Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 23 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 31—Life sentence for second listed offence.
Government new clause 32—New extended sentences.
Government new clause 33—New extended sentences: release on licence etc.
Government new clause 34—Power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners.
New clause 3—Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence—
‘In Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
“(a) Substitute paragraph 5(2)(g) with—
“(g) a murder that is racially or religiously aggravated or aggravated by sexual orientation or disability,”
(b) Substitute paragraph 5A(10)(b) with—
“(b) the fact that the victim was at greater risk of harm because of age or disability,”.’.
Government new schedule 4—‘Life sentence for second listed offence etc: new Schedule 15B to Criminal Justice Act 2003 Offences listed for the purposes of sections 224A, 226A and 246A.
Government new schedule 5—‘Life sentence for second listed offence: consequential and transitory provision.
Government new schedule 6—‘New extended sentences: consequential and transitory provision.
Government new schedule 7—‘Release of new extended sentence prisoners: consequential provision.
Mr Clarke
The new clauses and schedules relate to the abolition of sentences of imprisonment for public protection, known as IPP sentences. They were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and have been in operation since 2005. Since their introduction, there have been numerous problems with them. The Government’s policy is that they must be replaced, and we have brought forward proposals to do so. My proposals to replace them with tough determinate sentences have inevitably aroused criticism from both the right and the left—the story of my life, as I complained yesterday. We are replacing a regime that did not work as it was intended to with one that gives the public the fullest possible protection from serious, violent and sexual crime.
The sentences in their present form are unclear, inconsistent and have been used far more than was ever intended or contemplated by either the Government or Parliament when the sentence was first created. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), who is in his place, was very much involved in their introduction. I have no idea exactly what his view is now, but I am sure that he never imagined that thousands of people would be detained in prison indefinitely under these sentences. The debates at the time contemplated only a few hundred people.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I shall be extremely brief, given the time. It would be helpful, following the Secretary of State’s meeting with me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), if he assured the House that reconsideration of the detail will take place in the House of Lords. There is no difference between those of us who accept that the original intention has not been followed through and those who think that the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) introduced have not fully bitten as intended, but the propositions before us this afternoon do not meet the specific need that was identified back in the early 2000s by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and which I carried into being.
Mr Clarke
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will remember the need for extreme brevity. I am grateful for the discussion with the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and I will follow up the account by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East of the experience in Northern Ireland. We all acknowledge that where we are is not where anyone intended us to be. That is why we are addressing how to deal with serious and violent offenders.
I am sure that the words of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough will be noted in the House of Lords. He speaks here with great authority. We will reflect on what is said by those who say that of course we have not got it quite right.
Mr Clarke
Normally I would give way, and if we had a full day of debate, I would have expected to give way to Members on both sides of the Chamber—[Interruption.] It is not my fault. Let me first finish explaining the general case. I will then try to give way as generously as I can. It would be quite possible to take so many interventions that they filled the remaining time, but I have no intention of doing so.
I remind the House that in June the Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to replace IPP sentences. He and I had agreed on that. We had originally proposed in our Green Paper greatly to restrict the number by raising the threshold above which IPP sentences were given. The sentencing parts of the Bill were received extremely well in public consultation because those who responded were largely those involved in the criminal justice system, but we received many representations saying that IPP sentences should abolished completely, which is why we have moved on.
Mr Clarke
I said that I would give way when I had finished my general points, and I will do so in a few moments.
I was referring not just to my opinion and that of the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. I shall remind the House of some of the people who have said similar things. Louise Casey, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, whose appointment to deal with problem families has been welcomed, said that she was pleased there would be a review of indeterminate sentences as they
“often leave victims in a horrible situation of not knowing when a criminal may be released from prison”.
She welcomed the proposal that tougher determinate sentences will be sought instead. Tim Godwin—as we all know, he was acting Metropolitan Police Commissioner until recently, and is now deputy commissioner and the criminal justice lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers—said he welcomed the review of IPP sentences and its focus on robust alternatives that will ensure the public is protected from the most serious offenders, as it is a source of frustration for victims and their families as to what a sentence actually means.
I cannot resist adding that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly taken up an extraordinarily far right position on this issue at the last moment. I have looked up what position he took, or at least what position Liberty took when he was its chairman in 2002, when indeterminate sentences were first introduced. At that time Liberty, under his chairmanship, denounced IPP sentences as
“a convoluted sleight of hand”
which aids neither accessibility of law for transparency in the sentencing process. His successors at Liberty have not changed their mind. I said yesterday that tomorrow he would press an amendment that has mandatory sentences for 12-year-olds. Old Fabians must be spinning in their graves as the former chairman of the Fabian Society takes up a totally opportunist position.
What is wrong is that indeterminate sentences are unfair between prisoner and prisoner. The Parole Board has been given the task of trying to see whether a prisoner could prove that he is no longer a risk to the public. It is almost impossible for the prisoner to prove that, so it is something of a lottery and hardly any are released. We therefore face an impossible problem.
As I have said, IPP sentences are piling up, and they have been handed down at a rate of more than 800 a year even after the changes made in 2008. At the moment, more than 6,500 offenders are serving those sentences, of whom more than 3,000 have finished what the public regard as their sentence—the tariff for what they have done. If we do not do anything about it, the number of IPP sentences will pile up to 8,000 or 9,000 by 2015—10% of the entire prison population. Sometimes, their co-accused who committed the same crime and were given a determinate sentence were released long ago. That is unjust to the people in question and completely inconsistent with the policy of punishment, reform and rehabilitation, which has widespread support. Only Opposition Front Benchers are still in favour of a punishment that leaves a rather randomly selected group to languish indefinitely in prison, for their lifetime if necessary.
Derek Twigg
Has the Secretary of State been listening to police officers such as the one in my constituency who has written to me to say that IPP sentences are working? He gives the case of an individual who set fire to a house, causing danger to others, who clearly presented a serious risk to the public. That police officer states:
“IPPs are a very useful tool for the Courts and I respectfully suggest that they should be retained and any issues with how they are implemented be looked at instead.”
That is a police officer serving on the front line.
Mr Clarke
I do not claim rank for Mr Godwin, but I quoted what he has said on behalf of ACPO. Of course there are always dissenting views—I have never presented any proposal on anything that has had 100% approval—but the overwhelming majority of responses from those involved in the criminal justice system suggested that IPP sentences should be repealed. Those are not people who wish to be soft on crime, but they believe that IPP sentences have not worked as intended, as we have already heard in today’s exchanges, and need to be replaced. To reassure policemen, such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions, that a tough new regime will give them protection, I will spell out elements of the new regime.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Is not the fact of the matter that indeterminate sentences have a very low reoffending rate, and that most members of the public rather like the idea that people are not released from prison until it is safe? What will my right hon. and learned Friend do to ensure that people who are released go through all the necessary treatment and programmes to address their offending behaviour before they are released?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend’s last point is perfectly fair, and I am about to make some points that should reassure the great bulk of the public. Of course we must have in place a very effective method of dealing with all those who commit the worst sexual and violent offences. No one is suggesting that we do not need an effective regime for that.
For the very serious offenders, the ones who are among the worst of the likely inhabitants of Her Majesty’s prisons, there will be a new mandatory life sentence. That will apply in cases in which the offender has committed, on two consecutive occasions, two very serious sexual or violent offences, when each of which has been serious enough to merit a determinate sentence of 10 years or more.
I was criticised from the left in another place, and probably will be here, for introducing a new mandatory life sentence. We have only one at the moment, which is for murder, and everybody accepts it. As I have said, however, the new mandatory sentence is mainly intended to reassure those who, like my hon. Friend, are worried that the worst offenders might occasionally get out. We are talking about very serious offenders, most of whom would get a life sentence anyway if they had committed two offences meriting determinate sentences of 10 years or more. I do not think that many such people would avoid a life sentence, but as hon. Members can see, a life sentence in the new clause is subject to a caveat—the offender will receive a mandatory sentence unless their circumstances or the circumstances of the offence
“make it unjust to do so”.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain the practical difference between an offender who is given an IPP for, say, a minimum tariff of five years, who will then be released by the Parole Board on proof of meeting certain conditions, and someone who is given a discretionary life sentence with a tariff of five years who is released by the Parole Board on exactly the same conditions? What is the difference?
Mr Clarke
Well, there are differences in the regime, the sentence planning and so on, but not very many. I will go back to the point about the regime that we want to introduce for people with extended determinate sentences, but the right hon. Gentleman makes my point. What is wrong with saying that the courts should use the ordinary life sentence? They will use a life sentence when they judge that a case is so serious, and when future risk is so high, that it is the only proper sentence.
For other offenders, we are introducing a new extended determinate sentence. The offender will receive a custodial sentence plus a further long extended period of licence set by the court. Those will be quite long determinate sentences, and the offenders who receive them will serve at least two thirds of them. In serious cases, offenders must apply to the Parole Board for release, and the board may keep them inside until the end of the determinate sentence.
Mr Clarke
I shall just finish explaining this point and then answer questions.
The new sentence can be given for any sexual or violent offence, provided that the court thinks the offender presents a risk of causing serious harm through reoffending, and that the offence meets the four-year seriousness threshold that is currently in place for IPP sentences and extended sentences for public protection. The new sentence can also be given when the offender does not reach the four-year threshold, but has previously been convicted of an offence listed in proposed schedule 15B. I will cut out further detailed explanation, but that means that any offender who would previously have received an IPP will be eligible for the new sentence if he has not received either the mandatory life or the tougher, discretionary life sentence.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I very much agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to do, but he is writing what is the likely practice of the court into the statute book. He mentioned the Parole Board and new clause 34, which causes me concern. He appears to be giving to himself and the Executive the power to direct a court when dealing with existing IPP prisoners, because the Parole Board is regarded in law as a court, and he will give directions to it under new clause 34.
