The point that I was making this morning arose from my intervention, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood kindly took. It is right that I explain it a little further so that she and the Committee understand it, for at least two reasons. First, I am concerned about the way in which the Bill Committee is beginning its business, in that the clause 1 stand part debate appears to be taking place in a partisan atmosphere, which, given the subject matter of the Bill, should not, I venture to suggest, be happening.
I agree that we should not be partisan because the Bill is about national security, but is not one of the reasons why we are perhaps being partisan that, if the Minister had introduced the legislation as an amendment to the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles said this morning—that would have been much more helpful?
I will come on to that point in a moment, but the short answer is this. The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles accepted, in the course of her remarks to the Committee, that this was new legislation. She also accepted that it made certain changes, some of which are sufficiently significant that they are evidently troubling the Opposition. Given that, the right way to introduce the Bill is the way in which it has been brought forward: as a new piece of legislation, so that we can properly debate all its provisions, including those that the Opposition suggest overlap with those that are already in place on control orders. I will deal with that point in further detail in a moment.
As I was saying, it is important for me to explain the intervention that I made on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. The point that my hon. Friend the Minister put to her and which both he and I evidently failed to explain particularly well is very simple. She asked why the current Home Secretary has been using control orders if they are thought to be objectionable by the current Government. The point that the Minister made to her was that when the terrorism prevention and investigation measures regime comes into being—assuming that it passes through Committee and survives the subsequent stages in this House and the other place—the Government will put in place extra resources to support the security services and the police. Those resources are—
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) rose—
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for being a few seconds late in arriving—I was running up the stairs. What troubles me is that the regime is likely to come in by the end of this year, but the evidence that we heard from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne was that it would take at least a year for the human resources to be recruited, trained and put in place to exercise the 24/7 surveillance that will be necessary because of the weakening of the provisions with TPIMs as opposed to control orders. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern about that gap when the resources are not in place?
I will make two points. First, in my limited experience as a new Member of this place and in my previous incarnation, it has generally been my experience that both the security services and the police will always wish to preserve, in a very conservative way, the existing regime in relation to this area or anything else, because they know how it works and they know the resources that they need to deploy to ensure that they operate it correctly. Therefore, any form of change always involves an assessment that is generally very conservative by the security services and the police about both the resources that they need to put it into place and the time that they need in which to do that.
The Minister and the Department will need to consider whether a transitional period is needed and, if so, how long it needs to be. I look forward to hearing that the question has been considered, and to hearing the Minister’s answer. He is right to raise the point at this stage. However, I shall not take any more interventions on the subject as I was going to deal with it in any event.
The Minister’s argument this morning was simple; he was answering the Opposition’s point that the Home Secretary has been using the control order regime since this Government came to office. My right hon. Friend has indicated that when the TPIM regime comes into being, additional resources will be put in place. Those resources are not in place yet, and no one has suggested that they are. The Opposition’s argument is being made in a partisan way, and for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood to say that the Secretary of State has been using control orders is bad for that very reason.
I do not agree that it is a bad point. I do not accept the argument that the Home Secretary is forced to impose control order measures that would not be available to her under the TPIM regime, and which are contrary to the counter-terrorism review, because of resources. That is not entirely correct. If that were the case, the Bill would include a clause providing that it would not come into force until such time as the police had confirmed to the Home Secretary and Parliament that they had the additional resources needed to manage the increased risk created by the TPIM regime, and that the additional police officers needed to undertake surveillance were fully trained and ready to start work. There is no such clause.
The resources argument cannot be used both ways. It cannot be used to say that the Home Secretary is correct to use control order measures, as she has done over the past few months, but allow the resources point to fall away when the Bill comes into force.
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady does not answer the simple point that the argument that she was making this morning was a bad one. She conflates two factors in her intervention. The first is the fact that, at present, the Bill does not say when the TPIM provisions will come into being. The point that she made this morning was different; she asked why, if control orders are so bad and strike the wrong balance, the Home Secretary continued to use them. She has been given an answer to that question by the Minister and Government Members. The Home Secretary has had to continue using them because the resources are not yet in place.
