Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Percy Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Last year, the Government announced a £100 million boost to investment in the installation of body scanners in many of our prisons, and particularly category B local prisons with a high number of receptions and visitors. It protects not only prisoners from abuse, but staff, and it makes prisons, I believe, safer places in which to work and gives greater confidence to the wider public that we are doing everything we can to make our prisons as safe as possible.
Sentencing White Paper
Andrew Percy Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
I thank the hon. Lady for her work on that important Committee on a Bill that of course has United Kingdom application as well as England and Wales application. I can assure her that in no way do we lose sight of the welfare issue when it comes to young offenders, but at the same time we have to be frank and honest at times where the descent to very serious offending—particularly extremist ideation—has occurred. Then, a mixed approach has to be taken, and public protection does have to be foremost in our minds. That is why we are taking the balanced approach that I advocate in the Command Paper.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The good folk of Brigg and Goole and the Isle of Axholme will welcome the changes when it comes to burglary, as do I, as somebody who has been burgled three times—I have nothing worth kifing, though. However, on the important issue of autism, one of the big problems we have in this country is people’s ability to access an assessment and a formal diagnosis of autism. Will the Lord Chancellor ensure that proper training is put in place across the Prison Service and the probation service to identify that?
Robert Buckland
I was sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s experiences. I am glad that he has shared with us that he has nothing of value—perhaps nothing left of any value. As a victim of crime, he is right to point to both ends of the spectrum. When it comes to autism, we have some excellent therapeutic services in places such Her Majesty’s Young Offender Institution Aylesbury, but it seems to me that they are islands of excellence in a sea of a lack of response. That is what I want the call for evidence to identify. Through that body of information, we can then take the action that he and I have wanted for so long.
Draft Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Andrew Percy Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Conveyancing
Andrew Percy Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, for the first time—
Mr Raab
—with glorious sunshine outside and in. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing a debate on this important topic. It seems like only yesterday that I was responding to him on a different debate that he secured, which shows what an assiduous MP he is on behalf of his constituents.
There were some 1.1 million completed property transactions in England and Wales in 2014-15. About a million of those—the vast majority—were residential sales and the amount of human as well as monetary capital caught up in and reliant on the conveyancing process at any one time is difficult to overestimate. The process, which delivers a secure and marketable titled property, is important to the parties to the transactions and to our underlying competitiveness as an economy.
The broad purpose of the conveyancing process is first to deliver a good and marketable title, free from unexpected encumbrances, to the buyer and to the lender funding the process in order that it can be registered at the Land Registry without difficulty. The investigation of title is only part of that process. Secondly, conveyancers must interrogate the seller and public records for information affecting the property and, once obtained, information must be analysed and any uncertainties clarified. The buyer and lender must, at the end of the day, both be content to proceed. They will both rely on their conveyancer, who is normally the same person, and, in the event of negligence, the conveyancer’s professional indemnity insurers.
Thirdly, conveyancers must know their clients and satisfy the money laundering regulations. Fourthly, conveyancers must co-ordinate their transactions so that they proceed only when their clients both want to proceed and are able to proceed. Finally, conveyancers should support their clients through an emotionally charged process that in most cases they will encounter only a few times in the course of their lives.
As if that was not complicated enough, residential cases can be even more convoluted. The reality is that most individual residential transactions are linked by virtue of chains and without simultaneous transactions sellers and buyers would have to move into temporary accommodation. That carries the additional risk of the market moving before they can re-enter it or having to take out potentially open-ended bridging loans with the risk of unaffordable interest. The conveyancing process as we know it today in England and Wales is a result of those competing pressures and objectives.
The process is not mandated in detail by law. Rather, the law tries to provide a broad framework in which the parties are free to decide how to shape their own transactions, although in practice most of those transactions follow fairly straightforward—or at least common—standard industry protocol. Sales may proceed by auction, tender or private treaty, with several different approaches available in each of those courses, but in practice the vast majority of transactions proceed by private treaty, which in layman’s language is really private contract, and it is that experience that shapes their views.