Mr Clarke
I shall come to the Parole Board before I conclude my remarks, but we are not taking away its power: nobody who previously had an IPP will be released, even at the two-thirds point, unless they have first satisfied the board.
The most obvious difference between life sentences, which will now be used more widely, and IPP sentences is that, in the case of life imprisonment, licences are for life and subject always to recall, whereas IPP sentences are not. However, as I said, criminals who complete an extended determinate sentence must then serve extended licence periods, during which time they will be closely monitored and returned to prison if necessary. The courts have the power to give up to an extra five years of licence for violent offenders and eight years for sexual offenders on top of their prison licence.
There are further protections. Some people believe—the Labour Front Bench team certainly affect to believe—that we are exposing people to risk by making this much overdue change. We are also introducing—not in the legislation, but I undertake to introduce them—compulsory intervention plans for dangerous offenders while they are in prison, so that they are supported to change their ways and not commit more crimes when they are eventually released. By the end of sentence, offenders should therefore have undergone interventions—made in a more certain and organised way than at present—to address their offending behaviour.
There is rightly concern that those currently serving IPP sentences should be supported in progressing through their sentences and achieving release on licence. However, we will be using our best efforts to improve the progression of these prisoners through sentence, including with improvements to assessment, sentence planning and delivery, and parole review processes. We continue to monitor outcomes to ensure further improvements in this area.
There are yet further protections available to the court. We do not believe that our proposed changes put the public at risk or weaken our risk-management regime. Most sexual or violent offenders sentenced to 12 months or more in custody will fall under the multi-agency public protection arrangements framework, which means that the relevant authorities will work together to co-ordinate assessments of risk and risk-management plans for the offender once they have been released on licence. Robust risk-management systems are now in place for a range of offenders. Court orders are also available to manage the risk of serious sexual and violent offenders who appear to present a risk at the end of their sentence. Violent offender orders and sex offending prevention orders place restrictions on these offenders, and if they breach those orders, they can be sent back to prison.
In the sentencing Green Paper, we raise the question of whether the Parole Board’s test for release in these cases is the right one, because only a tiny number of people ever emerge from prison at the moment—the rate is less than 5% a year—and we are acquiring people who are still in prison years after they finished the tariff that the judge imposed on them. This is a question that we will explore further. The amendments give the Secretary of State a power to change the release test used by the Parole Board, which is set in statute for IPP prisoners and for prisoners serving the new extended sentence. The power will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will consult carefully and see what happens to the Parole Board and the courts once we have made the present form of sentence extinct for former prisoners.
The trouble now is that someone who has finished his tariff has to stay in prison unless he can persuade the Parole Board that it is safe to let him out. [Interruption.] That is it; that can be difficult, sitting in a prison cell, although we are going to produce some management plans. On the other hand, if we are keeping someone in beyond their tariff, it is certainly arguable that we should have some positive reason for fearing that there is a risk that he is going to offend when he leaves. We have to reflect—we will consult on this—on whether we have been giving the Parole Board an almost impossible task. It is no good pretending that it can come to a scientifically certain conclusion in each case. None of us would like to say, if we met a range of prisoners, which were now reformed and which would offend again. The Parole Board gets it wrong now: some of those it releases offend again, while some of those in prison are never going to offend again, if we can actually get them out. We will consult on whether the current release tests for IPP sentences and the new extended indeterminate sentence ensure effective public protection while allowing everyone to be satisfied—as far as they can ever be satisfied in this world—that the offenders can now be safely managed in the community.
Mr Straw
Some 40% of discretionary and mandatory lifers are post-tariff. They have to prove that it is safe to release them. Can the Secretary of State please explain what the difference is in substance between someone on a life sentence who has to satisfy the Parole Board that it is safe to release them and someone on an IPP?
Mr Clarke
It is not. What I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying—I will listen to him in a moment—is that he proposes to defend what is left of the last Government’s proposals, the author of which acknowledged quite early in my speech that they plainly needed to be changed. If I get the chance, I will listen to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is trying to argue, but he seems to be reassuring us that life sentences fulfil that requirement for the very worst people—that they are looked at carefully before being let out again—and those people will be on licence for life: once they start going in for aberrant behaviour, they can be recalled to prison and punished once more.
Apart from the very outlying people on the right and the left, I hope that I have satisfied everybody. It is high time that we reformed indeterminate sentences. Personally, I am amazed that they have survived judicial review and challenge in the courts thus far, but if something was not done, they would not survive very much further, which would lead to unfortunate consequences if a court suddenly started ordering us to release such prisoners and decided that they were being held unlawfully. I have recently described them as a “stain on the system”. I said that at a private meeting in the House of Lords—although it soon found its way into the press—but it is my opinion. What we are putting in place is protection for the public: far more rational, certain, determinate sentences, which is much more in line with how we think the British system should behave.
I will, of course, be followed in this debate by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I have already expressed my amazement at his position, and I have found some other quotations from him in my time. I cannot understand how he can match up to his present position. For example, when we both started in July last year, his leader—the current Leader of the Opposition—said:
“I don’t think we should try to out-right the right on crime,”
and said that I was
“opening up an opportunity for us to redefine part of the debate about criminal justice.”
Only a few weeks ago, addressing the Howard League, the right hon. Member for Tooting said—in a lecture that I thought put him in a very convoluted position between his conscience and where he is at present—that
“our big challenge is to communicate that punishment and reform can and should go hand-in-hand…To deliver this calls for an honest debate”.
The right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Justice Secretary, is a radical lawyer from south London—he is more radical than I am—and he is trying to “out-right” me in what is an absurd and hopeless case. What we are putting in place is an altogether rational and sensible system.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the Justice Secretary.
“Public safety remains our primary concern and indeterminate sentences will always be appropriate for the most serious crimes”—
not my words, although I agree with them entirely, but those of this Government’s Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, which was published in December 2010. How things have changed in just 11 months: instead of what was said then, at the last minute—and after interference from No. 10 Downing street—there was suddenly no mention of indeterminate sentences when the Bill was published in June, more than four months ago. At the last possible moment—at one minute to midnight—we are presented with new clauses that propose the total abolition of indeterminate sentences.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be using his time to complain about not having enough time. Before he develops any conspiracy theories, may I make my position clear? I have spoken out against indeterminate sentences in the House before. The Green Paper proposed to restrict them, and I explained why. The announcement in June was made after the most careful discussion with the Prime Minister. We both agreed it, and the idea that I have been forced into accepting the abolition of indeterminate sentences is complete nonsense. The consultation process encouraged me to believe that serious people in the justice system were prepared to go for total abolition, and I leapt at the opportunity, as should the right hon. Gentleman, as a former chairman of Justice and of the Fabian Society. I cannot imagine where he thinks he is taking the labour movement to.
Sadiq Khan
We now know that, when this Government review policy, it means that they abolish it. This is the same Justice Secretary who signed off the Green Paper last December.
Not for the first time, the Government will have to leave it to colleagues from all parties and none in the other place to perform the scrutiny that this Bill deserves. The Justice Secretary is presenting us today with a blueprint that will risk more crime, more victims, and more serious and dangerous offenders being out on the streets. It is as simple as that, and he knows it. No amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise the fact that, by abolishing indeterminate sentences, he is risking the safety of communities in each and every constituency.
“Many dangerous criminals will be released, including repeat offenders, regardless of the risk they pose to the public.”
Those are not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), now the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, back in 2008, when he was commenting on the changes to indeterminate sentences that we made when we were in government. We made changes to them, but this Government are now proposing to abolish them altogether. What happened to the party that believed in law and order?
I spent a few minutes this morning finding recent cases in which judges had given an indeterminate sentence to a convicted offender to protect the public. I will not give the names of the offenders or the victims, as I do not want to cause the victims further distress. A South Wales police press release from September this year bears the heading “Indeterminate prison sentence for convicted rapist”.
It goes on:
“A Cynon Valley man described as a ‘dangerous individual’ has been given an indeterminate sentence for the rape of two women and wounding of another…D, who the judge described as a dangerous individual, will not be considered for parole for six years. D’s victims have released the following…statement: ‘Our lives will never be the same after the trauma D has put us through. We were physically, mentally, financially and emotionally abused and controlled by him. We are satisfied with the court’s decision to give him an indeterminate sentence and relieved that no-one else will suffer like we have.’”
In this October’s online version of the Birmingham Mail was the headline, “Teenager jailed for stab attacks on father and son in West Heath”. The article stated:
“A teenager has been given an indeterminate sentence for stabbing a father and son while they tried to protect a ‘petrified’ youngster who sought refuge in their Birmingham home…Judge William Davis QC said: ‘You stabbed both the householder and his son causing both of them significant injury. It is a very serious offence because two people were attacked on their own door step and one of them left perilously close to death.’ The judge said he believed J to be a ‘dangerous young man’. After sentencing”,
the victim said,
“I am extremely pleased the judge recognised the seriousness of the offence. It shows the public that carrying knives will not be accepted in society today.”
