Huhne on the Policing and Crime Bill

• [Jan 19]: ' . . THIS is the 66th criminal justice Bill since 1997, and it should be becoming abundantly clear that quantity does not make up for a lack of quality . . '

Christopher Huhne (Shadow Home Secretary; Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat): I am always delighted to follow Keith Vaz. He gave some wise words of advice to the Home Secretary, which I hope that she heeds. I shall turn to that aspect of the Bill later in my speech. I also want to congratulate Chris Grayling on his inaugural outing and on his appointment to an important role in the House, joining the somewhat select gathering of those who tend to come to the House for Home Office business.

The Bill is a hotch-potch, as is commonly recognised, but it hides a clear hole. It is a hotch-potch because it contains legal ingredients on matters that are barely related, which have been thrown together with no thought as to freshness, let alone a recipe. We have measures on police reform, force collaboration, prostitution, aviation security, alcohol-fuelled disorder, asset seizures and extradition. This is the 66th criminal justice Bill since 1997, and it should be becoming abundantly clear that quantity does not make up for a lack of quality. I want first in my remarks to deal with the central void in the Bill, namely police reform. I shall then deal with some of the bitty aspects and I shall finally turn to the reforms of the prostitution laws, which would not only be controversial, but in my view-I agree with the right hon. Member for Leicester, East-a serious mistake.

The largest disappointment of all is the fact that the Bill hides a hole because the fundamental direction of travel on which the Government had embarked in their Green Paper, which the Liberal Democrats welcomed, has been ditched. Localism has gone; it has disappeared; it has vanished like a Cheshire cat. Yet there is no alternative set of proposals and no alternative vision of the world.

I assume that the Government still intend to abandon the extensive national targets, as the Home Secretary appeared to imply earlier, that they built up following the introduction of the Police Reform Act 2002, but if so, who is to exercise the powers that the Home Secretary has exercised until now? If it is the existing police authorities who will do so, then we are merely back to the position as it was before 2002. The duty that the Bill will introduce is negligible in its difference from the duty in the Police Act 1996. In short, we are now back to the police governance arrangements as they were when the Home Office decided that they did not work.

Let me remind the House that those arrangements did not work in terms of efficiency because there had been a long-term decline in detection rates for recorded crime, even though detection is the most crucial part of an effective deterrent against crime. That is important. One could introduce sharia law in this country and it would have no effect on crime whatsoever if the chances of getting caught remained extremely low. On a broad definition of crime, including business crime, only one in 100 crimes ends with a conviction in court-99 do not.

National targets are a blunt instrument with many unexpected and counter-productive effects, but they have introduced some new focus on efficiency, effectiveness and outcomes. What will now take their place? The answer in the Green Paper was right: local accountability. Local accountability involves two crucial elements that are now lacking. The first would be a proper local debate about priorities, which would allow local police forces to use their police authority as a genuine sounding board on popular opinion. It would also allow the abandonment of targets that were inevitably nonsense in some parts of the country, such as targets for cuts in the types of crime that were already negligible in some force areas. The second crucial element would be a local drive to greater efficiency. The fact that police authorities should be accountable to voters would drive police forces to compare their own working methods with best practice and to improve. That matters because the variations in police performance are just as significant as the common factors. If the average detection rate were improved so that it came closer to that of the top 10 per cent. of forces in this country, nearly 400,000 more crimes would be detected each year. That would be a real deterrent, as we know from the Home Office's research against crime.

Even for serious offences such as violence, detection rates vary widely, from 36 per cent. at their lowest in London to 67 per cent. at their highest, yet those offences should surely be a high priority everywhere.

Roger Williams (Shadow Secretary of State for Wales; Shadow Environment, Energy, Food and Rural Affair Minister; Brecon & Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend makes an important point about detection being a huge deterrent against crime. The Green Paper includes a hint that the funding formula should be met in full, which would mean the end of the funding floor and the rural policing grant. That would be a huge impediment for detection in areas that depend on those funds. The Dyfed-Powys police say that it would cut their budget by about £8.6 million.

