Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I certainly enjoyed my visit to Manchester, where I could see that a great deal of good work was being done. He can take reassurance from the fact that the system we will roll out will reward those things that work. If the intensive alternative to custody programme is as effective as it appears to be, it will work and it will be rewarded.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T5. The Bill of Rights commission report that has just been published has split views on many issues, but a majority think that the status quo is unstable and, interestingly, a majority want further reform of the Strasbourg Court. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that he remains committed to defending the House from the creeping usurpation of democratic power by the Strasbourg Court?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment. The Conservative party—although not the Opposition, from what we have heard today—is committed to the need for change and to ensuring that international human rights frameworks do not inappropriately intrude on the democratic decisions of this Parliament.

Leveson Inquiry

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree with the premise of my hon. Friend’s point but think that we perhaps draw different conclusions from it. Lord Justice Leveson has stated, as did our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate, that the status quo is not an option, so if we learn nothing else from Leveson, we should learn that what went before cannot go on. It seems to me to be uncontroversial that the PCC is dead, for example. We need some other form of disciplinary body or regulatory system that matches public concern but also has parliamentary approval. We could approve through parliamentary procedure a body that is not statutory, but we could also approve a regulatory body that is not the creature of Parliament but that would be recognised and saluted by statute. There are plenty of other bodies that discipline the professions or other public bodies but that are not controlled by the Government.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Lord Justice Leveson’s approach is to argue that regulation must be independent not only of the press, but of Parliament, but he then calls for a statute, drafted by Parliament, detailing the criteria for recognition of the regulations, and that covers everything, from membership of the regulator to the content of the new rules and its powers. How does my hon. and learned Friend reconcile what strikes me as a fatal paradox in that approach?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not have to reconcile it, because I find the answer on page 1,780 in part K of the report. I will not read it out because I do not have enough time, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that it repays reading. He should look at paragraphs 6.38 and 6.39. If I was a member of an appellate court, I would simply ask the shorthand writer to transcribe it into my judgment, but I cannot—I say to the Hansard reporter, have a go. Essentially, my hon. Friend’s point is one that is often made. If I may say so, with a little thought and study of the report, he will find that it is not strictly necessary to have the concerns, genuine though they are, that he displays and that they are dealt with by Lord Justice Leveson.

Time is running short and I have galloped through the points I wanted to make, no doubt inadequately and in a somewhat garbled fashion. There is plenty in the report that touches on the police, the conduct of the press and the appalling treatment meted out to victims, such as the Dowler family and others. That is all a given. It is also a given that the status quo ante must finish.

The debate that we are having, in this House and outside, is about what we mean by statutory regulation. To me, statutory regulation means no more and no less than what Lord Justice Leveson says: that a statute will recognise as an effective way of dealing with press conduct—and wider media conduct, including the internet—the disciplinary system to which the press must adhere. Clearly, we need buy-in from the widest possible section of the media, including the ordinary traditional press—the newspaper groups—and television and broadcast media through to the local press and others. I recognise that there will be difficulties over individual bloggers and so forth.

If we concentrate on what this report is not about, we miss a trick. Let us concentrate on what it is about, which is the democratic and constitutionally proper regulation of a disciplinary system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I will not at the moment. Lord Leveson proposes giving a state regulator the power and duty every two or three years to review and approve—or disapprove—the code and how it is implemented and enforced by the regulator. That is either a substantial power with important consequences or a trivial power with negligible consequences. The latter is unimportant so why insist on it? If the power is significant and will have substantial ramifications and consequences for the way the regulator behaves, the content of the code and the way it is enforced, we should look at it very carefully.

I know from many years of studying regulation that one consequence of regulators being given the power to review and prescribe detail is that the regulator—the state supervisor—will at every biennial or triennial review demand not less but more and stricter regulation. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) ever known a regulator demand less regulation rather than more? It is a recipe for regulatory creep and increasingly detailed specification by the state supervisor of what the so-called independent regulator must do.

The other consequence that some fear from a regulatory system that is overseen and supervised by a statutory regulator is that the regulator will nudge the code and its enforcement in line with the prejudices of the Government of the day. I doubt that that would be the immediate consequence, although it could be the consequence in the long term, but the statutory body that oversees how the regulatory apparatus works would follow either the Government’s prejudices or its own. We want to beware of that. If the statutory body is like the regulatory structures we normally set up, we will have a pretty clear idea how it will behave, but by definition it will be outside the direct control of the House, so hon. Members will have no say in it.