This month’s North-West Evening Mail contained the headline, “Caustic soda brute loses appeal against sentence”, and continued:
“A ‘dangerous and manipulative’ thug, who scarred a teenager for life by pouring caustic soda on her face, has been told by top judges he deserved his indefinite jail term…On Thursday G challenged his indefinite jail terms, with his lawyers also arguing the minimum five years he was ordered to serve before applying for parole was ‘excessive’. But his appeal was thrown out by judges sitting at London’s Criminal Appeal Court, who described G as a ‘very dangerous man’ who should not be released from prison until the Parole Board considers it safe to do so…Sentencing him, the crown court judge said he was a ‘controlling, manipulative, emotionless and uncaring man’ who was a danger to women…The appeal judge”,
Mr Justice Spencer,
“said: ‘The judge was quite correct to conclude that the appellant should not be released until the Parole Board deems it safe for him to be released.’”
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Can the right hon. Gentleman think of any good reason why, given the remarks he has provided about the sentences, that the perpetrators would not have been given a life sentence? Normally, people like that would get a life sentence. Since there have been IPP sentences, some people have got them, but in the cases the right hon. Gentleman describes, judges will go back to the normal practice of giving a life sentence.
Sadiq Khan
They will not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposals require there to have been a first offence, and the schedule provides for sentences of 10 or more years. The person found guilty will have to have come back for a second offence and be found guilty of an offence that also requires a sentence of 10 or more years. In all these cases—the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows this—the Government will have taken away from the judge who has heard all the evidence and knows the facts of the case the power to give the IPP sentence.
Mr Clarke
There is no qualification for a life sentence. People can be sent down for a life sentence for their first offence if it is serious enough and demonstrates the danger posed to the public. We are not introducing any qualifications at all to the power to give life imprisonment.
Sadiq Khan
I could not have demolished the arguments better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman just has. He makes the exact point for me. Under the proposals we are presented with today, our judges will be stripped of the power to prevent the most serious criminals from being released and going on to be a danger to society. We can imagine a scenario—and an horrific one at that—of someone committing a serious and violent assault being caught, charged and found guilty. Under the Government’s new proposals, I accept that they might receive an extended determinate sentence and be eligible for release after two thirds of their sentence, should the Parole Board be satisfied. However, even if the Parole Board were not satisfied after two thirds of the sentence had elapsed, there would be nothing to prevent release at the end of the full sentence handed down by the judge. Dangerous individuals would be released at the end of their extended determinate sentence irrespective of whether they posed a risk to the public. Under the new proposals, judges will be able to do absolutely nothing about that. They will be powerless to deprive the offender further of his liberty in order to keep the public safe. I should be happy for the Justice Secretary to intervene on that point, but he apparently does not wish to do so.
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not understand my question. He gave some dreadful descriptions of dreadful cases, featuring what—when the full circumstances are known—are clearly some of the worst examples of violence and sexual offences that could be found. The point is, however, that such people will receive life sentences, because such sentences are available to the court, and they will not be released until someone is satisfied that they are no longer as great a risk as they were. They will be subject to licence for the rest of their lives, and it will be possible to recall them if they start behaving in any sort of threatening way. The life sentence fills the gap that the right hon. Gentleman claims I am creating. We are not changing the position at all.
Sadiq Khan
I realise that the Justice Secretary has not practised law recently, but if a judge could deliver a life sentence for such offences now, he or she would do so. It is because judges have the power under the IPP sentence to deliver indeterminate sentences to protect the public that they deliver those sentences. I am afraid that the Justice Secretary is not right.
A critical weapon will be absent from a judge’s arsenal, preventing that judge from handing down the most appropriate sentence. The judge will simply not be able to sentence the offender with the condition that only when the authorities are satisfied that he is not a risk to society will he be released. I know that that will free up prison places and save the Government money, but taking risks with public safety is plain wrong, which is why we will oppose new clause 30.
Public safety will also be compromised by the proposed “two strikes and you’re out” sentences. That is a great media soundbite and a sure-fire way of making the Government seem tougher than they really are, and it is precisely the kind of thinking that lies behind the inclusion of the words “punishment of offenders” in the Bill, but policies relating to public safety cannot be determined by a public relations strategy.
We do not have to scratch very far beneath the surface to see that the Government’s plans are riddled with problems. Not only are they a rehash of failed Conservative policy from the 1990s, but they introduce a worrying amount of risk—risk that will undermine public safety. Through their “two strikes” policy, the Government absolve themselves totally of any responsibility to identify the serious, violent offenders who are most likely to reoffend. That should be done at the time when the first sentence is handed down for the commission of a heinous crime. It was for the purposes of precisely this scenario that the previous Government created indeterminate sentences, but this Government are making no effort to protect the public from those who are most likely to commit further serious and violent crime following their release. They will address the problem only once the offender has committed a second crime.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he has raised this issue in the House and with the Lord Chancellor before. Many disability organisations and the families of victims of such crimes have contacted him and me to express their very deep concerns. I am particularly indebted to the Disability Hate Crime network, to Katherine Quarmby, an independent journalist, and to the Royal Association for Disability Rights. I am also especially indebted to Christine Oliver, the sister of Keith Philpott, who was a learning disabled victim of murder, for taking the time to talk to me about her family’s experience in relation to my bringing the new clause before the House.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I am sorry to intervene but, for the benefit of the debate on the other subject, may I assure the hon. Lady on behalf of the Government that we agree with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)? I am advised that the new clause is defective in its drafting—I can tell her why—and I can assure her that we will table amendments in the other House to give effect to what she is asking for. We also propose to cover the transgender issue. I think that will help us to get on with the debate.
Kate Green
I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor, as will be the many disabled people and their families who have been in contact with me. I am delighted that a Government amendment will be brought forward in the other place and I shall not detain the House further.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The impact statement will show the Bill as amended. Other things being equal, with no changes in the crime level—which depends far more on how long a recession we have, the levels of youth unemployment, how successful we are in dealing with drugs and how far we get with prison reform—the Bill will reduce the prison population by 2,300. The measure we are now debating will have no effect on the prison population in the period to 2015. The reduction in the prison population is achieved by measures already discussed and approved in the Public Bill Committee.
Mr Straw
It would have been helpful to have the impact statement before the House today rather than tomorrow. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley—that no prisoner who cannot be released until he has proved that he is not a danger to the public will not be released in the future, what on earth are these convoluted changes for?
The original design of the legislation in 2003 was unsatisfactory because it led in some cases to tariffs that were ludicrously short—in one case, 27 days. That was never the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and it was causing a major problem. I, with the approval of the House, sought to change the law. It is worth Government Members remembering, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out, that we got no assistance whatever from the Conservative Opposition at the time. Their complaint was that we were going soft by introducing this change. It was absolutely extraordinary. I do not remember the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), now the Lord Chancellor, standing up either in the House or outside suggesting that there was an alternative. We made that change and, interestingly and wholly contrary to what was said, it has led to a stabilisation of the numbers on indeterminate public protection sentences. According to the Lord Chancellor’s statistical bulletin, in the most recent year the number of such sentences rose by only 3% over the previous year and the number of those receiving IPP sentences was 958 for the year ending March 2011, compared to one short of 1,000 for the year ending March 2010. The changes that were introduced are working.
Yes, it is right that we should look in more detail at the Northern Ireland experience to see what other changes can be made, but it is entirely wrong for the Secretary of State to try to set up a new system that will lead either to the release of dangerous people who are serious and persistent offenders, thousands of whom are in prison for violent offences and sexual offences—in the main—or make no difference at all.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am in favour of the Government’s decision to scrap IPP sentences in this instance. Liberty, among others, has said that IPPs could be a back-door measure to introduce life sentences for a huge range of offences. They were intended to be given only sparingly but of course they have been used far more frequently than expected. In March 2011, there were 6,550 IPP prisoners, half of whom served 240 days beyond their tariff, at a cost to the Exchequer of about £68 million. That is quite apart from the whole question of whether they were being held unlawfully, which worries many of us.
As it stands, the IPP regime has been a costly mistake. Furthermore, the indefinite legal limbo created by IPP sentences has in many instances undermined rehabilitation, leaving prisoners and their families uncertain when, if ever, release will be granted. Like the Lord Chancellor, I wonder why those sentences have not been challenged in the courts. I have campaigned on the matter for a long time. In February, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill seeking the abolition of IPP sentences, so I am pleased about the Government’s decision.
New clause 32 would mean that prisoners serving an extended sentence of at least four years in custody, who have a prior conviction for one in a list of serious offences, will be required to serve two thirds of their sentence, instead of being considered for release at the halfway point. I argued for such a provision when I introduced my Bill, so I am pleased that it has been introduced. However, like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), I have concerns about new clause 34. I have grave concerns about interference in individual parole decisions. That proposal must be looked at in the other place. We do not have time to debate it properly today and I am sure that many Members, whatever their views, would have appreciated a sensible timetable.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I shall correspond with the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The new clause was tabled at my request so that we can contemplate changing the test for release by statutory instrument. I shall explore whether it gives rise to the problems described. I certainly have no intention at the moment of intervening in individual cases and making judgments about IPP prisoners.
Mr Llwyd
That is certainly reassuring, but had we had a decent amount of time to discuss the proposals we could have probed them earlier. There is also some confusion about new clause 33, which will no doubt be picked up in the other place.
I know that I have done nothing for my street credibility, and even less for the Lord Chancellor’s, but I believe that the IPP system has been brought into disrepute. It is only right that we do away with it, and to that extent I agree with what the Government seek to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a), after first ‘paid’ in (1)(a), insert
‘will be paid, has made an agreement to be paid,’.
Amendment (b), after ‘pays’ in (1)(b), insert
‘will pay, has made an agreement to pay’.