It is no answer to the fallacious nature of her argument for the hon. Lady to intervene on me and say, “Oh, but there is no clause in the Bill to say when TPIMs will come into being, which needs to be after the police have confirmed that sufficient resources are in place to mitigate the risk to those who will be operating under this regime.” The hon. Lady still has not answered the question. It may be that she still does not understand why the argument—I have no doubt that it was given to her by the Labour Whips—is such a bad one. We will continue to disagree on this, but it is a matter of debate, and people can read Hansard and form their own view. I suspect that the vast majority of those who are sufficiently unfortunate to have to read Hansard will take the same view as me, which is that the hon. Lady’s argument was badly planted by the Labour Whips. That was the first point that I wished to deal with, and I did so because it was unclear whether I had missed the point this morning. The answer is obviously that I did not.
I now turn to the rather more powerful contribution made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles; we share a considerable amount of common ground on this measure. Albeit that some of my hon. Friends might wish that it went further, it is unfortunately necessary given the security situation in which the country presently finds itself. The right hon. Lady saw fit to describe the Bill as dishonest legislation—I think that she used those words. This is one point where I disagree with what she said this morning. Indeed, that characterisation is somewhat regrettable.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich indicated this morning, the legislation interferes fundamentally with the liberties that we expect customarily in this country by virtue of the fact that we are a civilized democracy and have had protections for our liberties under the common law since time immemorial. It is therefore right that, if the Government want to reshape existing legislation that deals with those whose liberty is under restriction, and if they are to carry out their first duty of protecting the public, that legislation should be debated in is entirety.
I come back to a point that I made during an intervention this morning: this Committee should, on a bipartisan basis, deal with the substance of what is necessary to protect the public by restricting people’s liberties, and not whether we call them control orders, TPIMs or anything else. That is a semantic question, which I think has been made obvious to every member of the Committee by the Opposition’s description of “mini control orders” or “control orders-lite”. They are seeking to make party political capital out of that point, which is not what should be taking place in this House or this Committee. I respectfully submit that we should focus on what the Bill is about, its measures to protect the public, and whether they need to go further—as Opposition Members seem to think—or whether, as I said on Second Reading, this Bill strikes the right balance between the necessity to protect the public on one hand and interference with the liberties of the citizen on the other.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made my point for me. I have listened carefully to what he has said and there is a great deal of common ground between us, but I think he has made the very point that I was seeking to establish in my contribution, namely that what we call this regime is irrelevant. I was seeking to establish a degree of consensus across the Committee on the view that, if people who pose a serious threat to the national security of the country cannot be prosecuted or deported, we must have a regime that enables us to control their behaviour. The point that I was seeking to make was that we could have a much more straightforward debate if we did not pretend that the TPIM regime is a fundamental departure from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It is, in fact, a refinement. By relaxing some measures and raising the burden of proof, and by not having a sunset clause, it is a refinement of the existing regime. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his usual eloquent and erudite way, has made that point far better than I could.
I am always happy to help the right hon. Lady. I am not sure whether my argument is consistent with the entirety of what she said this morning. Both aspects of my contribution stress, in all seriousness, that the Committee must approach the issues with which this Bill grapples in an entirely bipartisan, or perhaps tripartisan, and proper way. What concerns me about this morning’s contributions from Opposition Members, and about the facile semantic debate about whether these are “control orders-lite” or “mini control orders,” is that we are not focusing, in the limited time available to the Committee, on what we should be, namely, as I have already said, the substance of the measures that are necessary to protect the public, consistent with the liberties that we hold dear in this country. If the right hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South, agree with that, they will not divide the Committee on the clause, and they will certainly not move their amendment to strike out clause 1. The only reason why that amendment was tabled was to try to make a party political point that this is nothing other than the control order regime, with limited changes. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside chunters from a sedentary position. If he wants to say something, I am quite happy for him to intervene.