[Mr Raab]

I have an objection in principle to a statutory body or a body underpinned by statute both making and enforcing the rules. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that such a blurring of powers in the new body risks arbitrary decision making and is inimical to the rule of law?

[Mr Lilley]

Exactly; that is very much what I fear if the statutory body, following its own prejudices, determines the contents of the code and how it is enforced. Such a body would almost inevitably be made up of the sort of people who run and control the BBC. The BBC Trust has got into trouble for telling untruths about how it decided there should be unbalanced coverage of climate change and many other things, so we know the sort of prejudices such bodies have.

Lord Leveson specifies only one item of the code that the new body should contain. He says that it should “equip” the

“body with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.”

The body will be a politically correct one, enforcing politically correct standards on the media and press.

The body will also have the power to establish a

“ringfenced enforcement fund, into which receipts from fines could be paid, for the purpose of funding investigations.”

It will therefore have an incentive to levy fines, and in that way it will carry out investigations to increase and enhance its power and control over the so-called independent regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leech]

I am not for one second suggesting the newspaper should be punished. I am merely suggesting that it is rather ironic for a newspaper publisher bleating about free speech not to allow an opinion to be published in its newspaper, in what is supposed to be an opinion piece by an MP from the local area.

Is the proposed system a slippery slope to state regulation? Newspapers are suggesting that a future Government could legislate further and introduce state control. That is a red herring. A future Government could start the process from scratch and introduce state control. However, setting out the independence of the regulator in law actually makes it more difficult to introduce state control, because the independence of the regulator will already be enshrined in law.

Opponents also argue that Leveson’s model of regulation would not have stopped the hacking and the serious criminal behaviour. That is certainly true, but if proper independent regulation had been there in the first place, newspapers would never have built up a culture of invulnerability and an attitude that they could do whatever they wanted. While an independent regulator would not have directly stopped criminality, I believe it would have stopped the culture that resulted in that criminality.

Finally, I return to my first point about the debate being about the innocent victims. If we implement the Leveson recommendations, can we seriously look the victims in the eye? The answer is clearly yes, we can. I fear that without Leveson, we cannot.

[Mr Raab]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leech]

I will not.

Last week Leveson called time at the last chance saloon. The new bar for the press must be a free house—free of the press and free of the politicians. Leveson’s recommendations would achieve that, and we need to get on and implement them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

As was said earlier, much legislation has been put in place to deal with that, yet banks are still engaged in corrupt practices. Legislation is already in place to address all the issues that have been raised, whether intrusion, hacking, bribery or the police being too close to journalists. What we have to do is give prosecutors the confidence to pursue those issues, because we politicians have been somewhat concerned about not upsetting the newspapers and have not been using the legislation already in place to pursue those individuals.

[Mr Raab]

If journalists hack phones, they should go to jail. The problem in this instance is not the law, because a two-year sentence is already available, and it can be much higher if the offence amounts to perverting the course of justice. The problem is with securing witnesses, evidence and convictions. Is my hon. Friend disappointed that the Leveson report says so little about how to address the prosecutorial deficit?

[Kris Hopkins]

To be honest, I am not sure whether that was within the Leveson inquiry’s remit. The party leaders have a responsibility to come together to find some solution that will make this work, and I think that there is a meeting of minds on the vast majority of this, as other Members have said. It will take maturity by the players to find a solution that will make it work.

A few Members have referred to new media. We are addressing this issue, but I think that we are focusing too narrowly on newspapers. As everyone knows, new media, digital media, the internet and other forms of communication will outstrip newspapers. My local newspaper’s website has thousands of hits, possibly more than the number of newspapers it sells, so we are going to see a real change. There are exceptions, but there is very little regulation and few ways of managing or curbing from one country practices that are part of a global phenomenon. We will have to attempt to bring together many nations to address some of those issues. That is where the greater debate is, but we are slightly obsessed with the newspapers.

Finally, on “The Politics Show” yesterday Andrew Neil said that this issue raises the disturbing prospect of former spin doctors, who are known for their ability to sex up the odd document or two, becoming chairs of Ofcom and effectively being appointed by the Government. That is one of my concerns about the regulator and where this will go. The idea that the completely undermined tabloid press will now be orchestrated by Tory or Labour spin doctors who are appointed by Government will not give the public confidence. I want to see massive fines. I want it to be easier for individuals to seek redress and for the people who lie about them and put mistruths out there to be punished. I want an independent body.