Amendment (c), after first ‘paid’ in (2)(b), insert
‘will be paid, has made an agreement to be paid,’.
Amendment (e), at end of (4)(b), insert—
‘(2A) A breach of the provisions of this section shall be an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or on indictment for a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both.’.
Government new clause 19—Effect of the rules against referral fees—
‘(1) The relevant regulator must ensure that it has appropriate arrangements for monitoring and enforcing the restrictions imposed on regulated persons by section [Rules against referral fees].
(2) A regulator may make rules for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) The rules may in particular provide for the relevant regulator to exercise in relation to anything done in breach of that section any powers (subject to subsections (5) and (6)) that the regulator would have in relation to anything done by the regulated person in breach of another restriction.
(4) Where the relevant regulator is the Financial Services Authority, section [Regulation by the FSA] applies instead of subsections (1) to (3) (and (7) to (9)).
(5) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees]—
(a) does not make a person guilty of an offence, and
(b) does not give rise to a right of action for breach of statutory duty.
(6) A breach of section [Rules against referral fees] does not make anything void or unenforceable, but a contract to make or pay for a referral or arrangement in breach of that section is unenforceable.
(7) Subsection (8) applies in a case where—
(a) a referral of prescribed legal business has been made by or to a regulated person, or
(b) a regulated person has made an arrangement as mentioned in section [Rules against referral fees](2)(a),
and it appears to the regulator that a payment made to or by the regulated person may be a payment for the referral or for making the arrangement (a “referral fee”).
(8) Rules under subsection (2) may provide for the payment to be treated as a referral fee unless the regulated person shows that the payment was made—
(a) as consideration for the provision of services, or
(b) for another reason,
and not as a referral fee.
(9) For the purposes of provision made by virtue of subsection (8) a payment that would otherwise be regarded as consideration for the provision of services of any description may be treated as a referral fee if it exceeds the amount specified in relation to services of that description in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.’.
Amendment (a) to new clause 19, leave out subsection 5.
Amendment (b), leave out from ‘services’ in (8)(a) to end of paragraph (b) and insert
‘but only where the consideration was proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.’.
Government new clause 20—Regulation by the FSA.
Government new clause 21—Regulators and regulated persons.
Government new clause 22—Referral fees: regulations.
Government amendment 139.
Mr Djanogly
New clauses 18 to 22 seek to prohibit the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by regulated persons, namely solicitors, barristers, claim management companies and insurers.
I pay tribute at the outset to the work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in pursuing the case for a ban on referral fees. I know that there are some differences between us about the detail of how we should implement the ban—we will come to his amendments in due course—but those differences of detail should not obscure our agreement in principle on tackling this important issue. I acknowledge his efforts in this regard.
I must also mention the consistent campaign by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) as Chair of the Justice Committee, who has also been a very keen supporter of the ban. I note that last week his Committee formally welcomed our commitment to the ban, which will be implemented by these clauses. I should also acknowledge the work of the Transport Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), before whom I was privileged to appear last month.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice announced the Government’s intention to ban the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by way of a written ministerial statement to the House on 9 September 2011.
I strongly believe that the current arrangements under which lawyers and others are able to pay and receive fees for referring work have led to both higher costs and the growth of an industry that pursues claimants for profit. By introducing the new clause, the Government are taking decisive and much needed action to remove these incentives.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson recommended that referral fees should be banned as part of his comprehensive package of recommendations to make the costs of the civil litigation more proportionate and this recommendation was echoed by Lord Young in his report “Common Sense Common Safety”. The Bill already includes provisions to implement the other key elements of those recommendations. The referral fees ban under our new clause will complement the wider Jackson reform already in the Bill by further reducing the costs of personal injury litigation and deterring frivolous or unnecessary claims from being pursued in the courts.
The new clause creates a regulatory offence for any breach of the prohibition. It will be for the appropriate regulators, for example the Law Society, the Financial Services Authority or the claims management regulator, to enforce the prohibition. The regulators will also be responsible for taking appropriate action against regulated persons for any breaches. We have thought carefully about how to ensure that all the main players, including insurers, are captured by the ban, which is why there is a separate clause, new clause 20, giving the Treasury powers to make regulations allowing the FSA to enforce the ban under its existing regulatory powers.
There have been calls from some people, but not most people, for the payment and receipt of referral fees to be made a criminal offence. Not least among those who have called for that is the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who has tabled amendment (e) to that effect. We considered the matter carefully but believe that creating a criminal offence would be a very blunt instrument in this case. One would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consideration had changed hands for the referral of a potential claimant, but the grounds for determining whether something was or was not a referral fee could be blurred. It would be very difficult to convict in many cases on the basis of the complexity of those arrangements. That is why we consider a regulatory offence to be more appropriate, whereby the principle of what is happening can be looked at by the regulator and a view can be taken.
I am conscious that a criminal offence would impose additional costs on the police and the courts in investigating and enforcing a ban. I believe that a regulatory prohibition covering all the main players in the sector, including lawyers, claims management companies and insurers, is the most appropriate and effective response to the issue. I am confident that the industry regulators are best placed to investigate and enforce the regulatory ban.
Sir Alan Beith
As my hon. Friend has indicated, I strongly support the action he is taking, but is it not the case that in many of those circumstances a criminal offence may well have been committed by way of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998? The problem then is that custodial sentences are not available for someone who is doing that on a large scale and making a great deal of money by releasing personal information and committing a criminal offence.
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not one that is covered by the Bill, but it is something that the Government are looking into, and I hope that there will be further developments on that in due course.
Mr Straw
I thank the Minister for the generous compliment he paid me, for which I am most grateful. There are plenty of situations relating to financial institutions in the widest sense when conduct might be the subject of a regulatory breach enforced by the regulators, but in more severe cases it could also be a criminal offence. It is a matter of belt and braces. Frankly, I do not understand why he is suggesting that those are alternatives when one complements the other.
Mr Djanogly
The reason is that criminalisation would be too blunt an instrument. If we take the example of the straight payment of a fee for a referral, I can see how straight criminalisation would work, but we should appreciate that when that was last banned in 2004 it was a weak provision through which a coach and horses could be driven. What if an insurance company provides insurance to a solicitor in payment for referrals, rather than a straight fee? What if a trade union gives its cheap work to a firm of solicitors in consideration for the solicitors getting its better work? What if a claims management company provides a variety of services to a solicitor in payment for a referral? The point I am making is that the circumstances could be very varied and complex and the straight criminal option would not be appropriate. It would be the principle that counts and it would have to be a regulator that looks to the principle.
We are primarily concerned with removing incentives under the current system with regard to personal injury claims, which is why we are banning referral fees in that area. However, the Lord Chancellor may in future extend by regulation the prohibition on referral fees to other types of claim and legal services and other providers of legal services should the need arise and if the case is made for such an extension.
Kate Green
Is the Minister not concerned that that might introduce an element of uncertainty? Although I note what he says about the possibility of extending the provisions to other structures in future, is he not aware that alternative business structures will now be set up by large companies to get around the provisions? How will he address that?
Mr Djanogly
Alternative business structures will be set up by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, probably before or just after the end of this year, so the hon. Lady makes an important point. At that stage, claims management companies will be able to purchase solicitors, and vice versa, which means that it would indeed be possible, as we discussed in the Transport Committee, for a claims management company to own a solicitor and effectively act as the advertising arm of a firm of solicitors. However, the important difference is that the claims management companies will then be regulated by the SRA, which will give consumers a significant amount of comfort.
Referral fees are one of the symptoms of the compensation culture in this country. The Government are determined to put an end to them while at the same time addressing the underlying cause of recoverability of no win, no fee success fees.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Following what my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said earlier this afternoon, I rise to discuss proposals that have not been given due scrutiny in Parliament. We are all aware that the Government were bounced into taking action on referral fees only by the sustained campaigning by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). In their haste to cover up their inaction and disregard of the abuses of the insurance industry, they have failed to consult on their proposals, which are incompetent, ineffective and will lead to problems further down the line. Indeed, it was reported this week that a judicial review has already been launched citing that lack of consultation.
Referral fees are paid by one party to another in exchange for what are essentially sale leads. They are analogous to brokers’ fees, commission for salespeople, marketing agreements or, in the most basic sense, advertising, because each of these represents part of the cost of sales. Every non-monopolistic industry has a cost of sales. Let me take the example of the insurance industry, an industry with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. Admiral is the UK’s leading specialist motor insurance company. Last year it received net insurance premium revenue of £288 million, but its total net revenue was £639 million, part of which was made with referral fees. It spent £151 million on the acquisition of insurance contracts and other marketing costs, including brokers’ costs, paying insurance websites and expensive advertising. Those costs drive up premium costs and the desire to make profit also drives up premium prices—Admiral made £283 million in profit last year on its net revenue of £639 million. That is how it works in the insurance industry.
It works in a similar way when law firms pay independent brokers, some of which are known as claims management companies, another area with which the Minister has more than a passing familiarity. They will pay referral fees in order to get leads for their practice. The lawyers often do this because, frankly, they are not very good at sales, marketing or advertising. However, the problems arise in the behaviour that that encourages. Although there are reputable and decent claims management companies out there that bring together those who want help with those who can provide it, there are also many claims farmers, often based overseas, that abuse the system, send unsolicited spam to people’s e-mail accounts and mobile phones and abuse their data.