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, which was much as I would have expected it to be. As I said, and it remains the case, the existing measures are a fundamental interference with the liberties the citizens of this country are entitled to expect. For that reason, it is appropriate, desirable, necessary and proper that our proposals come before the House in their entirety and not as a series of amendments to legislation that the previous Government rushed through in deliberations that went well into the night, as the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles made clear on Second Reading and in her contributions on the Committee’s first day.
I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman’s position and the strength of feeling in his argument, but the partisan politics on this issue started when the deputy Prime Minister said the Government were going to get rid of control orders. He was not going to get involved in a debate about the PTA or the issues that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, we need to go through thoroughly. The proposals have been disguised so that they look like something different from control orders, when they clearly are not, and the hon. Member for Cambridge, on Second Reading, wanted to go even further.
Yet again, that is the same point dressed up. The hon. Gentleman can make that point on Third Reading, outside this place or in the newspapers. The Committee needs to concentrate on the substance of the measures that need to be put in place to protect the citizens of this country in a way that is consistent with the liberties they enjoy.
I wish that Labour Members would listen to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, who carefully pointed to five substantial areas in which TPIMs differ from control orders, one of which is the name, which Opposition Members have laughed at. It would be quite improper, on one of the most important subjects we could discuss in the House, to put a series of amendments to an existing piece of legislation before the House and the electorate, when we are depriving people of their liberty without a trial. It is entirely right that one of the substantial issues we are discussing is the change in name, because we are saying that the proposals are different in four substantial ways, as pointed out by the right hon. Lady. I wish we could actually move on to discuss those substantial items, rather than fiddling around with this clause.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; indeed, I sought to make that point earlier. The only reason I have been addressing the Committee for such a long time—I apologise for that, given that I promised to make a brief contribution—is that I genuinely hope the Opposition will not divide the Committee on stand part or amendment 9, which would leave out clause 1. The only purpose they could possibly have for doing that would be to make some party political capital, when we should be focusing on the substantive measures that need to be put in place in the Bill. That is what Government Members want to focus on, and those are the issues the Committee needs to debate. For those reasons, I urge the shadow Minister, those who assist and advise him and those who whip Opposition Members not to divide the Committee on stand part.
Good afternoon, Mr Caton. I welcome you to the Chair for the second of the Committee’s sessions of line-by-line consideration of the Bill. You will no doubt have gathered just from this afternoon’s contributions that this has been quite a passionate debate. A number of important arguments have been set out and perhaps frame very well the debate we will no doubt have on the Bill.
I should also formally welcome the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. It is a pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, and this is possibly the first Bill Committee in which I have had the pleasure of debating with her. I certainly welcome her to her position. I am delighted to resume debates with the hon. Member for Bradford South—he was the first Minister I had the pleasure of debating with in Committee, on the Consumer Credit Bill I think, back in 2005. We have had regular debates in Committee Rooms such as this over the years, and I welcome our continuing discussions.
Similarly, I remember some good, detailed debates with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles on the Police and Crime Bill, and I recognise her experience. I must also admit to a slight soft spot for the right hon. Lady—I will confess this at the start of the Committee. At the time, I was a new Member of the House, and she kindly created a constituency in my name in the first sitting of the Bill Committee, because she was unfamiliar with who I was, and I was probably unfamiliar with who she was. She kindly referred to me on a couple of occasions as the hon. Member for Brokenshire, which led to a wonderful debate about what the constituency might look like, which was helpful at the time, given that my constituency was about to be abolished. I was grateful for her kind comments.
The Committee includes a lot of experience and, despite some of the harsh words and chiding, there is common ground on a number of themes underpinning recognition of the severe terrorist threat we continue to face and the need for Government to take their responsibility extraordinarily seriously, which we do. Safeguarding our national security and safety is the first duty of the Government—a commitment of this Government and the previous one, which is shared by the public and Parliament. We will not do anything to undermine that security.
My role and responsibility is to explain to the Committee in its entirety how the various strands of the Bill fit together. We can look at the Bill—the point was made well by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East—but there is a broader context. We need to look at the roles of what might be described as disruption, of surveillance and intelligence, of prosecution and of deportation, and at how all those strands fit together cohesively to deliver on the safety and security of our citizens. We are debating what might be considered one of those strands, but it needs to be viewed in context. That context, given the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, and in case I was not clear enough in response to her intervention, is why I am seeking to explain that the surveillance and intelligence sitting alongside the disruption tools are key to the overarching package of protection that we can deliver. That is what I was trying to explain in response to her intervention on context.