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes an important point about his local police force, which is, by the way, an extremely good police force in terms of its detection rates. It is very effective. In view of the model of local accountability that we Liberal Democrats are talking about, it is extremely important that there should be an established, understood formula for funding that takes into account need across the country and that is not subject to the sort of vagaries that we have sadly seen as both the Treasury and the Home Office have chopped and changed on such issues as police community support officers and the 101 number.

The Government's former answer to the problem was the same as ours: more local democracy holding police forces to account. I welcome the Home Secretary's implication earlier that she has not entirely given up on that vision, but I hope that it is not just a smokescreen for retreat, as was the case with the provisions in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, when although she said that she was not changing her mind the reality was that the policy had changed fundamentally. I do not know what the Government's answer in this Bill actually is. It cannot be Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, because however admirable its work is, it has not managed to reduce the disparities, despite many long years of trying; nor, for the same reasons, can it be the National Police Improvement Agency. We are left with a Polo policing reform-a policy with a hole in the middle. We are left with a vacuum, a void and intellectual vacuity.

Rob Marris (PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office; Wolverhampton South West, Labour): I note the argument the hon. Gentleman is making and I wonder whether he could elucidate how far his party would take the localism policy. For example, do he and his party want the 43 police forces in England and Wales to be funded wholly by a local income tax? I think that that used to be his party's policy. What proportion of funds should be raised locally? Can he say a little more about the funding of the police in his conception?

Christopher Huhne: As the hon. Gentleman may know, local funding for the police has been steadily increasing as the amount of central Government grant is cut. There has to be an adequate amount of central Government grant to ensure that different needs are met across the country. That is a key matter and he is right to draw attention to it. [ Interruption. ] The answer to the question clearly is to make sure that there is a settled system, that each police authority is happy with the outcome and that there are no changes from year to year. Local funding would then pick up the remainder. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that our policy is to move towards local income tax, which would be preferable to the precept on council tax.

We can but speculate on the reasons for the Government's dramatic U-turn. Perhaps the Home Secretary realised that her plans for elected police authorities were fatally flawed. Such bodies would have been deeply unrepresentative and would have encouraged confrontational politics, because for the first time since 1997 the Government planned a new body elected under the first-past-the-post system. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Greater London assembly, the London Mayor and the European Parliament all use proportional or preference systems. In a force area, each borough that was a crime and disorder reduction partnership would elect one person as if it was a Westminster constituency.

The result is clear, as we know from an analysis of the Green Paper proposals made by the Electoral Reform Society. Based on the 2007 local election results, it showed that the Conservatives would win two thirds of the seats on police authorities outside London with just 38 per cent. of the popular vote. The proposals would also have wiped out Labour representation in the south of England.

The answer is not to ditch direct elections entirely, because the fundamental intellectual argument is correct, but for police authorities to be elected by a system of fair votes that ensures a proper ethnic and gender balance through the natural operation of a party's self-interest. In force areas with substantial ethnic minorities, such as London, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands, either the Green Paper system or, even worse, the Tory system of single elected commissioners for each force area would provide substantial parts of the population with little or no representation. We know that first past the post is biased against women and ethnic minorities, because the parties want to put up white, middle-class men in suits who are held to alienate the fewest voters-just look at us in the Chamber. The result of the proposals would be an alienation of many from the police that could ultimately prove dangerous-insensitive use of stop and search by the police was largely responsible for the Brixton riots.

What of police reform has been left? Not much, I fear. The general requirement to take account of local views is a sop and it certainly cannot be enforced, as suggested, by the inspectorate. There are sensible provisions for collaboration between police forces and authorities, but we are not happy that the Home Secretary has the power to give directions from the centre in that matter. Nor are we happy that there is no duty to collaborate where it would be beneficial to the local communities involved. That would be a much more sensible way of proceeding than attempting to ensure that the Home Office was on every case.

There is further centralisation and potential bureaucratisation in the proposals for a police senior appointments panel. The Home Secretary has the power to appoint both the chair and members, and to instruct the panel to carry out additional functions. The Association of Chief Police Officers has raised serious concerns, saying that it is

"concerned at the unrelenting drift of policy and legislation towards weakening their status as office holders."

