt that report or commit now to implementing its recommendations. It is for the independent reviewer to make recommendations, but it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what legislative changes should flow from them.
Given the importance of these issues, any such legislative proposals should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, as with the provisions in the Bill, rather than being implemented through secondary legislation, as my hon.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 635
Friend the Member for Cambridge suggests in amendment 150. Although I welcome this contribution—
2.30 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 14 October).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
Credit for time in custody awaiting extradition to United Kingdom to serve sentence
‘In section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 (persons unlawfully at large), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
(a) a person is extradited to the United Kingdom from a category 1 territory for the purpose of serving a term of imprisonment or another form of detention mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, and
(b) the person was for any time kept in custody in that territory with a view to the extradition (and not also for any other reason),
the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under that subsection to direct that account shall be taken of that time in calculating the period for which the person is liable to be detained.
(3B) In subsection (3A) of this section “category 1 territory” means a territory designated under the Extradition Act 2003 for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act.”’.—(Damian Green.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
Court and tribunal fees
‘(1) In prescribing a fee under an enactment specified in subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged.
(a) section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 (Senior Courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts fees);
(b) section 54 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Court of Protection fees);
(c) section 58(4)(b) of that Act (Public Guardian fees);
(d) section 42 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (tribunal fees).
(3) Before prescribing a fee by virtue of subsection (1) under an enactment specified in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (d), the Lord Chancellor must have regard to—
(a) the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, including in particular any costs incurred by those courts and tribunals that are not being met by current fee income, and
(b) the competitiveness of the legal services market.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible are the
15 Oct 2013 : Column 636
courts listed in section 1(1) of the Courts Act 2003 and the tribunals listed in section 39(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
(5) A fee prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) under section 58(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 must be used to finance the efficient and effective discharge of functions of the Public Guardian.
(6) A fee prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) under any other enactment specified in subsection (2) must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals.
(a) containing an order or regulations under an enactment specified in subsection (2), and
(b) setting a fee for the first time in excess of the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged,
may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.—(Damian Green.)
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
Assault on workers in public facing roles
‘(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and(b) (i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or (ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally.
“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.—(Jack Dromey.)
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House divided:
Ayes 224, Noes 286.
Division No. 98]
[
2.31 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonald, Andy
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thornberry, Emily
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Heidi Alexander
and
Stephen Doughty
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
de Bois, Nick
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lloyd, Stephen
Long, Naomi
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maude, rh Mr Francis
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Syms, Mr Robert
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Karen Bradley
and
Jenny Willott
Question accordingly negatived.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 637
15 Oct 2013 : Column 638
15 Oct 2013 : Column 639
15 Oct 2013 : Column 640
Offence of forced marriage
Amendments made: 49, page 75, line 17, after ‘offence’ insert
‘under the law of England and Wales’.
Amendment 50, page 75, line 22, after ‘offence’ insert
‘under the law of England and Wales’.—
(Damian Green.)
Abolition of Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom
Amendment made: 51, page 80, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) The Secretary of State may secure the reimbursement of payments made under section 61(5) or (7) of the Police Act 1996 (payment by Scottish Ministers or Department of Justice in Northern Ireland towards expenses incurred by the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom) to the extent that, by reason of the abolition of the Board, the payments are not needed.’.—(Damian Green.)
15 Oct 2013 : Column 641
Consultation about regulations: England and Wales
Amendments made: 52, page 83, line 22, leave out
‘Police Advisory Board for England and Wales’
‘appropriate advisory or negotiating body’.
Amendment 53, page 83, line 24, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) above, “the appropriate advisory or negotiating body” means—
(a) as regards England and Wales, the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales;
(b) as regards Scotland, the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland.’.
Amendment 54, page 83, line 25, after ‘above’ insert
‘as regards England and Wales,’.
