Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, “Whose Life Is It Anyway?”—so asked the title of the 1970s play which examined the issue of voluntary euthanasia. The implication is clear: it is my life, and so my right to decide.

Similarly, today, many noble Lords have relied on the principle that the right to choose to end one’s own life should be paramount. The campaigners outside the House are waving banners demanding choice. I respectfully submit that this approach is flawed. If choice or personal autonomy must be respected above all, we would support many more suicides than those of the terminally ill. Of course, we do not.

By definition, every person who commits suicide chooses to take their own life, yet we usually do everything we can to dissuade them. Suicide is surely not a human right. It has not been a crime for 60 years, but the principle that any suicide is wrong and should be prevented—that it cannot lawfully be assisted—has remained, and for good reason. Once that principle is abandoned, what then will constrain the choice to die?

This short Bill does not do a small thing. It introduces in our law for the first time the idea that a patient’s life may be taken, albeit with their consent. Life, in some circumstances, is no longer to be protected by an inviolate principle, but rather by administrative safeguards and term limits.

The fear is not only that those safeguards may prove inadequate, that vulnerable people may be exploited and encouraged to end their lives and that, in reality, choice over death has been given to others, or that the time limits are essentially arbitrary, it is also that the safeguards will steadily be eroded. Once the utilitarian argument has asserted itself, we will move inexorably towards a world where the worth of life is measured and questioned. Today’s reform facilitates only the assisted suicide of the terminally ill. Tomorrow’s, as the experience of other jurisdictions warns us, will inevitably extend the right to die to others. Perhaps the terminally miserable will be included. Why not? Do they not suffer too? No principle could any longer stand in the way of such change because the main principle will already have been conceded. Extending this new right to die will merely be the next logical step—all too easily justified. Doubtless, we will be told that it is popular.

We have heard many powerful arguments for this measure today, driven by compassion and reason. However, we cannot—we must not—legislate on the basis of sentiment, certainly not without regard to the consequences. In truth, we cannot legislate away suffering. We can and should do more to alleviate suffering through better funded and more palliative care. I oppose the Bill as I opposed the Bill six years ago in the House of Commons, not because I am deaf to the moving expressions of humanity we have heard today, but because legislating to permit the taking of a patient’s life so obviously crosses the Rubicon. I shudder to hear the stories of those who suffer terribly at the end of their lives. I shudder more at a response that will open the door to ever more lives being brought to an early end.

Prison Safety and Reform

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with the hon. Lady that we have some brilliant charities and brilliant people who are really transforming lives. I want to make that happen on a wider scale and I will certainly look into the point that she has raised.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the continuation of a progressive agenda to ensure that prisons are places that not only keep offenders secure but rehabilitate them. Does she agree that it will be important to ensure that staff are empowered and held accountable for that objective of reducing reoffending, as well as for that of keeping people safe?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that prisons are not only places of safety but places of reform. We are wasting a huge amount of talent at the moment, and we are also presiding over problems in society, with a £15 billion bill for the crimes that ex-offenders go on to commit. We have a progressive agenda, and it is also important to prevent there being more victims of crime.

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I understand that an urgent question has been tabled for 11 o’clock so I will endeavour to be brief so my remarks do not become truncated.

First, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) on introducing this measure and on his excellent speech in support of his Bill. I welcome what he has sought to do.

There is general agreement in this House that great injustice was done to gay men in the past by laws that have since been repealed. There is a great deal of regret for that injustice and a recognition that there are people who are still alive who have suffered as a consequence of it. Further to that, there is broad, although perhaps not unanimous, agreement that it is right that not only should that legislation have been repealed, in many cases some time ago, but that this House and the Government should go further and extend a pardon to those convicted of offences we now believe should not have been criminal offences, because of the enormous injustice done to them. It seems to me that there is no disagreement between the Government and Members on the Opposition and Government Benches who believe it is right in principle for such a pardon to be extended.

I recall being a Minister in the Ministry of Justice along with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) at the time when we were discussing the initial proposal that a specific pardon should be granted to Alan Turing. We had those discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was then the Justice Secretary. One can hardly imagine a more humane or liberal Member of Parliament than my right hon. and learned Friend, but he had concerns about the possible implications of the further application of the principle we were embarking on. I think those were legitimate concerns, and I think there is a legitimate debate to be had about the extent to which it is possible to embark on a process of revisionism such that we find ourselves extending a general apology or pardon for all sorts of crimes that may have been committed a while ago and for legislation that was enacted before our time.

Members on both sides of the House have spoken with passion about why we should offer a signal or expression of regret. It is clearly important for the living that the state recognises the injustice that was done, but it is also important to a broader community. The hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) spoke powerfully about that. That is important because, in spite of the near completion of the legislative agenda, in this country at least, to ensure full equality for gay people, there is still discrimination in our society, and particularly in our schools, where there are young people who face prejudice and are worried that they may not be accepted in our society. Therefore, the signals this House and the Government send are immensely important.

There is also the question of the signal we send more widely to the rest of the world. I am honoured to be the elected chairman of the all-party group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South is also an officer of that group. We focus on the appalling breaches of human rights increasingly being perpetrated in other countries around the world where human rights are going backwards, not forwards; gay people are living and working in fear in, for instance, countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in Russia and other countries in eastern Europe. In those countries, progress needs to be made to secure equality and a respect for human rights. We are often told—as are those who are victimised in those countries—that their laws historically owe their origin to this place, to laws fashioned and promoted by this Parliament as part of our Empire.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Is that not why it is so utterly important that this Bill goes through in its own right to send out that message, rather than have just a few lines of an amendment?