Tomorrow is a big day for the newspapers. They should come to the table, because they have been offered the opportunity to make this work. If they fail, I am afraid that they will have damned themselves. Newspapers, both the broadsheets and the tabloids, play a massive part in British society. The tabloids have an important role. They are being given an opportunity to come to the table and they have a responsibility to take it. I do not want statutory legislation to be put in place. I think it would seriously undermine democracy in this country.

Police (Surrey)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Before the debate had even started, I had already benefited from your advice and wisdom. Thank you. I am also grateful for the opportunity to address the Minister and to discuss police funding in Surrey.

Few issues are of greater importance to people throughout the country than ensuring that their local police force has the resources that it needs. The residents of Esher and Walton, and indeed of the county of Surrey, are no exception. Surrey’s front-line police officers do a first-rate job. I commend the dedication and commitment that they bring to keeping our communities safe. We are also blessed with a top-notch chief constable.

I want to say at the outset that I support the Government’s drive to promote efficiency and reform in the police service, which is in the interests of both law enforcement and the taxpayer. I commend the Minister for his pioneering efforts in that regard. In the current financial climate, all parts of the public sector must do their bit to deliver maximum value for money, and the police cannot be immune.

However, I have concerns about the current consultation on changing or removing the damping mechanism for police funding. The damping mechanism is a critical safeguard for forces such as Surrey, which lose out disproportionately under the central funding formula. In particular, the mitigation provided by the damping mechanism ensures that Surrey police enjoy the same level of increase or decrease in funding as other forces.

Neither Surrey police, Surrey police authority nor I object in principle to a review of the damping mechanism, but logically and fairly, it ought to be part of the wider review of police funding that the Government have pledged to carry out before the next comprehensive spending review. If the anomalies in the current funding formula could be ironed out to create a truly needs-based, fair system, damping could be phased out, but the current consultation, which focuses on the future of the damping mechanism from 2013-14 onwards, risks leaving Surrey financially high and dry through no fault of its own. That cannot be right.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Surrey taxpayers pay some of the highest taxes into our national Exchequer, yet we also end up paying some of the highest precepts? It is not because Surrey police are not efficient; they are. Surely that cannot be fair.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. As someone who worked in local government before becoming an MP, he knows the details far better than me. That basic logic and flow cannot be right. It cannot be right that we keep paying more and more and get less and less back. It is unsustainable.

That message was borne out in no small part by a 2009 review conducted by Oxford Economics of local application of the central funding formula. Surrey loses out under that formula for various compound reasons. For example, the funding formula takes into account daytime net flows of traffic, but not total traffic or total accidents, which are disproportionately high in Surrey compared with the other indices. It takes into account average deprivation, which is relatively low in Surrey, but ignores our proximity to areas of high deprivation, taking little account of cross-border criminals who may target the county. My borough, which is in the north-east, has a lot of that kind of crime. Nor does it take into account the impact of our proximity to Heathrow and Gatwick, which is also linked to crime levels.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that no account is taken of traffic through the county? That is a crucial point. As I understand it, data are available to show that through traffic relates to crime.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Oxford Economics considers the issue of flow in some detail. I commend the report to the Minister if he wants to examine the detail of what we are discussing.

Other elements, such as our proximity to high population areas, have also been proven relevant to levels of crime but are not factored into the funding formula, which measures only population levels within the county. Those shortcomings are mitigated by the damping arrangements. It is therefore unfair to remove or revise one without considering the other.

Surrey police do an outstanding job, which is reflected in the public’s 90% confidence rating. Today’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, “Policing in Austerity: One Year On”, breaks down the situation by individual forces, showing the progress that the Surrey police have made in dealing with austerity.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we should recognise the achievements of Surrey police in maintaining the same level of service to the public in Surrey, despite reductions of about £7 million in their budget so far, and that further cuts could risk public safety?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key issue is sustainability. It cannot be right that those who perform best in terms of delivering cost efficiencies while adding further front-line officers should be penalised and find themselves victims of their own success.