Amendment 55, page 83, line 37, leave out from ‘paragraph’ to end of line 40 and insert
‘3, for sub-paragraph (3) there is substituted—
‘(3) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) consult with the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales before exercising the power as regards England and Wales;
(b) consult with the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland before exercising the power as regards Scotland;
(c) consult with the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Association for Northern Ireland before exercising the power as regards Northern Ireland.”’. —(Damian Green.)
Date of extradition hearing
Amendment made: 56, page 99, line 6, leave out from ‘But’ to end of line 8 and insert ‘if proceedings in respect of the extradition are adjourned under section 8A or 8B, the permitted period is extended by the number of days for which the proceedings are so adjourned.”’.—(Damian Green.)
Appeals
Amendments made: 57, page 103, line 2, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 28 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 1 territory)—
(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.
Amendment 58, page 103, line 13, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 105 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 2 territory)—
(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.
Amendment 59, page 103, line 20, leave out from ‘subsection’ to third ‘the’ in line 22 and insert ‘(7) there is inserted—
‘(7A) Where a person gives notice of application for leave to appeal after the end of the permitted period (whether or not the application is for leave to appeal on human rights grounds),”.’.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 642
Amendment 60, page 103, line 25, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 110 of that Act (appeal against discharge by Secretary of State)—
(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.—(Damian Green.)
Low-value shoplifting
Amendment made: 61, page 117, line 13, at end insert—
‘(5A) Any reference in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to an “indictable offence” has effect as if it included a reference to low-value shoplifting (as defined in section 22A(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).
(5B) In section 84 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (definitions), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(2A) In subsection (2)(a), the reference to an “indictable offence” has effect as if it included a reference to low-value shoplifting (as defined in section 22A(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).”’.—(Damian Green.)
Court and tribunal fees
Amendment made: 137, page 118, leave out clause 147. —(Damian Green.)
Orders and regulations
Amendment made: 62, page 119, line 21, at end insert
‘, but this does not apply to a power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under section 152’.
Amendment 138, page 119, leave out line 23.—(Damian Green.)
Extent
Amendments made:: 63, page 120, line 11, at end insert—
‘() section [Violent offender orders];’.
Amendment 64, page 120, line 12, leave out ‘Part 9’ and insert ‘sections 103 and 104’.
Amendment 65, page 120, line 14, leave out ‘114’ and insert ‘114(1), (2) and (4)’.
Amendment 66, page 120, line 17, leave out ‘section 128’ and insert
‘sections 128, [Fees for criminal record certificates etc]’.
Amendment 67, page 120, line 17, at end insert
‘and [Power of community support officer to issue fixed penalty notice for cycle light offence]’.
Amendment 68, page 120, line 18, leave out ‘section’ and insert
‘sections [Credit for time in custody awaiting extradition to United Kingdom to serve sentence] and’.
Amendment 69, page 120, leave out line 19 and insert—
‘(j) section 144 except subsection (5B);
Amendment 105, page 120, line 23, after ‘100’ insert
‘, [Functions of Scottish Ministers under Firearms Acts]’.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 643
Amendment 70, page 120, line 23, at end insert—
Amendment 71, page 120, line 32, at end insert—
Amendment 139, page 120, line 37, leave out ‘147’ and insert ‘[Court and tribunal fees]’.
Amendment 72, page 120, line 37, at end insert—
‘( ) Section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland] extends only to Scotland.’.
Amendment 73, page 120, line 38, at end insert—
‘(5A) Section 144(5B) has the same extent as section 84 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the powers conferred by section 384 of that Act (power to extend Act to the Channel Islands and powers to make provisions of that Act apply with modifications in relation to the Channel Islands, British overseas territories and the Isle of Man) are exercisable in relation to the amendment of that Act made by section 144(5B) of this Act.’.—(Damian Green.)
Extent
Amendments made: 92, page 120, line 11, at end insert—
‘() section [Saving and transitional provision];’.
Amendment 93, page 120, line 31, at end insert—
‘() section [Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc] and Schedule [Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003];’.
Amendment 74, page 121, line 9, at end insert—
‘() section [Fees for criminal record certificates etc], which comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with that day;’.