It is right to deal with people who act in such a way, but the claims management regulator, which until a few weeks ago was the Minister, but which I understand is now the Secretary of State, has proven singularly unable to do so. An internal review of claims management regulation from the Ministry of Justice, dated 25 October 2011—just last week—states:
“It is evident that many of the more objectionable practices of Claims Management Companies such as cold calling in person, unauthorised marketing in hospitals and using exaggerated marketing claims have been reined in as a result of action taken under CMR.”
Nothing could make clearer what delusions have set in with claims management regulated by the Minister, because we all know from personal experience that the opposite is true and that such abuse is still out there at large and, if anything, is increasing. Our constituents are harassed by claims farmers, and their objectionable messages, but the Department that he has mismanaged for the past year and a half believes it is doing an excellent job. That is why we must take corrective action.
Sir Alan Beith
Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I had coal mines in my constituency. There were three working mines there, and I saw evidence of the scandal that he described. It was absolutely dreadful in many ways. Today, I want to ask for clarification of the Government’s intentions in two areas. One relates to the broadening of this issue beyond personal injury. New clause 18 provides for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations specifying wider ranges of legal businesses. I hope that there is a clear intention on the Government’s part, probably involving consultation, to move on to all the sectors in which referral fees have the potential to distort or damage competition or to undermine the position of the consumer. I would like a clear indication that the Government are going to examine a number of other areas.
Secondly, the Minister was very helpful earlier on the question of custodial sentences for breaches of the Data Protection Act, and I hope that that means that the Government have moved on from their position of saying, “We’ll have to wait until the end of the Leveson inquiry.” That represented a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The question of custodial sentences for data protection offences is not primarily about the issues that have been raised in the Leveson inquiry about the media; it is about the everyday circumstances of our constituents whose personal information is abused by the organisations that hold it. That matter ought not to have to wait until the completion of an inquiry into a wider range of issues. I hope that the Minister’s earlier helpfulness will be repeated in implementing a measure on which the House has already decided—namely, that there should be a custodial penalty in such cases.
Mr Djanogly
We have had a good, far-ranging debate this afternoon. Given that another important debate needs to be completed by 8 o’clock, I am sorry to say that I shall have to make my way quickly through the points that have been raised. I am pleased to hear at least a grudging agreement in principle with our ban on referral fees from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and all the other right hon. and hon. Members for their support for our desire to implement the ban. I am pleased that the debate today has been about how that should be done, not about whether it should be done.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked why we had not consulted on banning referral fees, and I can tell him that Lord Justice Jackson made 109 recommendations, and it would not have been practical to consult on them all at once. It also made good sense to await the outcome of the Legal Services Board’s work in this area. Many respondents to our consultation on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations included their views on referral fees. Those views, along with the work undertaken by the LSB and the Transport Committee, have been carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman clearly raised some serious issues relating to the regulation of claims management companies, but they were not directly relevant to the Bill. I must point out that, in the past year, the Ministry of Justice has cancelled 349 authorisations of CMCs, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government, it cancelled only 35.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asked a number of important questions. If he does not mind, I will write to him about those issues. I can say, however, that under the Compensation Act 2006, it is an offence to provide regulated claims management services unless authorised or exempt. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that the exemption applies to trade unions, and that is part of the problem that he rightly highlighted. I was present at the debate that he held on that subject several years ago.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith covered several other matters, but he essentially spoke to tomorrow’s debate, and we will deal with those issues then. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about some important aspects relating to the consumer. The Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly mentioned that share premiums had risen by 40% in the last year alone. This is of course a matter of concern, and we have discussed it with the Association of British Insurers. It has said that if the proposals are effected with the other changes to recoverability of success fees in after-the-event insurance, it would hope to see a fall in insurance premiums. I certainly hope that that is a credible position.
As I said at the outset, there is broad support across the House for a ban on referral fees, although there is some disagreement on how best to implement the ban. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke to his amendments with typical passion, but I would like to set out briefly why the Government cannot support them. Amendments (a) to (c) to new clause 18 seek to capture within the prohibition all arrangements to pay or receive referral fees, even when a payment has not yet been made. These amendments might have been tabled in support of his amendment to make the payment and receipt of referral fees a criminal offence. However, I am concerned that capturing an agreement to pay referral fees when payment might not have occurred would be very difficult to enforce. A solicitor’s accounts, for example, might well show that a particular payment had been made that could, on the face of it, be a referral fee. However, it is unlikely that agreements, which in some cases might be no more than verbal agreements, could be so readily identified without time-consuming investigation. In any event, we do not think that it is necessary to provide for this eventuality, first because such agreements would be unenforceable under subsection (6) of new clause 19 and, secondly, because whatever might be agreed, the payment of the referral fee would still be prohibited. So, in practice, it is unlikely that a party would enter into an agreement to pay a referral fee when payment would be a breach of the prohibition and the agreement would not be enforceable.
I have already dealt, in moving the new clause, with the arguments against amendment (e), which seeks to create a new criminal offence. I should just reiterate that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that the ban will work effectively.
Mr Straw
When I made my point about the banning of referral fees being backed by the criminal law, the Lord Chancellor did not say that he agreed with me, but he did say, on 13 September:
“We are now considering the way in which to put this into practice, but it is likely to be in the form recommended”—[Official Report, 13 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 879.]
—that is, a criminal prohibition as well as a regulatory one. He appeared to have an open mind about that, so what has changed since then?
Mr Djanogly
I have just confirmed with my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor that, in the next sentence of that quote, he said that he had not committed to creating a criminal offence.
I can assure the right hon. Member for Blackburn that we have thought long and hard about how to achieve this, and I am aware of the concerns raised in the Justice Committee’s recent report on referral fees and the theft of personal data. The Committee’s Chairman made the point again today that the penalties for breaching section 55 of the Data Protection Act were not sufficient. The Government are keeping the question of whether to introduce custodial penalties for section 55 offences under review, and we will respond to the Justice Committee’s report in due course. However, the issue of how to deal with people such as rogue motor garage workers or nurses who are breaking the law by breaching the Data Protection Act is separate from that of how to introduce a new ban on regulated bodies to prevent them from paying referral fees, which they are currently permitted to do. I strongly believe that our ban, which will stop lawyers, claims management companies and insurance companies from paying and receiving referral fees, will remove the incentives for selling personal data from the whole system. That is because there will be no one for the rogue garage, for instance, to sell the data to, as all the people in the system who can make any profit out of handling claims will be prevented from paying referral fees. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) well set out the complexity involved in this instance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 24—Power to increase certain other fines on conviction by magistrates’ court.
Government new clause 25—Power to amend standard scale of fines for summary offences.
Mr Blunt
The new clauses are designed to remove the upper limits on the fines that can currently be imposed in magistrates courts. Raising the upper limits on fines gives sentencers greater flexibility to identify the most effective punishment appropriate to the offences and offenders before them, particularly when combined with other disposals such as suspended sentences when offenders are close to the custodial threshold.
The Government believe that financial penalties, as long as they are set at the right level, can be just as effective as community payback or curfews in punishing offenders and deterring them from further offending. Fines hit offenders where it hurts: in their pockets. They also have the advantage of not affecting opportunities for employment or having an impact on family responsibilities, and hence can prevent further acceleration into a criminal lifestyle. Moreover, they do not impose a further burden on the already hard-pressed taxpayer or on society as a whole. Not only are fines punitive; they provide reparation for society, and serve as part of offenders’ restoration to all of us.
That is why courts already have flexibility to impose fines in cases that have passed the community sentence threshold. It is entirely right for them to be able to consider the circumstances of the offences and of the offenders before them, and, having weighed up the various purposes of sentencing, to decide that a fine will provide an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence without needing to consider a community order. Courts already have wide discretion to make use of fines in appropriate cases, and the Government want to support and encourage that.
We particularly wish to ensure that magistrates, who issue the vast majority of fines, have the powers that they need to set fines at levels that are proportionate to the most serious offences that come before them for trial. These clauses therefore make two key changes to the way that fines operate in the magistrates courts. The first is to replace all upper limits of £5,000 or more for fines available on summary conviction. At the moment, where an offence is triable on summary conviction only, magistrates do not have the option of committing the case to the Crown court for sentence and are constrained in their ability to fine by the statutory maximum fines. For the most serious offences tried by magistrates, that is generally £5,000, although for certain offences where the financial gain from offending is substantial—for example, in some environmental offences—the maximum fine can be as high as £50,000.
For less serious offences, we believe that it is right to retain the differentials between the punishments. However, we wish to give Government and Parliament more flexibility to amend these maxima as the need arises.
Mr Blunt
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I need to conclude my remarks and allow the Opposition to respond.
The second change these clauses propose is to give the Secretary of State a power to increase the current maximum fine amounts for levels 1 to 4 on the standard scale of fines for summary offences. These amounts are currently £200, £500, £1,000 and £2,500. The new power would be to increase these so as to keep them in the same ratio to one another as at present. There is already a similar power to change them in line with changes in the value of money, so the new power would be an extension of that. We intend to consult on the right level at which to set these new maxima.
That should form part of a wider review of sentences served in the community, so I want to use this debate to notify the House that we are entering a review process, which we intend will in due course lead to a formal public consultation on community sentences. For too long, community sentences have failed to punish offenders properly for their actions, and the Government are committed to changing that. We are already taking action, including through this Bill, to strengthen community orders, but we want to go much further and deliver a step change in the way sentences operate. They must, of course, address the problems that have caused the offending behaviour in the first place—the drug abuse, the alcoholism, the mental health problems—but they must also punish properly and send a clear message to society that wrongdoing will not be tolerated. We want to see a clear punitive element in every sentence handed out by the courts.