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Lady anticipates what I am about to say. I was explaining that I believe it is important that this House sends the right signal with a general pardon because of the effect on the living, because of those to whom an injustice has been done, because of the way in which young people in particular may anticipate how they will be treated, and because of the signal we might therefore send globally about the importance of standing up for human rights.

[Mr Gyimah]

The amendment that will be tabled by Lord Sharkey is not just a few lines in a Bill. Lord Sharkey is one of the most prominent campaigners on this issue: he has been campaigning for a long time, and yesterday’s announcement has already garnered global headlines and will continue to do so when the amendment is passed.

[Nick Herbert]

I had said I hoped to complete my remarks by 11 o’clock, but I can now see that that is not going to be possible, because what I want to say about the position of the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister is important, and it is important that we get a resolution to this matter. Whatever the history of the last few days, it seems to me—this was the point I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech—that there is broad agreement on the necessity of this measure, the value of it and the importance of proceeding. Indeed, there is a Conservative manifesto commitment to do so. After I resume my speech—as I hope I will be able to, Mr Deputy Speaker—I would like to explain why I therefore believe the Bill should be allowed a Second Reading.

Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

As I was saying, it seems to me that there is no difference between the Government and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire with respect to the intention of the Bill: those who are living to whom an injustice has been done should be pardoned, but the intention is not to pardon those who committed offences that would still be criminal offences today. The only disagreement is about the actual effect of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman has suggested a specific mechanism for ensuring that people do not make improper use of a pardon: the onus of proof would be on them to show that they had not committed what would now still be an offence. In those circumstances, it seems entirely right and proper, especially given that the Government encouraged the hon. Gentleman in the first place to introduce his Bill after his success in the private Members’ Bill ballot, that the Bill is given a Second Reading today and proceeds to Committee, where these differences in legal effect could be properly ironed out.

I accept that, in bringing forward their proposals a very short time ago, the Government intend to do broadly the same thing in fulfilment of their manifesto commitment as the Bill seeks to do. However, I also understand why the hon. Gentleman feels that his Bill should receive a Second Reading and that there should be further discussion about the effects that his Bill proposes.

The Government originally encouraged the Bill but a couple of days before its debate on Second Reading have introduced their own alternative measures: I do not think that is generally a good way to proceed. If there has been some misunderstanding or breakdown in communication, I urge both sides to restore communication. The best and most proper thing would be for the discussions to take place in Committee, so that legitimate debate about the arcane provisions can be had.

[John Nicolson]

I confirm that if the Government honour their original promise to me and support my Bill, I will be very happy to engage with any concerns they have in Committee.

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure that the Government will have heard that.

It would be a pity if hon. Members who do not share the majority view here today—that the Bill’s general provisions should proceed and that in general it is right that people should be pardoned—and who do not accept the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to that effect were given an excuse to attempt not to allow the Bill to proceed, because of the disagreement over the Bill’s legal effect. There is, I repeat, no disagreement about the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill; it is the same as the Government’s intention. There is, therefore, broad agreement that this is the right thing to do.

People will be listening to this debate. The signal that the House of Commons sends on these matters is immensely important. As I said before the urgent question, it is important in terms of the justice that should be done to those who are still living, when a great injustice was done before. It is important to many young people who are struggling and coming to terms with their sexuality and who want to ensure acceptance today. It is important that the message this country sends out to the rest of the world is that the legislation we passed and promoted in an age gone by was not only wrong then but is still capable of doing great injustice today. We should atone for that in a very clear manner, and we should not allow the message that we wish to send to all those groups of people to be distorted. The House of Commons should stand for justice and equality, and we should stand for the principle that, where an injustice was done in the past, we should recognise that clearly and unequivocally. That is why this Bill should be given a Second Reading.

Police Funding Formula

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Decisions on front-line operations are a matter for the commissioner. He is an excellent commissioner, and we await his proposals for his force. However, no decision has been made because the comprehensive spending review has not been announced. As I said a few minutes ago, the funding formula will be announced in December.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the process will be delayed, and I thank him and the Home Secretary for their willingness to engage colleagues on the issue. While there may indeed be problems with the existing formula, it is always going to be difficult to adjust between different forces in an environment in which forces are already having to find ways of reducing their spending, and some forces will have to face double cuts. Is that not an argument for an extended delay while the current situation continues?

[Mike Penning]

I think that, now we have made this decision, we need to sit down and talk to the police authorities, the police commissioners and the police themselves, but it was clear to the Home Secretary and me that we needed to pause so that we could get it right. Surely that is the important thing.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

In 1933, just hours before the death of King George V, Lord Dawson, the king’s doctor, issued his famous bulletin from Buckingham Palace. He said that the king’s life was drawing peacefully to a close. Dawson had good cause to know that, because he had just administered a lethal dose of morphine and cocaine to the king, in an action that remains controversial to this day. He undoubtedly brought the king’s life to a speedier close, yet, despite that act, just a short time afterwards, Dawson spoke against a Bill introduced to enable euthanasia, drawing the clear distinction between efforts that doctors may make right at the end of somebody’s life to ensure they have what has been described by some hon. Members as a good death and to ease suffering, and actions intended to bring someone’s life to an end, even though at their behest, that amount not to assisted dying, as someone has said, but to assisted suicide. That is surely an important distinction.

Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), have couched their defence of the Bill in the right to choose. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) also talked about the right to choose. Others have talked about the right to die. The language of rights is one we should be careful about using in this space. If there is a right to die, why is it constrained by a six-month time period? If there is a right to die, why is it constrained simply by the fact of having a terminal illness? We accept in this country that people have the right to commit suicide, in the sense that it is no longer a criminal offence, but the law has always been clear that should somebody assist that, particularly a medical professional, a line has been crossed.

We have focused a lot on the unintended consequences of the Bill, which are indeed highly problematic. Hon. Members on all sides are concerned about the possibility of coercion. We already know there is concern about how elderly people can be treated, and there is a clear danger that vulnerable people might be drawn into having the Bill applied to them. That concerns everybody. However, I want to raise the question about the intended consequences of the Bill. Is it the wish of the House that there be more assisted suicides or fewer? Do we think that assisted suicide, or suicide itself, is ever a good thing? Several distressing cases have been adduced. It is undoubtedly true that people might suffer and that, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said, some people might therefore be forced to go to another clinic—a very few people, as a matter of fact. It cannot be a sufficient justification for changing the law, however, simply to say that people are suffering. The House cannot expect to legislate away all suffering. We have to be absolutely sure that no more harm will be created by the legislation we pass. If we enable more people to take their own lives—something that society and the law has judged should be a bad thing—will we have done a good thing? Is that a good outcome for the Bill? In seeking to alleviate suffering—a noble ambition—we will potentially enable more lives to be taken, and that surely cannot be a good thing.

I have the gravest concerns about the Bill. I am concerned not just that people might be coerced into taking their own lives, with someone else’s assistance, but that any more lives will be lost at all. The law has always regarded it as wrong to assist in someone’s suicide because, in the end, we think that suicide is wrong, even if we think that it should not be a criminal offence. That is why we should take the very greatest care before taking this fundamentally different step.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Unlike the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), I welcome many of the sensible provisions in the Bill. These amendments to the operation of the law seem to me to make common sense.

I am not sure whether I understood the Opposition’s point about judicial review. If we accept that there has been a threefold increase in the number of applications for judicial review since 2000, are the Opposition making the case that there is nothing wrong with judicial review procedures or the way in which they are being used, or are they saying that there has been an increase in the number of poor-quality decisions by the Government and other public bodies? If the latter, the Opposition would be conceding that that happened largely on their watch. If we accept that there has been a very large rise, surely it makes sense to make a number of careful changes that will ensure that the system operates as intended, which is not to provide a vehicle for those who simply object to a decision and wish to test it in an alternative body—in this case, a court—but to ensure that decisions are made properly and subjected to the right and appropriate judicial scrutiny.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, because he is usually thorough in his research. He should be aware that if we exclude immigration from judicial review, we will see that the situation has been static since the 1990s. A Bill passed 18 months ago by this Government moved immigration from judicial review to the tribunal system, so the problem they are seeking to address was dealt with nearly two years ago.

[Nick Herbert]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming that he does not believe that there is a problem, but that view is not shared on the Government Benches. In our view, the increase in the extent of judicial review does not just impose a cost—which is a serious matter in itself—but also means, dangerously, that decisions by the courts are increasingly substituting for decisions that should be made by Ministers, which was not the original purpose or intention of judicial review.

In his closing remarks, the right hon. Gentleman railed similarly against previous measures introduced by this Government to deal with legal aid and said there had been restrictions on access to justice. The Opposition’s problem is that they are very quick to criticise every proposal in the area of justice and criminal justice that is designed to ensure a sensible use of public funds and necessary savings. They are not able to explain how they would deal with the very real budgetary challenges that confront every Government Department, not least the Ministry of Justice, which has been required to make substantial savings. If, along the way, the Opposition oppose every measure and criticise sensible provisions such as that under discussion without saying how they would make the savings required, they simply have a credibility problem.

I welcome the Government’s proposals to deal with the problem of automatic early release and, in particular, the scale of the Justice Secretary’s ambition to go further in doing so. There is no doubt that automatic early release undermines public confidence in sentencing. When victims in particular, but also members of the public more widely, hear a sentence handed down in a court but later learn that offenders are, without question, automatically released much earlier—halfway, or earlier in the case of home detention curfew, which is described as early release—it undermines confidence in the system.

It would be much better to move to a system of honesty in sentencing, in which the sentence handed down bears a proper relation to the one actually served, whether that is a system of minimum and maximum sentences, as proposed by the Conservative party in its last manifesto, or sensible measures to curtail automatic early release of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has just introduced for more serious offences. We should not accept the principle of automatic early release; it would be much better if release were earned and bore some relation to the prisoner’s conduct, progress in rehabilitation and suitability for release.

Even Members of the House of Commons find it difficult to understand or accept the early release of offenders. Many of us noted with surprise that when the courts handed down to a former Member a determinate sentence of eight months, we had no sooner said the words “Liberal Democrat” than that offender was released early, in that case to serve a period on home detention curfew and, subsequently, to enjoy a new career writing articles for The Guardian. All that undermines confidence in the criminal justice system.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. To take him back to his more serious point, does he agree that linking the sentence and early release to passing drugs tests for a drug addict or to passing a literary examination or literacy tests is very much the way we should go?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is right to bring me back to my serious point, and I wholly agree with him. That is exactly the way we should go, and that is what I meant by the concept of earned release.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making a very good point. I have listened to him carefully. Is it not fairer that a person who has committed a crime should serve two years, say, but that if they do not satisfy proper criteria, the sentence would be three years? The public would then totally understand the sentence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

That is what I meant by the concept of having minimum and maximum sentences. There would still be a determinate sentence with a maximum term—it would not be an indeterminate sentence, which is reserved for much more serious crimes—but release after the minimum point would nevertheless depend on fulfilling certain conditions, including those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).