Surrey has achieved those net satisfaction ratings despite having faced challenging conditions for a number of years. It is important to put the issue in context; it is not all about austerity under the coalition. Surrey did not share in Labour’s “land of milk and honey” spending spree. While real-terms spending on the police increased nationally by 19% between 1997 and 2010, funding for Surrey police was cut by 39% in real terms. Measured by central funding per person, Surrey got the worst deal of all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

Faced with that legacy, Surrey police responded positively. In July 2010, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary praised Surrey police for their efficiency in work force deployment, the way they centralised cross-cutting functions such as human resources and their rigorous and robust approach to achieving cost savings.

Surrey police followed that up with their policing plan for 2011-14, which rationalised the police estate. That, of course, involved a difficult set of decisions that had to be conveyed, sold and communicated locally. It is a very tangible thing to replace police stations or sell off old estate to make way for new hubs. That was difficult. Surrey police also reformed their procurement practices; it is widely accepted that they were in the vanguard in doing so. They cut middle management, which is also difficult, as it creates morale issues in a force. It was not an easy decision, but they took it. Through the net savings, they focused on putting officers into the areas of greatest need, including neighbourhood policing and serious crime investigations, precisely the areas that the public, and I as their MP, want to be priorities for investment.

Over and above all those savings, Surrey police’s rigorous approach and financial discipline allowed the force to reinvest in an extra 200 police constables. That would be extraordinary given the financial straits everyone is in, but it is particularly so for Surrey, given the legacy that it inherited.

Despite the dire financial legacy left by the last Government, Surrey was the only force in England and Wales able to increase officer numbers between September 2010 and September 2011. As the Audit Commission, HMIC and the Home Office have commented, Surrey police are a model of how to get a financial house in order. They did so proactively, before the financial crisis compelled the wider belt-tightening now under way. They did not wait for the waves to hit; they were on the front foot. Like other forces, they are now halfway through a 20% real-terms cut in central Government funding. Surrey police have dealt with all those challenges while improving their record against several key indicators of performance, such as serious crime detection.

However, Surrey has reached its limits. If the damping mechanism is removed, the force stands to lose, in total—there are two components—£4 million in funding, the equivalent of losing 83 police constables. That would be a serious blow to the force and a kick in the teeth, not only to the force, which has taken such steps to be a model of cost-efficiency, but to the people of Surrey, who pay such high levels of tax, too little of which returns as investment in local public services.

Our police need to be properly funded to deal with the wide range of challenges that they face daily. There is a perception of Surrey as a leafy backwater with no crime, challenges or deprivation, whose sleepy towns and villages are the last place where crime or antisocial behaviour is a real issue; but as my colleagues who have spoken, and others, know, that is a myth. The reality is, as has been said time and again, that Surrey is a county force grappling with metropolitan issues.

[Jonathan Lord]

My wonderful ward of Maybury and Sheerwater is deprived by national standards and has a diverse ethnic mix. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can ill afford to lose 80-odd police constables in Surrey?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree with him. One of the problems with the myth about Surrey—it is as true of his constituency as it is of mine—is that average levels of affluence hide pockets of deprivation and real social challenges, which play out in terms of law enforcement, policing, crime and antisocial behaviour. Having made difficult financial sacrifices and tightened their purse strings, communities want to be able to keep the savings for front-line policing. The key issue in my hon. Friend’s and my constituencies, and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), is visible and responsive policing. We are seeking to make sure that that is safeguarded, and the damping mechanism is critical.

It is precisely because, overall and on average, Surrey is an affluent area that it has become something of a target for professional criminals from other areas. During my time as an MP, I have seen professionals targeting shops and businesses in Cobham, Thames Ditton and other areas, which also suffer from antisocial behaviour, robbery and other crimes. Overall, almost 50% of crime in the county is committed by non-Surrey residents, while in 2008, 59% of the organised crime gangs affecting Surrey operated from London. That cross-border crime is a serious concern.

Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned, Surrey roads require constant policing. The county is in the top 6% of local areas for volume of traffic per resident, and in the top 15% for accidents per resident. None of that is accurately reflected in the funding formula. Unsurprisingly, despite all Surrey police’s good work, those factors, which are not picked up by the funding formula, have affected law enforcement capability, which is being measured against finite and shrinking resources.