Of course, police reform needs to encompass more than getting governance right. We need extra police on the streets, paid for by scrapping the identity card scheme. We would restore faith in the crime figures by taking them away from the Home Office and putting them under the direct supervision of the Office for National Statistics. We would publish not just crime figures but detection figures at local level.

David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside, Labour): May I follow the hon. Gentleman's logic on the abolition of the ID card scheme to spend money on the police? Can he explain briefly how reducing the amount raised from the passport charge-to take account of the fact that there would no longer be a clean database and the additional charge associated with the passport would thus no longer be needed-would allow the service to raise the same money for spending on the police from a different source?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the former Home Secretary for his intervention. We have set out clearly the savings that would result from scrapping the ID card scheme, and at the last election they were audited by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, among others. I merely point out that when I was involved in another role-as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury-I asked every Department how many of its top five IT schemes had overrun and failed to deliver on time. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that across Government, with the exception of three schemes, none was delivered on time or on budget, so as our calculations for the ID card scheme were based on the Government's published figures, I fear there will be a considerable undershoot in what is, after all, a serious and substantial IT scheme, which makes the others look like small beer.

David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside, Labour): Can we clarify the difference between income and expenditure? I am talking about income raised for spending; if the income is reduced, there can be no expenditure.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Gentleman is right; if we apply substantial charges to people they will resent it, which is presumably one of the reasons why his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is back-pedalling like crazy on the ID scheme, and the only people to whom it is being rolled out ahead of the election are those such as foreign nationals who will not have a vote. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the cost will be borne not only by the public sector.

David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside, Labour): rose-

Christopher Huhne: I am not giving way a third time. I need to make some progress.

We would urgently review the police contract-of recent Home Secretaries, the right hon. Gentleman may have come closest to doing that. Lifetime employment for 30 years, a single point of entry-especially when trying to deal with white collar crime such as fraud-and pay linked to seniority rather than performance may not really be appropriate if we want to make sure that the organisation is fit and effective in dealing with the extremely important tasks it faces, especially in present circumstances, when all the evidence suggests an increase in acquisitive crime at a time when there are substantial constraints on budgets, as none of us needs reminding. It is therefore particularly important to look at efficiency. Unlike the Conservatives and Labour, we would respect pay awards from the independent police arbitration tribunal and allow officers to progress within, not just between, the ranks.

Let me now turn away from police reform to some of the other provisions. There is no clearer example of why more legislation is no substitute for enforcing properly the existing law than alcohol-fuelled disorder. That is a real matter of much concern to many people, as I know from my constituents in Eastleigh. The Bill has more proposals for powers-for example, to remove young people to their homes or other places of safety, even if they have not committed an offence-yet there is abundant evidence that we are not using the powers already on the statute book. For example, in a parliamentary answer last month, the Home Secretary confirmed that no police service or local authority has yet issued a notice of proposal to designate an alcohol disorder zone; nor are we fully using the powers to cut alcohol sales to young people. I listened to what hon. Members have said about supermarket promotions and pricing, but, frankly, we have a lot of tools to deal with that very directly. I am afraid that the truth is that there is little evidence that behaviour is very sensitive to pricing, unless we are talking about a very substantial change in price.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour): Of course, one must be cautious in this area, but the fact is that the availability of cheap alcohol at supermarkets and the promotions that the Home Secretary and other hon. Members have spoken of today lead to people, especially young people, buying cheap alcohol from supermarkets. That does not apply to pubs, for example, where alcohol is more expensive. Surely, it is important that we take a stand and ensure that that availability of cheap alcohol is brought to an end.

Christopher Huhne: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to take a stand on the issue or that progress needs to be made on pricing, but there is an excessive stress on pricing. From simply looking at the evidence on the sensitivity of demand to price and taking into account my background-I plead guilty-as an economist, I caution against over-emphasising that aspect of dealing with the problem.