I particularly welcome the measures relating to the electronic monitoring of offenders and provisions for the greater use of tagging for the supervision of offenders released from custody. There is no doubt that the advance of technology and the use of satellite tracking mean that a huge and so far largely untapped potential exists to ensure greater confidence in the criminal justice system and enable the safe and secure monitoring of offenders. Whether that is for offenders who receive some kind of curfew as part of their sentence, or whether the purpose is to ensure their safe and effective supervision on release, much more could be done, and has already been done in other countries.

There are two particular lessons. The first is that we should question how quickly the criminal justice system can embrace new technology. The criminal justice system is very centralised, which does not always make it easy to have local innovation in its operation, whether in relation to how certain courts operate—I will come on to that—or to this use of technology. As the Secretary of State knows, some very impressive pilot schemes have been conducted by Hertfordshire police in relation to satellite tagging.

There is, however, a feeling that we have been slow, perhaps unnecessarily slow, to ensure that such technology is made available to other police forces or is used more widely. That is partly because of the understandable caution that results from a determination to ensure that technology is used properly and that public safety remains paramount, but it is also partly because of the centralised nature of the system and the bias against innovation.

If we want a greater use of such technology, we must move towards a system that is more distributed, and in which local criminal justice innovation is encouraged. Through a more decentralised system, we have such opportunities. For instance, police and crime commissioners, who are keen to take on such a role, could supervise its use to ensure that there was some kind of local democratic accountability.

[Guy Opperman]

I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s point that localisation is surely the key to driving up the performance of the system and to improving it. Does he agree that the Ministry of Justice—we all acknowledge that this monolithic beast is exceptionally hard to tame and alter—could follow examples in other places, such as Norway, where there are community prisons and a much more localised approach to criminal justice reform?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Having been a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I recognise that Ministers face the challenge of having an imperative to ensure public safety, and an imperative to drive value for money and ensure that contracts are written in such a way as to provide best value for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to decentralise and to be more open about the potential use of technology to innovate in the justice system.

The second lesson about the use of electronic tagging in criminal justice and the provision very sensibly set out in the Bill is that technology is not necessarily our enemy or the enemy of justice. In debates in this place and outside, technological advance is too often seen as some kind of enemy of justice and of the public. In fact, the advent of technology has been responsible for incredibly important strides in the delivery of a justice system that works for the public.

The same debates apply to electronic monitoring as apply to the use of CCTV, the development of the DNA database or other things raising civil liberties questions that must be addressed. For instance, how far is it appropriate to go in restricting the civil liberties of those to whom such sentences are handed down, even though they are convicted criminals? We must remember that they have been convicted, and that the alternative is a custodial sentence or, if they are not to be released, a continuing term in custody. Far from posing any kind of threat to civil liberties, such technology presents a real opportunity to protect the public. We should sometimes accept that the use of technology in the criminal justice system can be the public’s friend and can help to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree about the use of technology, but, as the saga of G4S and Serco has demonstrated, in handing over contracts to private sector companies, sometimes we trust them too much. Those companies were overbilling the Government. We have to monitor such contracts, ensure that there are benchmarks and be very careful when we hand over public money.

[Nick Herbert]

As ever, I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is an issue of accountability. We must ensure that contracts are written properly. The behaviour of some companies has been appalling and they should be held to account. There were also problems with the earlier trials of satellite tracking technology and there have been problems with use of simpler electronic monitoring. However, the technology can be made to work effectively and those who deliver the contracts can be held properly to account.

The potential benefits to public safety and, as we have heard, to criminals, who may find that they are no longer constantly approached by the police as a suspect in other investigations because it can quickly be established that they were nowhere near the scene of the crime, are too great to dismiss. We have an opportunity to introduce curfewing and semi-custodial sentences into our criminal justice system in a way that was not possible before. We can make the effective supervision of offenders outside a custodial environment a reality and we should embrace that.

I welcome the changes that the Justice Secretary is proposing to out-of-court disposals in the Bill. Many Government Members and observers of the criminal justice system have long been concerned that the growth of out-of-court disposals has led to problems. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary produced an important report on this matter a number of years ago, in which it identified the repeated use of certain out-of-court disposals and their inappropriate use for serious offences as a cause for concern. I commend the Justice Secretary for acting on that and making sensible changes to simple cautions in the Bill to ensure that they are not used inappropriately. Again, we can debate the nature of the proposals, but the direction of travel is exactly right.

The growth of administrative justice—for that is what it is—has a place. The previous Government described it as a programme of summary justice, but it is a programme of administrative justice whereby, without recourse to any kind of court, disposals are handed out on the spot. Although it has a place, we must ensure that it does not get out of hand.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) mentioned, the use of administrative disposals peaked in 2007, driven by the unwise target to bring offences to justice. There was a famous case close to my constituency in which a police officer found a corpse hanging from a tree. In the pocket of the corpse was a penknife. The police officer attempted to record the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. It was very unlikely that the corpse would have used the knife in a dangerous manner. That was due to the target culture that drove the growth of administrative disposals. That culture has fallen away, but the proportion of disposals that are out-of-court disposals is still twice as high as it was a decade ago. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important that such disposals are used appropriately.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a problem of unforeseen consequences? One reason such disposals are used widely by the police is that it is so difficult and time consuming to put together the MG forms to bring a case to court. The temptation is always to dispose of a case out of court if it is at all possible.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend speaks from his experience as a special constable. What he says is certainly the case. One of the dangers of using the growth in administrative justice as a solution was that the previous Government took their eye off the important task of dealing with the bureaucracy in the criminal justice system as a whole and making it more efficient, so that cases that had to be brought before the courts could be brought before them swiftly and effectively. I therefore welcome the proposals to deal with the problem of simple cautions being used wrongly.