We will consult on further reforms to ensure that community sentences effectively punish and rehabilitate offenders. That should include consulting on what constitutes effective delivery of the principles of sentencing, punishment and rehabilitation, as I have mentioned, but also on protection of the public, restoration and how the whole package can produce the most effective deterrent to crime. A part of this consultation will be on the new maxima at levels 1 to 4 in the magistrates courts.
The Government want offenders to be in no doubt that the courts have the powers they need to punish their crimes. Once the victim’s compensation has been addressed—and if an offence presents no wider issues of reparation or public protection—if a court believes that a fine would be the best way of punishing an offender and deterring future offending, then we want to ensure that there are no barriers to courts setting the fine at the appropriate level.
To sum up, these new clauses would remove the £5,000 cap on fines that magistrates can impose, so that they are able to use their discretion and set fines that are proportionate to the offences before them. That will also improve the efficiency of the court system, by removing the need for magistrates to send cases to the Crown court when they feel the current maximum fine is not a severe enough punishment for the offenders before them. For offences with caps set at less than £5,000, we propose to retain the current structure of differential maxima, with a power to increase them as necessary.
I urge Members to support the measures.
Mr Slaughter
I thank the Minister for his clear account of the effects of these proposals, but I wonder why they are being introduced at this stage. He may wish to explain that. They are not controversial. We do not intend to oppose them as we think their measures are sensible, and we are glad that the Government are, for once, in favour of judicial discretion. They made certain concessions in Committee, one of which was not withdrawing magistrates’ powers to impose longer custodial sentences. We believe the magistrates system serves this country extremely well—this year marks its 650th anniversary. However, although these are sensible changes to current magistrates powers, we are concerned about the fact that, once again, they are part of a package of new measures.
I will not take up any more of the House’s time as we shall shortly come on to discuss two very important and significant new provisions in the criminal law, of which we have had very little notice as they have been introduced at a very late stage. I therefore simply ask again why we have had to wait until Report stage for the measures currently under discussion to be introduced. We do not oppose the proposals, however, as we consider them to be sensible and uncontentious.
Gareth Johnson
Although I support the Government’s proposals, it would make sense to remove the upper limit on financial penalties imposed by magistrates courts. The proposals do not relate to levels of compensation, so if magistrates are asked to sentence for, say, a theft of £5,000-worth of goods, they will still have to refer the matter to the Crown court for sentence if they do not have the power to award more than £5,000 compensation. I therefore wonder whether the Government would be willing to look at the levels of compensation in the future, to see if there is any scope for lifting the upper limit of compensation awards that magistrates courts can impose.
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to have this brief opportunity to respond to the points raised. Let me see if I can do justice to the grudging support of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I am certainly profoundly grateful that we found him in a positive mood, and the fact that he welcomes these measures gives the answer to his questions. They are appropriate measures; that is why they are being welcomed across the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) is absolutely right that many defendants consider a proper combination of community sentences to be much more onerous than custody—and I want to increase the opportunities for that to be seen as much more onerous than custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not present, but I remember him citing an example from the Daily Mail about a judge who threw the book at an offender because he thought he could not send him to prison: he gave the offender a combination of community sentences that were much more onerous than the custody would have been.
We want to get to a place where we can get a better balance on sentencing, to make sure that we actually punish people in the most appropriate way and give sentences greater flexibility. That is what this measure will do. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who made an entirely proper point. I want to make it absolutely clear that compensation comes first—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we embark on the next debate, may I draw attention to Mr Speaker’s request, made earlier this afternoon, for brevity from the Front Benchers and Back Benchers in these debates so that all the important matters before the House for decision today can be properly considered?
New Clause 27
Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc
‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) omit “and” and insert—
“(aa) the common law defence of defence of property; and”.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.”
(4) In subsection (8) for “Subsection (7) is” substitute “Subsections (6A) and (7) are”.
(5) In subsection (10)(a) after sub-paragraph (i) omit “or” and insert—
(ia) the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 136 and 141.
Mr Blunt
I shall certainly be following Mr Speaker’s direction, and I hope that we will dispose of this matter in as short an order as we disposed of removing the limit on magistrates’ fines.
The question of how far one can go to defend oneself crops up again and again in the letters Members of Parliament receive from their constituents, and of course it is always a controversial issue in the press and the media. It usually arises because a hard-working, law-abiding home owner or shopkeeper has been forced to defend themselves against an intruder and has ended up being arrested for it. Being confronted by an assailant in one’s home, on the street or anywhere else can be a terrifying prospect. It is essential that the law in this area is clear, so that people who use reasonable force to defend themselves or to protect their properties can be confident that the law is on their side.
There will always be occasions when the police need to make an arrest to enable a prompt and effective investigation, especially if they turn up at an address and somebody is dead. We are working with the Home Office on new guidance for the police to ensure that arrests are made only where necessary, but these provisions should give people greater certainty that the law itself is on their side and they will not be prosecuted or convicted if they have only used reasonable force.
Mr Llwyd
Will the Minister advise the House how the provisions change the common law doctrine and principle of a person being able to protect his or her property using force and the doctrine of self-defence, where reasonable force is used to defend oneself? I asked the Lord Chancellor that yesterday and he told me to wait until today for the answer—I am all ears.
Mr Blunt
The right hon. Gentleman should listen out for the next passage of my remarks, as I hope it will give him and the rest of the House satisfaction.
On the specific provisions, the new clause is not designed to sweep away the fundamental premise that somebody can use reasonable force in self-defence. In my view, that aspect of the law is entirely sensible. Allowing somebody to use unreasonable or disproportionate force would be very dangerous indeed, as it would effectively sanction vigilantism or violent retribution. Instead our proposals are designed to clarify what “reasonable” force means in practice. The new clause will amend section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to make it clear that a person can use reasonable force to defend property in addition to defending themselves, other people or preventing crime, and that they are under no duty to retreat from an offender when acting for a legitimate purpose, although if they had a chance to retreat, the court may still consider it when deciding whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not consult on these measures because of the limited nature of the amendments, but that should not detract from their importance in reassuring householders and small shopkeepers who use reasonable force to defend themselves and their properties that the law is on their side.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that the law works perfectly well as it is? Some years ago, I defended someone who had chopped off someone’s ear with a samurai sword and the jury acquitted him, saying that he had used reasonable force in the circumstances.
Mr Blunt
I cannot comment on that individual case—[Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary tempts me down that road, but I will resist. The much clearer message that will be sent if the House chooses to accept the Government’s proposals will mean that the position should be crystal clear to householders and shopkeepers on the force that they are entitled to use. That is the purpose of these provisions. We are seeking to reassure the public, and this all sits as part of our desire to have a society that can exercise its rights and properly defend those rights, and that does not feel that people have to pass by on the other side, particularly when their lives and property are at risk.
Mr Llwyd
May I suggest to the Minister that legislating is not all about giving out signals and that it is about making law? I have no axe to grind personally with the Minister, who is a perfectly decent man and who engaged with us in Committee on many matters, above and beyond his brief. However, he may have wished to circulate a photocopy of the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on self-defence and the prevention of crime. Any fool can read and understand it, as it says simply, under the heading of “Reasonable Force”:
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of: self-defence; or defence of another; or defence of property”.
It goes on to describe a further two matters. Providing a copy of that would have done, rather than using legislative time.
Mr Blunt
I am very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not embarrassed in the least. This measure forms part of the coalition agreement. We are delivering on that, sending a clear message and putting the law beyond doubt. Having things buried away in guidance to prosecutors, given that reassurance is needed for home owners and shopkeepers, is a distinctly sub-optimal way of proceeding on an issue such as this. When viewed in conjunction with the Home Secretary’s plans to strengthen the code of arrest for the police, we hope that these measures will help to fulfil the commitments in the coalition agreement on this issue. We must take together the instructions to Crown prosecutors, the legislation that I hope will go on to the statute book as a result of these Government measures and that code of arrest for the police, and I can therefore happily commend these proposals to the House.
Sadiq Khan
First, may I say, for the avoidance of doubt, that Labour Members do not intend to oppose new clause 27 or the consequential amendments, even though it is simply a rehash of an existing law and this valuable parliamentary time could have been used to discuss contentious issues that have caused real concern for many of our constituents? It was the previous Government, through section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, who placed the common law of self-defence into statute.
Since that time, there have been a number of calls, especially from those on the right, to “tighten” the laws on self-defence because they think that is good politics. Back in February 2010, the Prime Minister argued that the law needed further tightening to benefit the home owner against the burglar. Indeed, the Conservative party manifesto said that it would
“give householders greater legal protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes.”
The Conservatives have floated on a number of occasions the issue of reasonable force and changing the law to allow anything other than actions that are grossly disproportionate. Back in December 2009, the shadow Home Secretary, now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) committed a future Conservative Home Secretary to changing the law so that convictions against householders would happen only in cases where the actions involved were “grossly disproportionate.” But despite all the spin, that change has not materialised. The new clause will not allow home owners to use grossly disproportionate force or disproportionate force. It will not even strengthen the law. That is because expert opinion and evidence on the issue of self-defence for home owners is pretty unanimous.
It is widely accepted by those at the coal face that the law on self-defence works pretty well and it is unclear in many quarters why the law would need strengthening. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, has said:
“There are many cases, some involving death, where no prosecutions are brought. We would only ever bring a prosecution where we thought that the degree of force was unreasonable in such a way that the jury would realistically convict. So these are very rare cases and history tells us that the current test works very well.”