One specific issue that I have raised with Surrey police authority and the chief constable is Surrey’s sanctioned detection rate, which is the percentage of crimes for which someone is charged, summonsed or cautioned. Surrey’s rate has been either the lowest or second lowest in England and Wales for each of the past three years. In 2010-11, it was 8% below the national average. That is a visible, tangible symptom of the difficult challenges with which the force is grappling with regard to finances and law enforcement capability. Although the figure is improving, the one thing that Surrey police cannot afford is to lose scores of officers, which is the risk we face as a result of the review of the damping mechanism.

The people of Surrey should not be short-changed when it comes to the police. Let us bear in mind that in 2010 Surrey contributed £5.5 billion to the Treasury, but we got back just one third of the national average level of funding for local public services. The residents of Surrey—the taxpayers of Surrey—understand that they need to do their bit. They also understand the need for Britain to cut her coat according to her financial cloth. They have been some of the most proactive participants in that regard, given all that has been said about the discipline that Surrey police have shown in the past few years. However, those residents and my constituents will neither understand nor support changes that result in Surrey police losing millions of pounds every year if their protection from a skewed funding formula is stripped away.

The future of police funding is an important and contentious issue. I know why Ministers are nervous about tinkering with the police funding formula, and a full discussion on how to reform it is beyond the scope of today’s debate. However, that wider debate needs to take place before changes to the damping mechanism can reasonably be pushed through. I urge the Minister to give an assurance that the damping mechanism will only be altered, phased out or reduced as part of a coherent package of reforms, and not in isolation.

Neither Surrey police nor the people of Surrey are asking for special treatment. This is not about a subsidy; it is about mitigation of the knock-on effect of a funding formula that does not accurately reflect local needs in Surrey, and the same is true for other forces. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for a fair deal. The damping mechanism gives Surrey some mitigation from the flaws of the funding formula, and until that formula is properly reviewed and reformed, that protection should remain intact.

Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

That case is far from unique. We should be clear that the Government want to remain within the directive precisely to enable such practical, common-sense sharing of data. It is not because we do not have concerns about the precise details or think it cannot be improved. It is because we make the judgment that we stand a much better chance of securing a sensible deal within the tent than outside it, and without risking the likelihood that by having to negotiate dozens of bilateral deals, we would endanger co-operation that the public depend upon.

It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that press coverage has warned about new rights for criminals under this measure. Let me set the record straight. All UK citizens under current law are able to know what information the state holds about them and can ask for data to be erased. But the ability of criminals to enjoy this right is, for obvious reasons, qualified. Put simply, the rights of the law-abiding public to security come first. Nothing in this proposed directive creates any new right for criminals or for anyone else.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

On that point?

[Mr Raab]

On that point. May I quote to the Minister directly from paragraph 50 of the impact assessment? It says that criminal justice sector agencies may also be prosecuted directly or via the Information Commissioner’s Office if they fail to protect personal data. This will represent a cost to them in terms of defending themselves in court and in paying fines and/or compensation that may result from these cases. Does that not conflict directly with what he has just told the House?

[Mr Blunt]

No, because these rights already exist. The suggestion in the newspapers yesterday, which I am sure my hon. Friend had nothing to do with, was about whether we were creating some new set of rights for criminals under the directive. No new set of rights is being created, any more than exist now under our own data protection laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who powerfully and eloquently put the constitutional case against the measure.

The motion gives the House an opportunity to assess the latest proposals from Brussels on the processing of personal data by the police and other law enforcement agencies. Like others, I am surprised and disappointed that the motion endorsing the opt-in, which is an important step for the reasons already mentioned, first appeared on the Order Paper this morning. Now we learn that the Ministry of Justice impact assessment—the basis on which the House is scrutinising this measure—is fundamentally flawed, having omitted the decisive considerations Ministers have relied on. That is a poor basis for Parliament to exercise its scrutiny prerogatives on.

The Commission argues that the provisions are needed because of the speed of technological change and the increasing amount of information being transferred, but the draft directive would make data protection obligations more onerous and more expensive for UK police forces. The police would have to appoint specialist data protection officers. There would be restrictions on the information that could be held, and rules to allow suspects and criminals to know what data are being held on them and to request amendments and deletion of that information. These are clearly and palpably new rights; it is completely wrong to suggest otherwise.