The growth in administrative justice should give us pause to reflect on the proper role today of the important institution that is the lay magistracy. I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who, when he was courts Minister, had the difficult responsibility of closing a number of under-utilised magistrates courts. There is no doubt that magistrates have faced challenges owing to a reduction in business, which was caused originally by the growth in administrative disposals and has been partly caused by the reduction in the level of crime and by cases being taken by professional district judges, rather than by traditional magistrates courts. All those factors have led to the magistracy feeling undervalued.

Although I welcome the proposals in clause 24 for single justice procedures, which are entirely commonsensical in respect of high-volume, uncontroversial cases in which there are guilty pleas, I believe we should think further about the right role for the magistracy in the operation of the summary justice system. That will be particularly important if the budgetary position with which the Ministry of Justice is confronted means that there have to be continuing court rationalisations. The development of new justice hubs and centres is not necessarily a bad thing. They can be fit for purpose and very useful, but they also mean that magistrates sit further from the communities from which they are drawn.

[Guy Opperman]

I speak as someone who battled my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) over the closure of Hexham magistrates court, even though I understood why it was being done and the difficult circumstances that existed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we get centralised hubs of magistracy, we must ensure that there is a resident rural magistrate who understands that matters 50 miles away from the city are often greatly different from crimes that take place in the city itself?

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend, who represents a very rural constituency, makes an interesting point that leads on to the suggestion that I want to make. I wonder whether there is a role for the magistracy outside the formal setting of the courts in respect of less controversial offences, so that we can retain the presence of magistrates in communities. As we move towards the use of justice hubs and as traditional courts are closed, we should consider that.

A similar proposal was made last week in an interesting paper, “Future Courts”, by the Policy Exchange think-tank. The paper picked up on proposals that were made in a Government paper that was published in 2012, “Swift and Sure Justice”, for which I had responsibility. We were very drawn to the way in which the criminal justice system had operated rapidly to deal with the offences that were committed during the riots of the previous year, and we started to question whether a leaner and more efficient justice system could be developed. I urge the Government to consider the potential of involving magistrates in a programme of neighbourhood justice. That would ensure that they are retained in their local communities.

Neighbourhood justice panels are an interesting development in the area of restorative justice. Many Members from all parts of the House believe that they have great potential in dealing with low-level offending. Only last month, the Lord Chief Justice expressed the view that magistrates should play a formal role in neighbourhood justice panels and that they should not be a separate tier of justice.

The magistracy is an institution that has been with us for six and a half centuries, and as the late Lord Bingham said, it is a “democratic jewel beyond price”. If we are moving towards greater use of technology, the potential for justice to be delivered remotely, and individuals not having to be in a formal court setting, we have the opportunity to ensure that justice can be delivered locally, without having to be delivered administratively. We can still have confidence that somebody appointed from the community who exercises a judicial—not administrative—function, is dealing with offenders. That is a potential way to rebuild the magistracy and tackle the growth of administrative justice and the excessive use of out-of-court disposals, and a powerful way to rekindle the notion of neighbourhood justice. I hope that the Government, who welcomed the Policy Exchange report as an interesting contribution, will take that on board.

In conclusion, as with so many other areas of public policy, the urge to centralise and rationalise into ever bigger units is great when it comes to delivering greater value for money. We see that in policing with those who urge us to create regional police forces, in health care with those who urge us to create ever greater units with larger hospitals and so on, and we face such pressures across our public services. Such rationalisations need not be a bad thing if innovative ways are found to deliver services at local level, and technology is an enabler of that. What undermines confidence in the process, however, is when a salami-slicing approach results merely in services being centralised for cost reasons, without any rethinking or redesigning of how they can be delivered at local level. Let us enable that innovation, localise, have confidence in the new democratic institutions we have created at local level that can hold the criminal justice system to account, and—above all—let us value the lay magistracy as an institution that has served this country so well over a long time.

Dangerous Driving

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is right. Lovell showed no remorse at his trial, just as he had showed no remorse following the offences that had led to his previous 69 convictions and his being banned for life from driving.

A deterrent is a limited option. It may be unlikely that people who think in that way will ever be deterred from getting into a car, driving at speed, and then killing someone. What we need is the opportunity to give the police and the courts the power to ensure that such people are off the road in the first place, and cannot commit crimes. The tragedy for Ross and Clare Simons was that Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car to start with. He was not allowed to be in a car, but that did not prevent him from getting into one. Rather than being on the road, he should have been in jail serving time for the previous crimes that he had committed so relentlessly. We need to deal with that problem if we are to prevent further tragedies.