That approach is further reinforced by what has happened in recent months. That is why the Minister, whom we all like, is embarrassed by having to move the new clause and why his right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary, whom we all love, has disappeared from the Chamber. Recent cases involving home owners such as Vincent Cooke in Cheshire, Peter Flanagan in Salford and Cecil Coley in Old Trafford, in which intruders were killed, have demonstrated that when reasonable force is deemed to have been used, the Crown Prosecution Service has not brought any charges, so the current law works. I see that a note is desperately being passed to the Minister—it is probably a sick note from the Justice Secretary.
Paul Mendelle QC, a previous chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, said:
“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”
He went on to add that the current law worked perfectly well and was well understood by juries. Just yesterday he argued in The Guardian that the two areas of change proposed by the Government are nothing of the sort. By amending section 76 of the 2008 Act so that there is no duty to retreat before force they are restating the current law. I think it is called rearranging the furniture: things might look different, but nothing of substance will have changed.
Mr Llwyd
I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and I suppose that that is right, but I come back to my earlier point that the whole process is otiose. I understand what he is saying, and he has logic on his side. We talk about logic, but parliamentary time is short. Yesterday we had to leave out consideration of a raft of important matters relating to social welfare and social justice. None of them was discussed. Yet we have time this evening to talk about something that is unnecessary. So although I respectfully disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, he has logic on his side. However, the new clause is not the right vehicle for clarification of the law.
Quite why the measure is being introduced now is rather baffling. I can only presume that it is to please the tabloids and that this Government, like the last, want to convince voters that they are not soft on crime. Those on the right of the Justice Secretary’s party have made clear their aspirations to amend the law on reasonable force for some time now. As far back as 2009, the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said that any future Conservative Government would push for prosecutions, and convictions, only where courts judged that the action taken had been “grossly disproportionate”. That would have stood the law on its head. A huge amount of jurisprudence would have emanated from that decision. No doubt the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) and I would have profited from it, but it would have been a bad step in my view. The Conservative party wound back somewhat after that was said.
I am glad that such an extraordinary change to the law has not occurred, at least not yet. As Michael Wolkind QC, who represented Tony Martin, who was found guilty of murder and wounding with intent under the existing law, has said, allowing householders to use force that is not “grossly disproportionate” would amount to “state-sponsored revenge”.
Indeed, an outsider looking in might be forgiven for suspecting that hundreds of people were being prosecuted every year under the current law. But an informal trawl by the CPS suggested that between 1990 and 2005 there were only 11 prosecutions of people who had used force against intruders in houses, commercial premises or private land. So that is what we are dealing with and it leads one to question why we are talking about it tonight.
As the chair of the Bar Council Paul Mendelle QC said—it has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), but it will stand repetition—
“The law should always encourage people to be reasonable, not unreasonable; to be proportionate, not disproportionate.”
Paul Mendelle also commented in the same article written in The Times that the present law worked well and was well understood by juries. Again, I ask why we are doing this.
Changes to the law should not be brought about to produce good sound bites. The common law of self-defence already makes it perfectly clear that a householder is able to use reasonable force against an intruder in defence of himself or herself or his or her property. Amending the existing law for no gain in matters of substance will serve only to increase vigilantism and is not a good use of parliamentary time. It could lead to people using excessive force because they think they might be above the law—“An Englishman’s home is his castle” and all that kind of thing. I do not know. It might give out all the wrong signs, not the signs that Ministers on the Treasury Bench hope and suspect they are giving out.
I believe that the new clause has more to do with internal party politics than with policy. We are using valuable parliamentary time to play this out. The amendment is otiose and serves only to play to the drum beat of the tabloid press. I have a lot of time for the Justice Secretary, who is a man of great integrity, but I fear that in introducing the new clause he is dancing to the tune of the tabloids.
Mr Blunt
I will turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) towards the end of my speech, but first let me say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) for his kind personal remarks. I was marginally upset that I did not leap the amorous threshold that my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary did, but I am grateful for the limited extent of his affection compared to that for my right hon. and learned Friend.
I was amazed at the chutzpah of the right hon. Member for Tooting in lecturing the Government about a public relations stunt and spin. It took me a moment to pick my jaw back up off the Bench as I listened to him. There is a clear answer to the right hon. Gentleman. He properly stood up for the legal system as it now sits. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, it is an inconsistent message if we have changed section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act but have not applied it to property, so let us make the position absolutely clear to everyone that not only in the code for crown prosecutors and in the common law but in statute law, as passed by the House, property is included. That is a clear reason for making this change.
The right hon. Gentleman said that presumably the change was for an audience outside the Chamber. Yes, it is. It is all very well for sophisticates such as us, who understand the word “otiose”—used by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—but the issue goes right to people’s hearts. They feel that they are entitled to defend their home or their shop, and we owe it to them to make it crystal clear that we absolutely support them in defending themselves, their families and their property. The proposals make that absolutely clear. We need to understand that when something is so central to how everybody feels about their home, shop or place of business we must send a clear signal from this place about whose side we are on.
Sadiq Khan
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I have a simple question. Once the law is on the statute book, will a home owner have more rights, fewer rights or the same rights as they have now?
Mr Blunt
The home owner will have much greater reassurance about exercising their rights. [Interruption.] It is all for well for the lawyers on the Opposition Benches to cackle and say that the provision will not make any strict legal difference; it makes a profound difference in the reassurance that people will feel about operating in defence of their property and their life, which is why I am happy to commend the new clause to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Offence of squatting in a residential building
‘(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person is in a residential building as a trespasser having entered it as a trespasser,
(b) the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser, and
(c) the person is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
(2) The offence is not committed by a person holding over after the end of a lease or licence (even if the person leaves and re-enters the building).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “building” includes any structure or part of a structure (including a temporary or moveable structure), and
(b) a building is “residential” if it is designed or adapted, before the time of entry, for use as a place to live.
(4) For the purposes of this section the fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser.
(5) A person convicted of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
(6) In relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in subsection (5) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) it is irrelevant whether the person entered the building as a trespasser before or after the commencement of this section.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 26, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2A) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for six months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.’.
Amendment (c) to new clause 26, line 22 leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) no offence is committed if the person initially entered the building as a trespasser before the commencement of this section.’.
Government amendment 140
Mr Blunt
The Government are very concerned about the harm that squatters can cause. Residential and non-residential property owners have contacted Ministers repeatedly about the appalling impact that squatting can have on their homes and businesses. These are not media scare stories; they are very real and stressful events for victims whose properties have been occupied.
It is not just a question of the cost, length of time and incredible hassle involved in evicting squatters. Properties can be left in a terrible state after the squatters have been evicted and owners may face hefty cleaning and repair bills. While the property owner is literally left picking up the pieces, the squatters have gone on their merry way. They might even be squatting in somebody else’s property.
The current law already offers some protection to both non-residential and residential property owners. Squatters may be guilty, in certain circumstances, of offences such as criminal damage and burglary. There is also an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 that protects certain residential property owners. It applies when a trespasser fails to leave residential premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of a “displaced residential occupier” or a “protected intending occupier.” This means that people who have effectively been made homeless by squatters can ask the trespasser to leave, and if the trespasser refuses to leave, they can report an offence to the police.
We do not think the existing legal framework goes far enough to tackle the problems I have just described. The offence under section 7 of the 1977 Act does not protect non-residential property owners or many residential property owners, including landlords, local authorities and second home owners, who cannot be classified as displaced residential occupiers or protected intending occupiers. Following the conclusion of a recent public consultation exercise, we have decided that decisive action is needed now to criminalise squatting in residential buildings. We want to reassure owners and lawful occupiers of residential property that the law will protect them should trespassers occupy their properties. We want to send a clear message to would-be squatters that it is simply not acceptable to occupy someone else’s home.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will recall that a year ago tomorrow he met my constituent Steve Cross, a commercial property manager. The Government are clearly concerned about the impact of squatting in commercial property, so it is surprising that the new clause, which I entirely support, does not include greater protections for commercial properties. Will the Minister reassure my constituent that the Government have not forgotten the devastating impact of squatting on commercial property managers, and that they will continue to look at ways of strengthening the law to provide greater protection against squatters in commercial properties?
Mr Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for bringing her constituent to see me. I absolutely give her that reassurance, and I will do so in terms during my prepared remarks, which I hope will show her that I have not forgotten that the consultation identified the fact that 50% of the harm caused by squatters was to the owners of commercial premises. Although we are not proposing to criminalise such squatting with these measures, it is certainly not forgotten.
We recognise that this is a controversial area of policy. Many homelessness charities, for instance, are likely to continue to say that the new offence will criminalise homeless and vulnerable people who squat in run-down residential properties, but one of the reasons that the properties remain in that state is that the owners cannot get in to renovate them because the squatters are present. Consultation responses indicated that squats can be unhygienic and dangerous places to live and are no place for genuinely vulnerable people. That is why we will ensure that reforms in this area are handled sensitively, in conjunction with wider Government initiatives to tackle the root causes of homelessness. We are also working to provide affordable homes and to bring more empty homes back into use.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Minister will, like me, have read the documents presented by Crisis, which indicate that 40% of homeless people have been squatters at some time, and that because they are often single people, they have great difficulty in getting local authority or housing association accommodation, and there are 700,000 empty properties in the country. What are homeless people supposed to do?
Mr Blunt
I will deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has quite properly raised concerns in this area, and I will go into some detail to give the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) a proper answer to his question.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, there are others who will say that any new offence should extend to squatting in commercial premises. As I said to her, I remain concerned about squatting in those properties and will work with other Departments and the enforcement authorities to see whether action against existing offences such as criminal damage and burglary could be enforced more effectively in those cases.