Context is important, so I ought to talk about some of the context of the Bill, as well as the changes being examined in Committee. Opposition Members, in essence, are asking why we need to make any changes—that is a fundamental context which they are taking into account in their approach to the Committee. Paragraph 7 of the counter-terrorism review states:
“Control order powers have always been controversial because they are imposed without the person on whom they are applied being convicted for the terrorist activity in which he is judged to be engaged, because of the use of closed material and because of the very intrusive restrictions that they can involve.”
That is why the Government embarked on looking at the control order powers and other intrusive powers in their review, and why certain other changes are being brought about. There is a need to look at the context of some of the fundamental liberties that we uphold and believe to be important in our society—what defines us as a country, and what defines our values. That has been brought out quite well in some of the contributions thus far, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich framed it well when he referred to how the state approaches the matter and how liberties are curtailed. That has been the starting point for looking at the balance between liberty and security, between collective liberty and that of the individual, and how to strike the appropriate balance.
The issues are those of judgment and examination of how that balance is best struck. Following the review of counter-terrorism legislation, we concluded that control orders needed a fundamental change, indeed to be scrapped and replaced with the legislation that we are debating. Some characteristics are similar in structure, and I do not deny that those structural characteristics are similar in the procedural ways in which the legislation is framed, but there are important differences. One is context, and the fact that the Bill is based on investigation and that it includes clearly expressed provisions in clause 10 that emphasise that what we are always trying to do is to bring people before the courts and to secure a criminal prosecution if that is possible.
The previous Government took the same approach, and whatever criticisms were made at the time, I did not in any way question the integrity or desire of Ministers, of whatever political colour, to seek to bring people before the courts and to secure prosecution and a conviction based on the evidence, if that is possible. However, there is recognition on both sides of the Committee that sometimes it is not possible to bring someone before the courts, either because the evidence is inadmissible—we can debate what is taking place to make more evidence admissible—or sometimes because the evidence, if it were disclosed, could have a dangerous impact on our capabilities, covert human intelligence sources, and the activities of those who seek to keep us safe. I endorse the earlier comments about recognising and thanking all those who do so much, often at great risk to themselves, in keeping us all safe, and dealing with the threat before us.
I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement that, whatever the political context, we all want to maximise prosecution. I want to ask him the question that I asked one of his hon. Friends earlier. What measures in the TPIM regime does he believe will lead to a better chance of bringing more people to trial?
It is perhaps because of the way the measure is grounded. The right hon. Lady will obviously have read the Bill carefully when preparing for the Committee. I point her to clause 10, which is the key clause that reminds everyone that we are seeking to ensure prosecutions whenever possible. This measure is largely preventive, hence the name of the Bill. It is a preventive and investigatory measure. In large part, the investigation is the support that sits around it—the covert surveillance, and the additional funding that is being provided to the police and the security services. That is why I emphasise the context, and how that investment will better assist in the overall intelligence perspective to ensure that more people are brought to justice. Yes, I certainly heard the evidence that was provided on Tuesday, and the points that the right hon. Lady sought to adduce when she asked, “Well, how does this assist us and take us forward?” However, the way in which the measure is grounded and structured, and the fact there is a statutory requirement to continue to report back to the police and all those who are working on our behalf to secure those convictions is so important. It is vital to telegraph the message from Parliament and Government that that is our primary objective.
I have already admitted to the right hon. Lady and other Committee members that that will not always be possible and that once a disruptive technique is put into place, that puts someone on notice. Evidence ultimately to gain a conviction may therefore be harder to secure, but that does not mean it is impossible. The work that sits alongside the measure is very important. The grounding of the Bill in the way that I have characterised is significant.