Of the 255 people who went to prison in 2011, 21 were given less than six months in jail, 104 were jailed for under two years, and just 37—one in seven of all those who were convicted of death by dangerous driving—were given prison sentences of more than five years. It is clear that the severity of the sentencing for those who cause death by dangerous driving is a national issue that needs to be addressed.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is not just a question of sentencing; there is also the issue of what happens when someone who has caused serious injury, or death, to another person, continues to drive until his case is heard. If a car is indeed a lethal weapon, as others have suggested, why do courts not exercise their discretion to set bail conditions that make it impossible for people to drive when a test has established that their blood contained alcohol or drugs? That issue has been raised by other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who, like me, has a constituency interest. Jamie Still, the 16-year-old son of one of my constituents, was tragically killed on new year’s eve. The perpetrator drove for months until, finally, there was a conviction. Is that not wrong as well?

[Chris Skidmore]

I cannot imagine how distressing it must be for the families of those who have been killed by dangerous drivers to know—while awaiting what is bound to be a highly stressful and emotional trial—that someone who, although he has not yet been convicted, has committed a crime which—and the consequences of which—has been clearly witnessed, is behind a wheel yet again. Those families must be distraught. I urge the Minister and the Government to consider the point raised by my right hon. Friend, which may, indeed, be within the remit of the Sentencing Council.

The tragedy of Ross and Clare Simons has been repeated across the country. Sentences are being handed down that do not fit the crime. I believe that the sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving, and, indeed, the law, need to be changed to reflect the added culpability of a driver who has already been disqualified and should never have been in a car in the first place, and who then causes death by dangerous driving. As I said earlier, in Canada the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving is a prison sentence of 10 years, and someone who was already disqualified from driving at the time is given a life sentence. At the very least, the fact of killing someone while driving dangerously and while disqualified should constitute an additional aggravating factor, and should result in a longer sentence.

Over the past year, the families of Ross and Clare Simons have been determined to call for exactly that. Their campaign, Justice 4 Ross and Clare, has issued a petition calling on the Government

“to review and change sentencing guidelines for dangerous driving so that drivers who have previous convictions for dangerous driving, including driving under the influence of drink and drugs, or have been disqualified from driving, and continue to commit dangerous driving offences, causing death or injury as a result, be given far longer and tougher sentences than currently exist.”

The petition has attracted more than 13,000 signatures so far, and is still going strong.

On 9 October 2013, I raised the campaign, and the need to strengthen the law applying to offences of death by dangerous driving, with the Prime Minister in the House. The Prime Minister replied:

“This is the most appalling crime: someone with 10 previous convictions, as my hon. Friend says, and who was disqualified at the time driving dangerously and killing two people, snuffing out their lives. The sentence was 10 years. As I understand it, the maximum sentence available for a crime like this is 14 years. The Government have introduced a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, so we are looking at this whole area. I can also tell him that the Justice Secretary has asked the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guidelines for serious driving offences, and we should look at this specific case in the light of that.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 156.]

In the light of the Prime Minister’s comments, I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to ensure that the Sentencing Council is made fully aware of the specifics of the case that I have raised, with a view to considering increasing the sentences for persistent offenders who cause death or injury by dangerous driving. Will the Minister also update the House on when the review will finally produce its report?

Will the Minister also look closely at introducing a change in the law to create a new offence of death or injury being caused by dangerous disqualified drivers, with a far tougher penalty than those that are currently imposed under the dangerous driving laws? Such a change would, I hope, act as a deterrent, even though deterrents are not always enough. I hope that it would also ensure that the likes of Nicholas Lovell could be kept behind bars for as long as possible. I know it is the hope of the family of Ross and Clare that, if anything is to come out of their tragic deaths, it should be a positive step that will ensure that we avoid similar tragedies in the future.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Earlier today, while the Health Secretary was responding to an urgent question on accident and emergency departments, I had to take myself along to the A and E department at St Thomas’s hospital because something was wrong with my eyes. I am told that everything is fine, but I had some drops put into my eyes and, as a result, I am now unable to see the official Opposition. The only thing I can see, and have sought to remark on, is the loud and proud and typically revolting tie of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). However, I notice that you are wearing the same tie, Mr Speaker. I therefore unreservedly withdraw my remark.

The most serious concern that has been advanced about the Bill relates to ensuring that religious freedom is protected. The concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) are surely genuine, and we were right to pay attention to them. I would not support any measure in this House that would force a Church to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. That principle of religious liberty is immensely important. The fact that the Bill protects Church organisations and that the Church of England has expressed its confidence in the locks that have been put into the Bill should give the House confidence that we can proceed with this measure. Of course there are other aspects of religious freedom that we need to protect. They were discussed yesterday and will be the subject of further discussion in the House of Lords.

The essence is that no church will be forced to conduct a same-sex marriage against its will. Religious freedom cuts both ways, and those who have rightly spoken on behalf of religious freedom cannot ignore the cause of religious freedom for Churches that do wish to conduct same-sex marriages. What about the Quakers, the Unitarians or the liberal Jews; what about their religious freedom? My argument is that the Bill extends religious freedom and does not restrict it and that those who are concerned about religious freedom should support it. Those advancing these arguments need to say why they have not been interested in Churches such as the Quakers and why they believe that the law of the land should prevent those Churches from doing what they seek to do.

Other arguments have been put against this legislation—that it redefines marriage for everyone, so that even if Churches are protected, the concern remains that it changes the definition of marriage for others, too. As has been said on a number of occasions here, how exactly does it harm or affect those who enter into a heterosexual marriage if a same-sex couple enter into a marriage, too? How does it devalue, change or alter the marriage they have? The truth is that this is not a measure that can remotely be held to do any harm to people at all. Absolutely no harm is done by this measure and a very great deal of good can be done by it.