Amendment 75, page 121, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland].’.
Amendment 76, page 121, line 19, at end insert—
‘( ) Section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland] comes into force on whatever day the Scottish Ministers appoint by order.’.
Amendment 77, page 121, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) The Scottish Ministers may by order make whatever saving, transitional or transitory provision they think appropriate in connection with the coming into force of section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland].’.
Amendment 78, page 121, line 27, at end insert—
‘( ) An order under this section bringing into force on a particular day a provision which refers to the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland may, if it appears to the Secretary of State that no body of that name will be in existence on that day, bring the provision into force subject to whatever consequential amendment or transitional provision the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.’.—(Damian Green.)
Powers to seize invalid passports etc
Amendments made: 79, page 145, line 2, at end insert—
( ) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power under this paragraph;
( ) may authorise a person to carry out on the officer’s behalf a search under this paragraph.’.
Amendment 80, page 145, line 29, at end insert—
(a) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power under this paragraph;
(b) may authorise a person to carry out on the constable’s behalf a search under this paragraph.’.
Amendment 81, page 146, line 5, leave out paragraph 5. —(Damian Green.)
15 Oct 2013 : Column 644
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendment proposed: 96, page 155, line 32, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27.—(Jack Dromey.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 229, Noes 296.
Division No. 99]
[
2.45 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hermon, Lady
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Long, Naomi
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
McKinnell, Catherine
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mudie, Mr George
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Perkins, Toby
Pound, Stephen
Powell, Lucy
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Heidi Alexander
and
Stephen Doughty
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Barker, rh Gregory
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evans, Mr Nigel
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, rh Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Hunter, Mark
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Latham, Pauline
Laws, rh Mr David
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maude, rh Mr Francis
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Karl
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, rh Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Syms, Mr Robert
Thornton, Mike
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Gavin Barwell
and
Jenny Willott
Question accordingly negatived.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 645
15 Oct 2013 : Column 646
15 Oct 2013 : Column 647
Amendments made: 82, page 158, line 20, at end insert—
15 Oct 2013 : Column 648
‘Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32)
In Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (legislative competence of Welsh Assembly), in the list of exceptions in paragraph 12, for “Anti-social behaviour orders” there is substituted “Orders to protect people from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.’.
Amendment 94, page 161, line 8, at end insert—
‘Part 1A
Amendments relating to Part 8A
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46)
In section 19AA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (samples etc from sex offenders), in subsection (1)(c), after “an order under section” there is inserted “122A or”.In section 19AB of that Act (supplementary provision in risk of sexual harm order cases), in subsection (7), at the end of the definition of “risk of sexual harm order” there is inserted—
“and also includes an order under section 122A of the 2003 Act (sexual risk orders);”.
Police Act 1997 (c. 50)
(1) Section 113CA of the Police Act 1997 (suitability information relating to children) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (f) of subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(fa) if a sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 103C(2) or 103D(1) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103E(5) of that Act;
(fb) if an interim sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 103F(4) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103F(5) of that Act;”.
(2) After paragraph (i) of that subsection there is inserted—
“(ia) if a sexual risk order, made under section 122A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 122A(7) or 122C(1) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122D(4) of that Act;
(ib) if an interim sexual risk order, made under section 122E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 122E(4) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122E(5) of that Act;”.
(1) Section 113CB of that Act (suitability information relating to protected adults) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (f) of subsection (2) there is inserted—
“(fa) if a sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
15 Oct 2013 : Column 649
(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 103C(2) or 103D(1) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103E(5) of that Act;
(fb) if an interim sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 103F(4) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103F(5) of that Act;”.
(2) After paragraph (i) of that subsection there is inserted—
“(ia) if a sexual risk order, made under section 122A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 122A(7) or 122C(1) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122D(4) of that Act;
(ib) if an interim sexual risk order, made under section 122E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 122E(4) of that Act;
(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122E(5) of that Act;”.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
(1) Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (parenting orders) is amended as follows.