The Metropolitan police acknowledged, in response to our consultation, that a lack of training and practical knowledge regarding the law on squatting may be a barrier to effective enforcement. My officials will work with the Home Office and the wider police service to address these issues and fill any gaps in current police practice. We will keep the situation under review in relation to non-residential property and are not ruling out further action in the future if it is needed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the legislation provide for co-operation or contact with services—electricity, water and so on—to those houses as a method whereby people can be taken out of those houses to ensure that the squatting does not continue? Will that be covered by the legislation?
Mr Blunt
That is not strictly within the terms of what is proposed here. The effect would be to criminalise those who are squatting in residential premises and to create a new offence. As a first step we intend to limit the new offence to squatting in residential buildings. We consider that this option strikes the best balance. It will protect those who are likely to suffer most from squatting—those whose homes are taken over by squatters.
I shall turn now to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I know that he is a supporter of the campaign group Squatters Action for Secure Homes, and I also know that he agrees with the arguments put forward by homelessness charities, such as Crisis, that criminalising squatting will impact on homeless people who squat. I fully understand why he tabled the amendments, but I will take this opportunity to explain why I do not agree with them.
On amendment (a), many squatters claim that they do not cause any harm to anybody because they look for empty properties to occupy. In the responses to our recent consultation exercise, that point was made by squatters and squatters groups, but respondents who made that argument were missing one rather important point: the houses are not theirs to occupy. There are many reasons why a house might be left empty for more than six months without any steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building. For example, somebody might decide to do charitable work in another country for a year, or they might visit their second home during the summer months only. It is the owner’s prerogative to leave the house empty in those circumstances. To say that property owners or occupiers should not be protected by the criminal law in these circumstances would be unjust and it would considerably weaken our proposed new offence.
Consultation responses highlighted a concern about the number of properties that are left empty on a long-term basis. They argued that such properties can crumble into disrepair and might be seen as a blight on the local neighbourhood. But permitting squatters to occupy derelict, crumbling, unsafe houses cannot be the answer. We are doing a number of things to encourage absent owners to make better use of their properties.
We want to increase the number of empty homes that are brought back into use as a sustainable way of increasing the overall supply of housing, and to reduce the perception of neglect that can blight neighbourhoods. Reducing the number of empty homes will also help to reduce the incidence of squatting. That is why we have announced £100 million of capital funding within the affordable homes programme to tackle problematic empty homes—that is properties that are likely to remain empty without extra direct financial assistance from the Government. This programme will deliver at least 3,300 affordable homes by March 2015, as well as engaging local communities in dealing with empty homes in their area.
Amendment (c) is designed to exempt squatters from the offence if they occupy residential buildings before the date of commencement. Let me be clear that we have no plans to punish people retrospectively. If they have squatted in the past but are no longer squatting when the offence comes into force, the offence will not apply. However, we would be creating a significant loophole if we exempted squatters who initially entered the building as a trespasser in the run-up to commencement even though after commencement of the offence they remain in the building as a trespasser, they know or ought to know that they are a trespasser and that they are living there or intend to live there. Such an occupation would be no less painful for the property owners concerned.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and others are concerned that the new offence might penalise vulnerable, homeless people who squat in run-down residential properties. One of the reasons they remain in this state is, as I said, because the owners cannot get in to renovate them. It would be much better for us to introduce an offence that is capable of protecting law-abiding property owners and occupiers on the one hand, while working with other Government Departments, local authorities, the police and homelessness charities to continue to address the root causes of homelessness and to mitigate any impacts the new offence might have on the levels of rough sleeping.
We are prioritising spending on homelessness prevention, investing £400 million over the next four years, with the homelessness grant being maintained at the 2010-11 level. For the first time, we have also brought together eight Departments through the ministerial working group on homelessness to tackle the complex causes of homelessness. The group published its first report “Vision to end rough sleeping” in July 2011, which sets out joint commitments to tackle homelessness and to ensure that nobody has to spend more than one night out on our streets—“No Second Night Out”. This includes actions to prevent homelessness for those people without a stable home who may be at risk of rough sleeping. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It feels as though we are in a different world when the Minister describes these as measures to tackle homelessness and when one considers everything that the Government have been doing with their housing benefit cuts and with their cuts in shared room rate, which organisations say will cause thousands more people to become homeless. Is he not cognisant of those arguments being put forward very forcefully by those charities?
Mr Blunt
I absolutely support the measures being brought forward by my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is absolutely right. One cannot but be impressed by his huge determination in chairing the ministerial group to address this issue. It is the other side of the equation, and I hope that it addresses the amendments and answers the question from the hon. Member for Islington North.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about linking up with the utility providers. It is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 to use electricity without authority and the maximum penalty for that is five years’ imprisonment.
I hope that the House will welcome this move to protect home owners and lawful occupiers of residential property from squatters.
John McDonnell
The point made by most people in the consultation, including the police, is that if elements of section 7 need tidying up, there should be a proper discussion about that. However, to criminalise an entire group in society is to over-react to a problem that is relatively minor, although I do not wish to underestimate the problem that appears to be caused to some home or property owners.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the four minutes.
A lot has been said. We have heard about parallel universes; indeed, we come here from different parts of the nation to offer different views. We have heard that the Englishman’s home is his castle. It is awful for people when their home is broken into; it feels desecrated and dirty. Where have the intruders been and what have they been up to? It is an awful feeling and we understand it, but when I heard some of the comments from Government Members I thought about my perspective—my universe.
When we talk about squatters, people think in terms of their own home, but that is a far cry from my experience of squatters. I am talking about people in places where there is no electricity, gas or water. There is no toilet and in some cases there is not even a roof. The properties are cold, damp, dark and very dangerous, with rats, stench and disease. They are also very violent places.
What about the squatters? We are not talking about hippy communes, with bean bags, beer and loud music, or about scroungers who ought to pull their socks up and get a job or go back home. We are talking about people without friends or families, and possibly without futures. In my experience, no one squats if an alternative is available.
That may not be the experience of other people, but it is mine. Debate on the provisions on legal aid and social welfare was shamefully evaded last night, but so many people in squats have suffered as a result of the failure of our system. In many cases, the state has put them into that position, whether the health service or the council; 78% of squatters have been turned away by their local authority. The failure may relate to employment support, or people may have just been downright unlucky.
Where on earth is the value in adding a criminal record to the problems those people face? The proposals are irresponsible. They are costly. At a time when we are being asked to do so many things that are unpleasant and unpopular, but possibly necessary for the deficit reduction plan, these proposals would simply add to the costs that we will all have to face, if not in our communities then in Armley prison. It does not make sense. The proposals do not add up.
The two universes could be brought together through amendment (a), which is a compromise that would improve the enforcement of existing legislation, with the back-up of the six-months provision. I shall support it.
Mr Blunt
It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), with the undoubted candour that he brought to his remarks. However, I profoundly disagree with him. It is a basic premise that if one takes someone else’s home, one has stolen from them one of the most important things for any of us. I am afraid we are going to part company on that principle, and as he will have heard in my opening remarks, the issue of homelessness has to be addressed in that strategy.
I thank the official Opposition for their support, presented with his usual enthusiasm by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). There was a moment when the charming side of the hon. Gentleman almost escaped—his rather touching revelation about his aptitude for politics when assessed by an external examiner at A-level. For that at least, I am grateful. However, to challenge us about talking business out, when he made a three-hour speech on the first group in Committee, would have come better from someone else.
The hon. Gentleman made an accusation that there was no clarity. There is absolute clarity in what we are doing. To try and escape into the issue of when a bothy is not a bothy, which will not be entirely clear to hikers, was the refuge of the desperate. When people are hiking they are clear where bothies are, and if they are not, they should not be undertaking the hike.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the benefits of the measure and the impact assessment. The impact assessment is clear. It has to identify benefits and potential risks. The benefits section of the impact assessment makes it clear that there could be significant benefits for residential property owners in the form of reduced legal costs in particular. Perhaps that puts into context the lobby by the legal profession. The impact assessment also suggests that if the offence acts as a deterrent, the instances of squatting may decrease.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for his excellent speech and the impressive campaign that he has waged on the issue. He made the point that we owe a duty to the homeless, a view shared by all on the Government Benches. His pertinent challenge to find any case where squatters have improved a property by virtue of their occupation was extremely telling.
In my opening remarks I tried to answer the terms of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who asked us not to legislate on the basis of anecdote or prejudice. I say to him and to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that the issue is hardly a surprise. It has been around for a very long time. The Prime Minister announced the consultation back in June. We have consulted for 12 weeks, and what we have tabled is a limited proposal. Those on the Opposition Front Bench feel able to support it because it is limited to residential properties.
As I said, we will keep the other areas under review, particularly commercial property. We recognise that that will be more controversial. That is why the proposals are limited to subjects on which we believe there is widespread agreement. In the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, those on the Front Bench support criminalisation as it represents arrogant behaviour on the part of squatters, who think they can just take someone else’s property.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that only seven victims of squatting responded to the consultation, but a number of local authorities responded and a number of law firms responded on behalf of several of their clients who had been victims of squatting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made the same point and I am delighted to find myself in absolute agreement with him. Four landlords associations representing a very large membership responded to the consultation and they all shared a desire to strengthen the law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a powerful case. He made the basic point that what we are addressing here is something that is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong to steal someone else’s home and that is what the new clause will address—