Less impressive arguments have been advanced in respect of this legislation. It has been said that because same-sex marriages cannot be consummated, there is some problem or lack of equivalence, or that because adultery provisions will not apply directly, there is a lack of equivalence. Actually, most heterosexual marriages are, sadly, ended by the cause of unreasonable behaviour, which could apply just as easily to same-sex couples. I think there was an unfortunate implication behind that criticism, which was that somehow same-sex couples were seeking a licence to enter a marriage in respect of which they sought to escape or avoid the vows undertaken. Of course, the absolute opposite is the case. It is right to extend same-sex marriage to gay couples precisely because it is a good thing if they enter into a loving and permanent commitment to each other. That is a good thing for them, for society and for families, and we should celebrate and support it.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a consensus across the country that this legislation is important and that we should back it? Even in my rural county of Shropshire, a recent opinion poll taken by the local media showed a majority in favour of this legislation.

[Nick Herbert]

I thank my hon. Friend and strongly agree with him.

I was about to say that it has been suggested that the public are not with this legislation. Of course an element of the public are concerned about it. That much is clear, but it is also clear from all the independently conducted opinion polls—not those conducted by the pressure groups opposed to the Bill—that a majority of the public support this legislation and that the majority is increasing, as we have seen throughout the world. As for the idea of holding a referendum on such measures at any time, apart from being a bad idea in itself because the House of Commons decides these matters, such a referendum would be likely to pass this measure in any case because the public are in favour of it.

When homosexuality was decriminalised, some Members of Parliament objected. When civil partnerships were introduced, some Members of Parliament objected. They were found to be wrong because society moved on. Attitudes change and attitudes to gay people have changed. The Bill will do no harm and a very great deal of good by celebrating love and commitment and by treating a minority equally. That is why we should welcome it.

Stop and Search (Metropolitan Police)

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing the debate. The subject is of great interest to many people and communities, in London and elsewhere, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it.

Stop-and-search is an important area of operational policing policy and I recognise that, despite many improvements in how stop-and-search is carried out and recorded, its use continues to be a source of tension and concern in some communities and, in particular, among those of black and minority ethnic origin. The Government and the Metropolitan Police Service are clear that stop-and-search is a vital part of a police officer’s toolkit in deterring and combating crime and antisocial behaviour, especially knife crime, which is of particular public concern. It is, however, unacceptable that individuals might be targeted because of their race.

Stop-and-search is an important tool for the police but, in order to maintain the British model of policing by consent, which is so important, it is essential that the powers are used fairly and with the support of communities to protect the public. The uninformed use of stop-and-search, without the proper use of intelligence and the briefing of front-line officers, is likely to be unproductive in terms of identifying those carrying weapons and counter-productive in terms of community confidence. I agreed with what the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said about the importance of ensuring that any disposals such as this that are used by the police are used in a way that ultimately succeeds in reducing crime—in reducing crime, it is important that public confidence in the actions of the police is maintained. The benefits of stop-and-search need to be carefully weighed against any negative impact on the confidence in the police service by the community and, in particular, by those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.

In general, stop-and-search powers are used in a proportionate and appropriate way in most cases, but their use needs to be improved by some forces. That is why in December last year the Home Secretary asked the Association of Chief Police Officers to look at best practice on stop-and-search. ACPO has submitted its report to the Home Secretary, which I am keen to see published so that forces may take advantage of the learning in it. The report is an important reminder that there are excellent examples of effective practice in the use of stop-and-search. ACPO is considering arrangements for publication.

The Metropolitan Police Service is the largest user of stop-and-search, and the new Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are aware of the impact on community trust and confidence of stop-and-search, which is why this January they announced a radical programme, “Stop It”, to improve the effectiveness of stop-and-search. The programme has led to a significant change in the way that the Metropolitan police use stop-and-search powers. I noted that the hon. Lady herself referred to the action that the leadership of the Metropolitan police is taking and it is welcome.

The “Stop It” programme focuses on three main areas in relation to the use of the powers: trust and confidence; effectiveness; and the protection of communities from violent crime. The aim is to renew the focus on reducing violence and for the power to be used in a more intelligence-led and targeted way, reducing the numbers of searches, leading to more arrests and more weapons seized and improving the standard of the encounter between the police and the public.

I want to come back to the “Stop It” initiative shortly, but I first want to address the issues that have been raised, including previously by the hon. Lady, about the blanket use of stop-and-search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is sometimes referred to as a “no suspicion” power. There are appropriate safeguards in the authorisation process for a section 60 order and the authorisation is rightly limited in its scope. I am pleased to learn that in the Roberts case the High Court has just found that the powers under section 60 are lawful. The Court stated that, while nothing in the legislation is racially discriminatory, the question of whether the legislation is being used in a racially discriminatory way is important.

Section 60 enables a police officer of at least inspector rank to authorise officers to stop individuals to search them for knives and other offensive weapons. The officers making the stops do not need to have individual suspicion that the person they are stopping is carrying a weapon. The authorisation, once granted for a period of up to 24 hours, can be extended only for a further 24 hours if authorised by an officer of at least superintendent rank.

The hon. Lady will be interested to note that the Met, under its “Stop It” programme, is aiming to reduce the overall number of authorisations under section 60 and to increase the intelligence threshold required to authorise pre-planned section 60 orders. The latest statistics on police powers and procedures demonstrate considerable progress, showing that the use of section 60 stop-and-search by the Met fell by 41% between 2009-10 and 2010-11. As “Stop It” rolls out, we expect the use of stop-and-search to drop further still.