The directive will apply not only to cross-border investigations but to data transferred between two UK forces, subject to what the Minister has said. The EU sees the proposals as a safeguard but, in reality, they risk creating a bureaucratic straitjacket, sowing legal confusion and adding to the costs of police forces on the front line. The Ministry of Justice impact assessment put it very clearly when it stated that

“many of the new obligations appear disproportionate and unnecessary leading to an overall negative outcome.”

So why are we opting in, against departmental advice?

I listened to the new arguments advanced by the Minister this evening, but I find it unacceptable that they are wholly missing from the impact assessment and that they have not been reviewed by the European Scrutiny Committee. We have heard the standard boilerplate arguments for meekly submitting to extra EU regulation, and there has been no analysis at all of the countervailing arguments, which, if they are as serious as has been suggested, we really ought to be scrutinising properly. At the very least, should we not wait until Ministers have quantified the administration costs of the measures to police forces?

The impact assessment estimates that there will be substantial costs to the police and other agencies, but we have no further details. When will a proper assessment be made? Has the Association of Chief Police Officers, or any individual police force, been asked for a view of the operational impact of the measures? We know that the Ministry of Justice has looked at them; have the Home Office or police forces in general done so? We ought to learn a lesson from the Abu Qatada saga, which is dragging on, and be acutely aware of the real risk of European legislation, judicial or otherwise, tying the hands of UK law enforcement.

When it comes to data protection and related privacy rights, we have been here before. The House will remember the case of Gary Ellis, a serial thief and burglar. In 2003, Essex police were forced to abandon a crime-fighting campaign that would have displayed his picture across his home town of Brentwood in an attempt to deter him and warn potential victims. The courts banned the posters because they breached his privacy rights under article 8 of the convention.

In 2008, the Serious Organised Crime Agency had similar problems with 41 criminals under financial reporting orders. It was forced to protect their privacy and therefore not publish the orders, which led to SOCA’s head, Sir Stephen Lander, publicly expressing his frustration. I appreciate that those cases involve a slightly different set of rights, but they are related and the impact is similar. Is not the reality that this opaque directive will risk arming offenders with yet another legal weapon with which to sue those whose job it is to put them behind bars and protect the public? Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the impact assessment also highlight the cost of civil litigation brought by offenders and suspects against the police and others, and even the prospect of prosecution by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

I note the Minister’s statement that there were no new rights, but paragraph 47 of the impact assessment states that it is likely that this proposal—not existing rights—could have

“a large impact on CJS agencies.”

The risk of such unintended legal consequences is aggravated by the fact that the new directive will be subject to the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is why assurances about the limits of its application cannot be relied on.

When it comes to pan-European co-operation, as opposed to data sharing within the UK, the impact assessment is equally sceptical. It states that, far from making us more secure, there will be an increased risk from criminal acts because the directive will gum up international data sharing by adding burdens that will discourage co-operation. Overall, this is a bleak assessment. It raises the question why is Brussels micro-managing policing and law enforcement? If we need a change to our data protection rules, it should be tailored to the problem under national law and in relation to national law enforcement agencies. Why, given the Ministry’s lousy impact assessment, are we even contemplating opting in?

Bitter experience suggests that we may end up with gold-plated provisions protecting UK criminals while other EU countries would apply the provisions selectively, if at all. The obvious course, which I understand is available—I stand to be corrected by the Minister or hon. Members who are lawyers if I am wrong—is to remain at the negotiating table, albeit without a vote, and to decide whether or not we like the end product in due course. Why have Ministers opted against that specific course of action? Why cannot we go down that route? As to relying on bilateral co-operation outside the justice and home affairs regime, can we seriously say that the prospect of negotiating bilateral treaties has harmed public protection, national security or law enforcement for the Swiss or the Norwegians?

Beyond these practical problems, there is a constitutional dimension. The new directive would replace the 2008 EU rules on data protection. These are part of the 130 measures in respect of which we need to decide whether to repatriate or to accept the full jurisdiction of the European Court from 2014. Any laws amended or replaced are not subject to that block opt-out, so by opting out of this measure, we will prevent the UK from opting out of this area of EU policy making later. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made that point eloquently and powerfully.

As with most international law enforcement co-operation, effective data sharing is achieved through practical co-operation between national authorities, not through top-down bureaucratic schemes. We do not have a proper analysis of the cost of the directive, and we do not have a proper assessment of the operational impact. The impact assessment has not even been signed off by a Minister. In those circumstances, frankly, it would be irresponsible to commit the UK to this measure without further detail and without further scrutiny. I cannot support the motion.