Sally Keeble (Northampton North, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman concede that Alcohol Concern-quoting research, I think, by Sheffield university-found that a minimum unit price of 40p would reduce hospital admissions by 41,000 a year and crime by 16,000 incidents a year? The Liberal Democrats have supported Alcohol Concern and should know about its figures.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. As I said, I do not deny that that is part of the solution, but I merely point out that we must not stress that it is overwhelmingly the answer. I would stress, for example, that we need to do much more in using the existing powers. A recent survey found that 40 per cent. of retail outlets were selling to under-age drinkers and that only 854 prosecutions were brought last year. Frankly, that is a drop in the ocean, by comparison with the many thousands of retail outlets across the country. At some stage, it will surely be revealed to the Home Office and its Ministers that enforcement matters more than new clauses from the parliamentary draftsman-a point with which I hope Rob Marris agrees, because he made it at the beginning of the debate. Paper powers matter less than police action.

Rob Marris (PPS (Rt Hon Shaun Woodward, Secretary of State), Northern Ireland Office; Wolverhampton South West, Labour): The hon. Gentleman comes up against the very problem that he delineated before: the balance between localism and centralism. On the one hand, as he said in the early part of his speech, he wants more localism, more local control and so on; on the other hand, five minutes later, he decries the fact that no alcohol disorder zones have been put in place-something that is decided by local people. He decries the lack of use of such powers, understandably, but that is what local forces have decided to do, or not to do. There is a contradiction in his position between localism and centralism, which we all have; it is very difficult.

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman has long experience of accusing me of contradiction in many different contexts, but I cannot conceivably concede the point to him, for the very simple reason that such powers are on the statute book and local authorities are not using them. Introducing similar powers is, frankly, as the Home Secretary conceded in an interesting little aside, intended to send a message. If she wants to send a message, she could either write it on a piece of paper and send it in the post-there is still the Royal Mail, just about, while the Government allow-or send out a press release. Frankly, detaining the House with legislation that merely piles on powers similar to those that already exist and are not being used comes very close to an offence of wasting Parliament's time.

Part 4 will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The new powers will allow the police and others to search for and seize property before someone has been charged. No judicial oversight will be applied to that new power. It is enough for the person to have been arrested but not charged and for criminal proceedings to be ongoing. Frankly, I should like that to be tested in Committee; on the face of it, it does not seem to be right.

Part 5 seeks to amend the Extradition Act 2003, yet it leaves untouched the most controversial aspect of our extradition arrangements: the imbalance between the United Kingdom and the United States, whereby a mere statement is adequate for the American authorities, while prima facie evidence is required for ours.

David Burrowes (Shadow Minister, Justice; Enfield, Southgate, Conservative): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the proposals in part 5 seek to improve the situation in some ways, they will not provide a remedy for my constituent, Gary Mackinnon, who will go to court tomorrow to seek to challenge the Government's decision? He is a victim of that imbalance and faces extradition, even after a recent diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome.

Christopher Huhne: I agree, and I am sympathetic to the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent. The Gary Mackinnon case is emblematic of precisely what I have been talking about. There is also a missed opportunity to amend the application of the European Union arrest warrant, to make it clear that we in this country will not entertain offences that involve freedom of speech, such as the recent case of Dr. Toben.

In part 7, the provisions on criminal record checks are unexceptionable, although we have some continuing concerns about unequal employer access to enhanced disclosure, despite the existence of the Independent Safeguarding Authority. There are other minor provisions that relate to border security, although they might have found a better home in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill.

I move on finally to the most objectionable part of the proposals: part 2, which deals with sexual offences and sex establishments. I entirely agree with the term used by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East on the issue. We are considering a problem that deserves far more attention from us and the Government than it is getting at the moment. I am pleased that the Government have proceeded with real commitment from Ministers to the signing of the trafficking convention, but I do not think that the Home Secretary's proposals in the Bill will work, and I fear that they will be counter-productive. The most controversial clauses are precisely on the prostitution laws. We entirely agree with the objective, but the proposed reforms will not achieve the desired outcome. They will drive sex workers underground, into less safety, more isolation and a greater risk of disease. We will seek amendments.

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why a provision that criminalises paying for sex with a woman who is not willing but is under the control of another human being-she is effectively enslaved-will in some way push willing prostitutes underground?

Christopher Huhne: Yes, I will come to that precisely in the next section of my speech, and the hon. Lady should intervene if she does not get an answer.