(2) For “sexual offences prevention order” there is substituted “sexual harm prevention order”—
(3) For subsection (9) there is substituted—
“(9) In this section ‘sexual harm prevention order’ means an order under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual harm prevention orders).”
Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)
In section 88 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 87: interpretation), in subsection (4)(c), after “interim notification order,” there is inserted “sexual harm prevention order, interim sexual harm prevention order,”.In section 89 of that Act (young offenders: parental directions), in the Table in subsection (1), after “interim notification order,” there is inserted “sexual harm prevention order, interim sexual harm prevention order,”.In section 91A of that Act (review of indefinite notification requirements: qualifying young offender), in subsection (2)(b), after “not subject to” there is inserted “a sexual harm prevention order under section 103A, an interim sexual harm prevention order under section 103F,”.In the cross-heading before section 104 of that Act (sexual offences prevention orders: application and grounds), after
“orders”
there is inserted
“(Scotland and Northern Ireland)”.
In section 108 of that Act (SOPOs: variations, renewals and discharges), in subsection (8)(b) the words “2 or” and “England and Wales or” are omitted.In section 109 of that Act (interim SOPOs), in subsection (7)(a) the words “2A or” and “England and Wales or” are omitted.
(1) Section 110 of that Act (SOPO and interim SOPOs: appeals) is amended as follows.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 650
(2) For the heading there is substituted “Appeals in relation to SOPOs and interim SOPOs: Northern Ireland”.
(3) In subsections (1)(c), (2) and (3)(b), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
(4) In subsection (4), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
(5) For subsection (5) there is substituted—
“(5) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(c) or (2) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 108(7) or 109(6) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
(1) Section 113 of that Act (offence: breach of SOPO or interim SOPO) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the end there is inserted “etc”.
(3) In subsection (1), in paragraph (d) the words “2, 2A or” and “in England and Wales and” are omitted.
(4) After that subsection there is inserted—
“(1A) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he contravenes a prohibition imposed by—
(a) a sexual harm prevention order, or
(b) an interim sexual harm prevention order,
other than a prohibition on foreign travel.”
In the cross-heading before section 114 of that Act (foreign travel orders: applications and grounds), after “orders” there is inserted “(Scotland and Northern Ireland)”.
(1) Section 117A of that Act (foreign travel orders: surrender of passports) is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading there is substituted “Surrender of passports: Northern Ireland”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “at a police station” there is inserted “in Northern Ireland”.
(4) In subsection (3), at the end there is inserted “(unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order)”.
In section 117B of that Act (surrender of passports: Scotland), at the end of subsection (3) there is inserted “(unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order)”.
(1) Section 119 of that Act (foreign travel orders: appeals) is amended as follows.
(2) For the heading there is substituted “Appeals in relation to foreign travel orders: Northern Ireland”.
(3) In subsection (1), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
(4) In subsection (2), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
(5) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
“(3) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 118(5) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
(1) Section 122 (offence: breach of foreign travel order) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, at the end there is inserted “etc”.
(a) for “excuse, he” there is substituted “excuse—
(b) at the end there is inserted “, or
(b) he contravenes a prohibition on foreign travel imposed by a sexual harm prevention order.”
(4) In subsection (1B)(a) the words “England and Wales and” are omitted.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 651
In the cross-heading before section 123 of that Act, after
“orders”
there is inserted
“(Northern Ireland)”.
(1) Section 123 of that Act (risk of sexual harm orders: application, grounds and effect) is amended as follows.
(a) for “A chief officer of police” there is substituted “The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”;
(b) for “a magistrates’ court” there is substituted “a court of summary jurisdiction”;
(c) for “his police area” (in both places) there is substituted “Northern Ireland”;
(d) for “the chief officer” (in both places) there is substituted “the Chief Constable”.
(3) Subsection (2) is repealed.