EU Criminal Policy

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

First, I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), for coming to the House to debate this subject transparently and openly because it is one that demands scrutiny. I echo the warning in the excellent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), because today, as the Prime Minister leads efforts to scale back the overweening and often arbitrary role of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, we might well remind ourselves that prevention is better than cure.

The document before us has all the hallmarks of a massive and substantial power grab from Brussels in the area of EU criminal law. We might have ad hoc opt-outs, but the direction of travel has very serious implications for this country. The clear ambition in the document is for a pan-European code on what the Commission calls “Euro-crimes”, backed by EU penalties and jurisdiction. The document talks about giving

“full judicial control to the European Court of Justice”

in Luxembourg.

The aim is for a uniform European justice policy by any other name. One has only to look at the detail in the document, which seeks—I quote these words for the sake of accuracy, to show that this is not just scaremongering—

“approximation of definitions and sanction levels”

for serious crimes. It aims for “common minimum rules”, including common EU punishments. The document reeks of the Soviet style EU double-speak to which we have become accustomed. On one hand it accepts the national “diversity” of the traditions of justice across the continent, including our own, but in the same sentence it calls for “consistent and coherent” EU criminal law. Ultimately, that is a circle that cannot be squared.

What areas will the new Euro-crimes cover? It is one thing to call for direct practical co-operation between national authorities on counter-terrorism and serious crime, although we do not need more legislation in that regard, but the document would expand EU law into environmental crimes, employment offences, data protection, fisheries offences, traffic offences, financial market behaviour—I wonder who that is aimed at—and, of course, at the top of everyone’s list of priorities, protecting the euro.

Britain has opt-outs, but we are still affected by the massive increase in EU law in the field of justice and home affairs. With cross-party support, the House has unanimously called on the Government to renegotiate the European arrest warrant—the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), presciently predicted that I would raise this issue—because it is resulting in far too much rough justice for far too many innocent citizens. As we consider the ambitions for EU criminal law, I should like to know from the Minister where that issue is on the UK agenda and where it is on the EU agenda.

The UK has also opted in to the draft European investigation order, which would allow European investigators and prosecutors to direct UK police forces to pursue leads and collect evidence. That is a threat to the liberty of our citizens, and is the last thing that hard-pressed police forces need right now. What progress has been made on limiting the risk of abuse of such wide powers and on ensuring there are safeguards that comply with British standards of justice? On a more fundamental level, why is the EU expanding its competences before it has corrected the current defects?

This issue is a prelude to the decision to be taken by June 2014 on whether Britain should opt in or out, wholesale, of the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs legislation. If this document is a taste of what is to come, it demonstrates all too well the magnitude of that decision. This is a fork in the road: it is time to decide whether Britain will retain our unique justice system and common-law tradition. This is one of the most serious constitutional challenges the House will face in this Parliament, and I am confident that Ministers will weigh the consequences of that decision very carefully and ensure that Parliament—consisting of the elected and accountable law-makers for this country—will have the opportunity to debate and vote on that crucial decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am afraid that there was a certain amount of confusion under the previous Administration, when for some reason the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had responsibility for overseas terrorism issues. These issues have now been brought together, and we will bring forward our proposals on victims of overseas terrorism in tandem with our proposals on criminal injuries compensation.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

On Thursday the Government signalled their intention to lead by example by launching a new dispute resolution commitment. From now on, Government Departments and agencies are committed to using better, quicker and more efficient ways of resolving legal disputes, and to seeking alternatives to court action wherever possible. The commitment will save time, money and stress for those involved, and will reduce the number of cases unnecessarily clogging up the courts. This is an important part of our commitment to make the justice system radically more user-friendly and to cut down on the amount of expensive, painful and confrontational litigation in our society.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Justice Secretary for that reply. Getting offenders clean of drugs is one of the best ways to get them to go straight on release. What progress has the Justice Secretary made in reducing the previous Government’s excessive reliance on methadone prescriptions, and increasing abstinence-based drug rehabilitation in our prisons?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

As my hon. Friend heard from the previous answer of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice on the centrality of rehabilitation, clinical interventions are the responsibility of the Department of Health. It is important that we work with clinical services to ensure that there is a proper path towards detoxification and abstinence, not only in prison but during the transfer between prison and the community. We are working hard with our colleagues in the Department of Health to deliver that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