Does the Minister agree that one of the answers to the right hon. Lady’s question is that changing the name of something, particularly in the context of an entirely new piece of legislation, often changes the culture of the way in which these things are approached? We heard evidence on Tuesday that in the opinion of some control orders are simply being used as a parking mechanism. As a result, there has been no investigation of those who are subject to control orders in circumstances where hon. Members from all parties would agree that the best thing is to bring these people to trial.
Merely changing the name of control orders to something that includes the word investigation gives a very clear signal to the law enforcement agencies and the security services that Parliament wants these people to be brought to trial. One has only to think of the mistake of the previous Government in creating something called a Supreme Court to realise how a change of culture can, in fact, lead to real changes on the ground.
There is an issue, but I do not know if I would describe it as one of culture. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service work extraordinarily hard to bring crimes to justice. My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. We must always underline and recognise that sometimes such matters are challenging, but that we must continue to try to ensure that all avenues are explored.
Hazel Blears rose—
I am grateful for the generosity of the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, not for Brokenshire—although lovely Thomas Hardy moments were conjured up by that. I am listening to him very carefully and like his colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, he failed to answer my very specific question. What measures in the TPIM regime are different and will lead to more people being brought to justice through the conventional criminal justice system?
I take his point about sending a message. The previous Government were often criticised by Conservative Members for sending messages, rather than legislating in a proper fashion—some people have referred to it as “aromapolitics.” If the legislation is to work and to bring more people to justice and there is a genuine justification for introducing a new Bill, I am open to hearing about it. However, I have not yet heard from any hon. Member what specific measures in the TPIMs Bill are different from control orders and will enable more people to be brought to justice. In fact, I have heard the contrary from the Director of Public Prosecutions and from DAC Osborne. The police and the security services are saying to the Minister that TPIMs are not as disruptive as control orders because they are a weakening of the measure. As I think DAC Osborne said, control orders are in the protect and prepare bit of Contest and TPIMs are under pursue. There is a difference.
If the Government really wanted to take such action, they could have put in place extra surveillance in addition to control orders. If their justification for the measure is that more associates will be found and evidence will be obtained, they could have had extra surveillance. That could have been done if the reason for the measure is to bring more people to justice. I am afraid that there are some big logical holes in the Minister’s argument.
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but it is more fundamental than that. It is about the issues of liberty and where to strike the right balance on the quite invasive measures in the control order regime. We need to look at the changes as a package rather than in isolation. Taken together, they will ensure that the police and security services have the power that they really need, as well as the enhanced capabilities through surveillance, intelligence and the way in which the regime itself operates, to have the focus and to attain the end result.
I was quite struck by several contributions this morning on the issue of liberty and how to achieve the right balance. In one exchange it was said that we could have either security or liberty. I do not accept that. Some contributors suggested that we were being almost casual with security. We absolutely are not. We take the responsibility extraordinary seriously. However, it is fair to say that, when the Opposition were in government, they were too casual with liberty. Those are not my words, but the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said:
“My generation recognises, too, that government can itself become a vested interest when it comes to civil liberties. I believe too in a society where individual freedom and liberty matter and should never be given away lightly”.
He went on to say:
“But we must always remember that British liberties were hard fought and hard won over hundreds of years. We should always take the greatest care in protecting them. And too often we seemed casual about them.”
“I want to take my party on a journey to a different identity for the future: social democratic on economic policy, standing for redistribution and tackling inequality, liberal in our respect for individual rights.”
Well, I am not quite sure whether I heard that said in Committee this morning to describe the approach taken by the Opposition. Perhaps they have reflected on matters and reconsidered, but it is interesting that the Leader of Opposition himself believes that a different approach should be taken, and he has underlined the important aspects of how liberty fits into the issues at hand.
I have thought very hard about TPIMs in the past two days. I speak as an ex-intelligence officer who had to recruit sources in Northern Ireland, and one thing that we have not covered is how, by giving a little more liberty to people under the TPIMs regime, they would discover that perhaps we are not as bad as others. It would encourage them to cough up or, indeed, to come over and perhaps declare that they were in the wrong. That is one of the advantages of TPIMs, which is why fundamentally, if we keep those people under surveillance, do things properly and show that we care about liberty in the way in which we deal with them, we might receive a better response. It is for that reason that I support TPIMs and primarily why I shall vote in favour of them rather than the reverse. I shall be honest and, having recruited sources for the intelligence service in Northern Ireland, I know that, by treating people decently rather than harshly, we get a much better human response and that is very encouraging in those terms. I am sorry to intervene, Mr Caton.