(1) Section 125 (RSHOs: variation, renewals and discharges) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (b) to (d) there is substituted—
“(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
(3) In subsection (3), for “and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection (2)” there is substituted “, and the other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard)”.
(4) In subsection (5), for the words after “without the consent of the defendant and” there is substituted “the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.
(5) In subsection (7), for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is inserted—
“(b) a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessions district which includes the area where the defendant resides;
(c) where the application is made by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, any court of summary jurisdiction.”
In section 126 (interim RSHOs), in subsection (2)(b), for “the person who has made that application” there is substituted “the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.
(1) Section 127 (RSHOs and interim RSHOs) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
(3) In subsection (2), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
(4) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
“(3) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) or (b) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 125(7) or 126(5) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
(1) Section 128 (offence: breach of RSHO or interim RSHO) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “interim RSHO” there is inserted “etc”.
(3) For subsections (1) and (1A) there is substituted—
“(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by—
(a) a risk of sexual harm order,
(b) an interim risk of sexual harm order,
(d) an interim sexual risk order,
(e) an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland), or
15 Oct 2013 : Column 652
(f) an order under section 5 of that Act (interim risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland),
(1) Section 129 (effect of conviction etc of an offence under section 128) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “section 128” there is inserted “etc”
(3) In subsection (1A)(a), after “an offence under section” there is inserted “122H or”.
(4) For subsection (5) there is substituted—
“(5) In this section ‘relevant order’ means—
(a) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of a risk of sexual harm order or a sexual risk order, that order;
(b) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of an interim risk of sexual harm order or an interim sexual risk order, any risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order made on the hearing of the application to which the interim order relates or, if no such order is made, the interim order.
‘risk of sexual harm order’ includes an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;
“interim risk of sexual harm order’ includes an order under section 5 of that Act.”
(1) Section 133 of that Act (Part 2: general interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate places there is inserted—
“‘Interim sexual harm prevention order’ has the meaning given by section 103F(2);”;
“‘interim sexual risk order’ has the meaning given by section 122E(2);”;
“‘prohibition on foreign travel’ has the meaning given by section 103D(2) or 122C(2);”;
“‘sexual harm prevention order’ has the meaning given by section 103A(1);”;
“‘sexual risk order’ has the meaning given by section 122A(1);”.
In section 136 of that Act (Part 2: Northern Ireland), for subsection (8) there is substituted—
“(8) The reference in section 101 to the Crown Court is to be read as a reference to a county court.”
Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 9)
(1) Section 7 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (offence: breach of RSHO or interim RSHO) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “interim RSHO” there is inserted “etc”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “an order made under” there is inserted “section 122A or 122E or”.
(1) Section 8 of that Act (effect of conviction etc under section 7 of that Act or section 128 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “or section” there is inserted “122H or”.
(3) In subsection (1)(a), for the words after “an offence under section 7 above” there is substituted “, section 122H of the 2003 Act (breach of sexual risk order or interim sexual risk order in England and Wales) or section 128 of that Act (breach of risk of sexual harm order or interim risk of sexual harm order in Northern Ireland)”.
(4) In subsection (1)(b), after “an offence under section” there is inserted “122H or”.
(5) In the definition of “relevant order” in subsection (5)—
15 Oct 2013 : Column 653
(a) in paragraph (a), for “section 123” there is substituted “an order under section 122A or section 123”;
(b) in paragraph (b), after “a breach of” there is inserted “a sexual risk order under section 122A of the 2003 Act or”;
(c) for paragraphs (c) and (d) there is substituted—
“(c) where the conviction or finding referred to in subsection (1)(a), (c) or (d) above is in respect of a breach of an interim risk of sexual harm order under section 5 above or an interim order under section 122E or 126 of the 2003 Act—
(i) any risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order made upon the application to which the interim order relates; or
(ii) if no risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order has been made, the interim order;
(d) where the caution referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is in respect of a breach of an interim order under section 122E or 126 of the 2003 Act—
(i) any order under section 122A or 123 of that Act made upon the application to which the interim order relates; or
(ii) if no order under section 122A or 123 of that Act has been made, the interim order.”