There will very shortly be an opportunity for all right hon. and hon. Members to see our proposals in response to the consultation on the Green Paper, and it would be appropriate to wait until then so that proposals come forward together in a coherent manner. We have to remember that we are dealing with the consequences of an era of inaction when, for example, the Council of Europe additional protocol on the transfer of prisoners was open for signature in 1997 and it took until November 2009 for that lot over there to sign it.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

I shall begin with a topical statement. On 26 April, I attended a Council of Europe ministerial conference in Turkey on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. I was clear that the Court must focus on truly important cases and have proper regard to the judgment of national Parliaments and courts. I met a number of Ministers from other member states and senior figures from the Council of Europe and the Court who were receptive to this view.

[Mr Raab]

In a recent and novel ruling, a man convicted of robbery defeated a deportation order on human rights grounds because he had a girlfriend—a relationship that the court described as that of a courting couple and no more. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider amending the Human Rights Act 1998 and the human rights clause in the UK Borders Act 2007 to prevent this kind of judicial legislation under article 8 of the European convention?

[Mr Clarke]

I have not seen that case, but I agree that it sounds like a rather sweeping interpretation of the right to family life, which is what the European convention confirms. If my hon. Friend will let me have the details, I will inquire into the case to see how it reached such a startling conclusion. It is possible that the report that he read, in whichever newspaper he read it, did not bear a very close resemblance to what actually occurred.

Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. As I understand it, the mediation is designed to address the potential cost of litigation arising from the Guantanamo cases and is estimated to be between £30 million and £50 million. The inquiry is also wider than that, and will deal with non-Guantanamo cases where individuals have been detained in other countries. What is the estimated cost of the potential litigation in those cases?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree that the Gibson inquiry does have wide terms of reference, although these matters finally have to be settled. It is looking at the whole question of the ill treatment of detainees generally, although, of course, usually in cases where there is some British involvement, such as where our allies have been involved or where we have been engaged in theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) takes a great interest in these allegations and as he cannot be present today he has been on the telephone to me, because he is very anxious that rendition should be included.

I cannot give an estimate of the cost, but we are anxious that there should be a reasonable time scale, and so is Sir Peter. We do not want this to go on for ever. The inquiry will take a general look at the position, and it will take such evidence as it feels fit and go as wide as is necessary to guide future British policy. Beyond that I cannot go, however, because in the end this will be a matter for Sir Peter and his two colleagues on the panel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am afraid that I cannot offer guarantees to the hon. Lady, but we can say in relation to that specific case that it is very important that all the lessons are learned about appropriate information sharing. The Government understand the significance of the domestic violence issues that she raises.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

2. What plans the Government have to review the use of administrative penalties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government are undertaking a full assessment of sentencing policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting the public, punishing offenders and reducing reoffending. We are considering our approach to out-of-court penalties as part of this work.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. By 2007, fewer than half the offenders brought to justice—on the previous Government’s measure—had ever seen or been passed through the dock of a court. A man who glassed a pub landlady recently was cautioned, and a serial thief was issued with a dozen on-the-spot fines. What plans does he have to reverse Labour’s pay-as-you-go crime policy, and does he agree that magistrates courts have a vital role to play?

[Mr Djanogly]

The number of out-of-court disposals administered each year has risen by 135% since 2003. Such disposals now account for 40% of all offences brought to justice. However, during the same period, the number of convictions at court has remained broadly stable, suggesting that out-of-court penalties are expanding the number of offenders who are dealt with rather than being used as an alternative to prosecution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

The previous Government were considering the question carefully, and we are still carefully considering our policy on the issue.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T7. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to reform drug rehabilitation in our prisons, so that we see fewer offenders languishing on methadone prescriptions than under the previous Government, and more going clean on abstinence-based programmes?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Clinical guidance for the treatment of heroin addicts in prison has been updated to reinforce the expectation that prisoners jailed for more than six months should not be maintained on methadone unless there are exceptional circumstances. We recognise that continuity of management of drug users is a key challenge. The work of Lord Patel’s prison drug treatment strategy review and last year’s review of the drug interventions programme will help us to strengthen arrangements between prisons and the community. However, I absolutely acknowledge my hon. Friend’s great concern about the issue.