The Bill does not go as far as to outlaw paying for prostitution, as is the case in Sweden. That might have been a more intellectually coherent and honest approach. The Government are not brave enough to do that. Instead, the Home Secretary has apparently adopted the Finnish-style middle way of criminalising the client of a prostitute controlled for gain by others, whether those others be traffickers, pimps or perhaps even brothel owners. That is controversial because it is a strict liability offence, so it will not be a defence to argue that the client did their best to discover the true circumstances of the prostitute.

The legal consequences of that are important. First of all, no client in Finland has been convicted of sex with an exploited or trafficked woman since June 2006. That is certainly not because the trade has gone away; it is because none of the women say that they are trafficked or exploited at the time, and juries are understandably reluctant to convict if the client says that he was misled. Many experts in Finland do not support those laws, and the unintended consequence has been a booming internet prostitution industry.

I hope that the Home Secretary reads the submissions that she has received from interested parties, because she has stirred up something of a hornet's nest. This is the submission from Justice: "Further, offences of strict liability-which may be appropriate in regulatory or environmental law-are not appropriate in these circumstances. Effectively, these provisions will criminalise the use of any prostitute other than one who is self-employed. This may deter men from using prostitutes who are not working alone. This is counter-productive in relation to their safety."

As Fiona Mactaggart knows, it is often the fact that women are working together that provides them with some reassurance that they will be able to defend themselves against particularly aggressive rapists, and other unfortunates who try to acquire their services. The Royal College of Nursing says: "Part 2 will essentially lead to further criminalising of prostitutes and will place them in increased danger". Liberty's submission says: "What 'controlled for gain' means is also very broad, encompassing any activity controlled...in the expectation of gain for anyone. Presumably this would cover the owner of a brothel."

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough, Labour): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason why there have been no convictions in Finland is that there have been no prosecutions, except in the past two months? He suggests that "controlled for gain" is difficult to define, but it is clearly defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has worked well. The definition was decided on by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Massey.

Christopher Huhne: I am not sure that the matter is as clear-cut as the hon. Lady suggests. I am here as an economist; I am not a lawyer, and I make no claim to special legal expertise, but I certainly listen to the submissions that I get from people who are much more legally expert than I. People who do not have an axe to grind, and who share the extremely worthy objectives of both the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leicester, East-and, I am sure, many other Members, including me-have real problems with what is proposed in the Bill for fear that it will not work.

Let me add a point made by the Bar Council on the strict liability offence: "The offence as currently drafted risks convictions which may well be seen as unfair by reasonable people. Such convictions would bring the criminal law into disrepute, particularly given the stigma which would result."

It might have added that unfair law is also difficult to enforce. The police do not like it-for example, Andy Hayman says that he thinks that the matter will be extremely difficult-and juries will not convict under it. That is a tremendous problem.

The right way to protect vulnerable sex workers is to regulate the sex industry so that brothels are places of safety. Existing laws on obstruction and nuisance need to be applied more effectively. If someone has been trafficked or exploited, surely the correct response is to use far more extensive laws than those proposed in the Bill. The strict liability offence is generally really only a way of reducing demand.

Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative): The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. He talks about the reluctance of juries to convict in Finland, but he will note that the maximum penalty in the provision in question is a fine, so there is no right to jury trial. In this country, there is not a chance of a jury looking into such a case.

Christopher Huhne: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am grateful for that clarification.

In sum, this is a rag-tag Bill that leaves out the central provisions that were originally meant to be its purpose, so there is no vision of how local accountability will be made real. It is merely a set of provisions that takes us back to the failed model of the past. It is a vote from an exhausted Government Bench for better yesterdays. It therefore teeters perilously close to the offence of wasting this House's time.

True, there are some unexceptionable provisions, such as those on force collaboration, but even there the dead hand of Whitehall reaches out with powers of direction. Where there are new ideas in the Bill, such as those on prostitution, they are more likely to do harm than to reduce it. In most cases, the proposals are beyond amendment, although we as Liberal Democrats and therefore optimists will do our best to amend them in Committee. The Bill as a whole is stuffed with a mixture of the pernicious, the vexatious and the supernumerary, and we regret it.