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (c. 38)
In section 56 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences), subsection (2) is repealed.
Amendment 83, page 161, line 36, at end insert—
“Police Act 1997 (c. 50)
In section 137 of the Police Act 1997 (extent), in subsection (2) (provisions extending to England and Wales only), after ‘sections’ in paragraph (e) there is inserted ‘125(1A),’.”
Amendment 84, page 163, line 35, at end insert—
“
Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602)
In article 14 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (pensions: special constables and police cadets), in paragraph (2), for ‘the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom’ there is substituted ‘the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland’.”
Amendment 85, page 164, line 4, leave out ‘The’ and insert ‘In the Schedule, the’.
Amendment 86, page 164, line 32, at end insert—
| ‘Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602) | In Schedule 1, paragraph 5(4) to (6).’. |
Amendment 87, page 165, line 4, at end insert—
“In section 28 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 1 territory), in subsection (5), for ‘Notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’.”
Amendment 88, page 165, line 23, at end insert—
“In section 105 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 2 territory), in subsection (5), for ‘Notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’.”
Amendment 89, page 165, line 24, leave out paragraph 74 and insert—
“74 (1) Section 108 of that Act (appeal against extradition order: category 2 territory) is amended as follows.
15 Oct 2013 : Column 654
(2) In subsection (4), for the words before ‘is 14 days’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal under this section must be given—
(a) in accordance with rules of court, and
(a) subject to subsections (5) and (7A), before the end of the permitted period, which’.
(a) for ‘But notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’
(b) after ‘if it is an’ there is inserted ‘application for leave to’.
(4) In subsection (6), for the words before ‘before the person is extradited’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal on human rights grounds given after the end of the permitted period must be given’.
(a) for ‘notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘notice of application for leave to appeal’;
(b) for ‘consider the appeal’ there is substituted ‘grant leave’;
(c) for ‘to consider the appeal’ there is substituted ‘for the appeal to be heard’.
(6) In subsection (8), for ‘“appeal on human rights grounds” means an appeal’ there is substituted ‘“to appeal on human rights grounds” means to appeal’.”
Amendment 90, page 165, line 26, at end insert—
In section 110 of that Act (appeal against discharge by Secretary of State), in subsection (5), for “Notice of an appeal” there is substituted “Notice of application for leave to appeal”.’.
Amendment 91, page 166, line 33, at end insert—
‘Part 4
Amendments consequential on establishment of Police Service of Scotland
Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)
(1) Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (detention) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 20B(10), for paragraph (b) of the definition of “a specified chief officer of police” there is substituted—
(b) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland, where—
(i) the person who provided the material, or from whom it was taken, resides in Scotland, or
(ii) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Scotland.”
(a) for paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of “police force” there is substituted—
(d) the Police Service of Scotland;
(e) the Scottish Police Authority;”;
(b) in the second of the three definitions of “responsible chief officer of police”, for the words after “the chief constable of” there is substituted “the Police Service of Scotland”.
Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28)
In section 18D of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (use of retained material), in subsection (2) for “the Scottish Police Services Authority” there is substituted “the Scottish Police Authority”.In section 18E(1) of that Act (interpretation of sections 18 to 18E), for paragraph (d) of the definition of “police force” there is substituted—
(d) the Police Service of Scotland;”.’.—(Mr Harper.)
15 Oct 2013 : Column 655
Dog control notices
(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
(a) states that he or she is of that belief;
(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;
(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice;
(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and
(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.
(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;
(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;
(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;
(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and
(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.
(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in a wild state.—(Mr Reed.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Dog number control notice—
(1) This section applies where more than one dog is being kept in a domestic property in England or Wales.
(2) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that the number of dogs being kept in a domestic property gives rise to a risk that any one or more of the dogs may become dangerously out of control while in or partly in the domestic property (“the risk”), he or she may serve on the person in charge a written control notice which—