That general approach of the more targeted use of stop-and-search by the Met will also continue during the Olympics, and I can confirm that there are no plans for blanket section 60 orders to be in place in particular areas. It remains an important policing tactic and a deterrent to crime, and will be used when appropriate, but based on the crime and intelligence picture at the time.

The hon. Lady’s borough of Lewisham has been at the forefront of stop-and-search work for some time, particularly in relation to the level of community engagement. She may know that in November 2010, a National Policing Improvement Agency-led initiative, “Next Steps”, was piloted in Lewisham. The purpose of that work was to improve community confidence in the use of stop-and-search. Evaluation of the work found that community satisfaction rates had improved, and that community groups were effective in their monitoring of stop-and-search.

One element of “Next Steps” was the briefing process, based on situation, background, assessment and recommendations, given to task officers to carry out stop-and-search based directly on intelligence. That element has now been adopted within the “Stop It” initiative. When the initiative commenced this year, some key performance indicators were set by the Met. They included improving the positive outcome rate to 20%, reducing the volume of negative drugs searches by 50%, increasing the proportion of weapon searches to 20%, and a 50% reduction in pre-planned section 60 authorities. The Met is aiming to achieve those targets by the end of March 2013.

The hon. Lady asked what specific steps I would like to be taken to ensure demonstrable progress. I have described the general reduction in the number of stop-and-search occurrences, and I hope that it is helpful for her to know that the Met has set itself indicators that it aims to achieve.

The progress made in relation to the “Stop It” initiative is reported to the Police Public Encounters Board, which is chaired by the ACPO lead for the stop-and-search initiative, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Met, Craig Mackey. Current performance shows that the positive outcome rate, which consists of arrests and cannabis warnings or penalty notices for disorder, is 17.3% for June 2012. That is a significant improvement on the rate in January 2011, which was 10.6%. The total number of pre-planned section 60 authorities for the Met for June 2012 was just six, a significant reduction on June last year where there were 103 authorities.

The Met is committed to ensuring “Stop It” will continue beyond this period as a routine part of policing to achieve the highest levels of trust and confidence in the use of Stop-and-search as a tactic for keeping our streets safe. Effective community monitoring remains at the heart of that work, and provides an opportunity to have an accountable process for delivering on confidence and satisfaction. Local monitoring will take place through the community monitoring groups, which are provided with the most up-to-date performance data for their respective areas and a process to hold senior officers to account.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for the information about the reduction in stop-and-search that the Met has achieved. I do not want to drag the Minister too far away from the specifics of the metropolitan area, but will he comment on the impact that elected police and crime commissioners may have in enhancing accountability to local communities in their sensitivities to stop-and-search?

[Nick Herbert]

I know of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in this policy area. Elected police and crime commissioners will be responsible for holding the police to account in their force area, and in turn will be accountable to the public. Their responsibility is to secure efficient and effective policing, but they will need to be aware that to do that and to drive down crime—I have no doubt every candidate seeking election on 15 November will aim to do that—they must maintain the confidence of communities in their local police service. They will need to be alive to the importance of effective programmes to build community confidence in the way that the police service is policing the streets, and the use of stop-and-search powers and so on, but also in terms of the ambition that we should collectively have to ensure that the police service is reflective in its make-up of society today and that we continue to make progress. That has been important but not sufficient in relation to the proportion of officers from black, minority and ethnic communities, both in the nature of policing and how it is conducted, and in the make-up of the police service as a whole, and the wider interactions that the police service has with the community. Police and crime commissioners will want to be alive to all those issues, because they all relate directly to the force’s ability to reduce crime. They are not nice-to-do things or add-on things; they are important in themselves.

[Heidi Alexander]

Before taking that intervention, the Minister was talking about the “Stop It” action plan, and the progress that he and the Commissioner want to see by March 2013. Six months have already passed since the action plan was launched in January this year, and I wonder what progress report he has received on the specific indicators, other than section 60 stops. Can he update us on the progress that has been made so far?

[Nick Herbert]

I provided the hon. Lady with some of the updated information to last month about the number of stop-and-searches. First and foremost, the Met is held to account locally by the Mayor, and that is important. It is the Mayor’s responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient and effective policing. Of course we take an overall interest in policing, but it is for the Mayor to exercise that scrutiny, and to account to Londoners for that.

Notifying people that they are in an area where searches may take place is also being taken forward in the Met. That provides a number of benefits, including providing reassurance, acting as a preventive measure, and sending a clear message to those intent on carrying weapons that the police will seek them out and arrest them. The Met is currently using and expanding its use of a number of methods of communication, including leaflets, signs, text messaging, e-mail, Twitter, and other social networks.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting the police to improve the use of stop-and-search. However, individual police forces know their own communities better than Whitehall does. Increasingly, they will be answerable to their local communities in the use of police tactics such as stop-and-search. In London, that will be through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford noted, in the rest of England and Wales, through elected police and crime commissioners from November 2012. Furthermore, we announced in December our intention to introduce a new professional policing body that will develop skills and leadership, and improve policing standards. I expect that body to take the closest interest in this policy area. Yesterday, we updated the House on the very good progress on the formation of that body by the end of the year. It will be known as the College of Policing, and I am pleased that ACPO, the Police Superintendents’ Association and others are supporting it. It will be a service-led body to ensure that we are promoting high standards in policing.

I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some assurance that both the Government and the senior leadership of the Metropolitan police takes this issue very seriously, and are committed to reducing any undue disproportionality, improving the efficiency and effectiveness in the use of stop-and-search powers, and enhancing public confidence in their use.