Order. I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to stop speaking, because I have allowed others to make long interventions, but I ask members of the Committee to try to keep their interventions short.
I do not think my hon. Friend should apologise in any way, shape or form for his intervention, because he underlines a significant point about the need to focus on the issue of liberties and how there are differences in the way in which action that the Government and the state undertake can be perceived. We need to ensure that we do not undermine the very freedoms that we are trying to protect and thus fuel the problems that we are trying to tackle. That is why we need to take such great care regarding the steps that we take, why the counter-terrorism review was undertaken and why various changes have been made to ensure that the public have confidence in the way in which the Government exercise their powers.
Again, that underlines the approach that we are taking in the Bill and why the changes are necessary, as they reach the appropriate judgment. I appreciate that that judgment means that people are able to take a different, contrary view, reasonably and appropriately. Ultimately, it is about weighing up those values and issues and forming a judgment. We have formed a judgment that change is necessary, creating the Bill before us today. It strikes the appropriate balance between individual liberty and collective liberty and security.
The Minister has mentioned a few times the fact that the security services would have adequate resources. Lord Carlile made a point in the evidence session about the cost of control orders versus TPIMs. He said that control orders cost £1.8 million an individual, whereas, under the TPIM regime, the cost would be anywhere between £11 million and £18 million. Was he correct?
I think that the right hon. Members for Salford and Eccles and for Wythenshawe and Sale East appreciate some of the challenges in government when responding to issues such as the one that the hon. Member for Bradford South has raised. Providing details of how much will be spent on the measure may assist those who wish to cause us harm, by giving them a sense of what our capabilities are.
The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, but we would not proceed along this route if we were not confident of the surveillance and the ability of the security services and the police to tackle the challenges that may result from the regime. On the scale-up point, which is important, the police and security services have been aware since at least February 2011 of the funding that would be made available to them. They know that the business case may need to be put alongside this and that there should be no impediment to recruitment or preparation. We are confident that the necessary transition can take place to ensure that those capabilities are available to support the TPIMs regime.
Mr Sutcliffe rose—
I understand the point that the Minister is making about giving the details to people who would do us harm, but the public have a right to know about the increased costs of these things. On the business case, Mr Osborne said that the police put the business case to the Home Office last week. He also said that it would take 12 months for the assets and the training requirements for individuals to come into effect. Does the Minister have any views on those issues?
Again, that is a fair point, which is why I have sought to make it clear that we have had discussions with both the security services and the police since early this year as part of the counter-terrorism review. The police have been aware since at least February of the sums of money available to them, with the expectation and clear indication that preparations have been ongoing since then. We are therefore confident about the transition arrangements and the fact that recruitment and all other necessary preparations have to be ongoing, as has been clear since early this year.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made a commitment to provide additional resource—new money—to the police and the security services so that they can enhance their intelligence and surveillance capabilities around the TPIM regime and more generally, which underlines my point about the context in which they can deliver and provide enhanced services.
I apologise to members of the Committee for not being able to be clearer on amounts or sums, but I hope that they understand the challenges facing the Government and that people may look with malign intent at what we say publicly in Committee. I have been as forthcoming as I can be in setting out the enhanced capabilities arising from the overall package of reform, because the Bill is important and the context is significant.
I have noted the comments made in the debate on clause 1. We believe that the Bill charts a very different direction. The reforms that it makes are important, including those on issues of liberty. It forms part of the overall package of measures to deliver security, and it does so in a way which is more focused, more structured and in some ways less intrusive, which is important in how we frame the debate about an alternative approach. I therefore hope that hon. Members will agree that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, because we must underline the fact that we are taking a different direction in seeking to prevent crimes while retaining a focus on bringing criminals to justice. Ultimately, the Bill is about protection, but it is also about ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done.