Opinions on the conveyancing process vary. They are sometimes negative, as we have heard from my hon. Friend. There are complaints about the time taken and the costs involved. Transactions can be prone to delay and all parties can get frustrated about the lack of transparency in the process. Estimates vary, but anecdotal sources suggest that the fall-through rate is roughly between a quarter and a third, which can amount to additional costs to both consumers and the wider economy of about £270 million each year. Millions more may be lost to estate agents and conveyancers operating on a no sale, no fee basis, who incur costs they cannot recoup directly if a transaction falls through.
It is important to say that not every failed transaction is as a result of some form of bad faith, but the practices of gazumping and gazundering, even if relatively rare, do little to improve the reputation of the business. There is no clear cause, or at least no single cause for those problems or the fluidity of the underlying market, which is inherent in a free market system. Many people point to the length of time needed to get from an agreement subject to contract to a binding legal commitment as the key problem. Often the solution proposed is a requirement to enter an early conditional contract along the lines of the traditional Scottish model. However, the truth is that, at least at present, few people in England and Wales seem to be keen to use conditional contracts as a matter of voluntary practice.
In the same way, few people try to protect themselves despite the risk of the transaction failing: they do not seem to make great use of either cost guarantee agreements, where the party that breaks off the deal forfeits a specified sum to the other, or lock-out and lock-in agreements that can secure exclusive negotiating rights. That may be due to lack of costs or awareness or the likelihood of being able to secure those terms—it is true that that is not clear. I think the lack of use or take-up should at least give us some pause for thought before we prescribe a single mandatory remedy as the silver bullet.
Another complaint that we hear is that certain parts of the process—most commonly the local authority search—take too long. Where there is an essential process within an overall conveyancing framework, steps to improve response times will assist in reducing delays. Examples include inquiries of the seller, inquiries of the landlord in leasehold situations, or Land Registry and local authority searches. There may also be wider benefits in making property information more accessible online, and the Land Registry, which holds 24 million titles, has moved from a paper-based system to an electronic approach. That has at least helped to make quicker transaction times possible. The Land Registry has successfully developed certain digital products—most notably the award-winning MapSearch and Property Alert services, which will further modernise and digitise the services that consumers receive. The Land Registry is also taking over the local land charges register from local authorities, so that we deliver a single digital local land charges register in England. That should help to reduce overheads and also eliminate regional variations in practice.
Speed of communication between the principal participants is also sometimes flagged as a problem. Obviously, improved communication between the various parties involved could only be beneficial. However, I have to say that my impression is that the office procedures within the conveyancing process today are generally computerised and likely to become more so in response to consumer expectation and, indeed, competition. Chains of transactions of course present their own communications challenges, almost inherently, but attempts so far to provide an all-embracing, all-encompassing, secure electronic environment, in which members of the chain can communicate seamlessly, have foundered. That happened most recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester mentioned, with the Law Society’s Veyo project. That is clearly a difficult nut to crack.
Finally, Mr Speaker—
Mr Raab
It is only a matter of time. Finally, Mr Percy, we should not forget, when looking for the causes of procedural problems in the system, that the conveyancing process has to deal with some pretty difficult areas of law, and simplification and modernisation of the substantive, underlying law has a part to play in improving the overall effect of the conveyancing process. Work on the Law Commission’s recommendations to reform the laws relating to easements and covenants, as announced in the context of the Queen’s Speech, shows the Government’s commitment to improving the underlying substantive law in the area, which should have a knock-on effect for consumers, in terms of process.
The Government of course also announced at the time of the autumn statement last year that they would publish a call for evidence on home buying, exploring options to modernise the process and provide consumers with different and potentially quicker, simpler, cheaper and more effective ways to buy and sell a home. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made reference to that. The call for evidence will be published by BIS later this year. It will invite evidence and proposals for innovation from all aspects of industry, but also from consumers. I am sure—I certainly hope—that my hon. Friend will be engaged and involved in making sure we get the right evidence in, and that the right conclusions will be drawn from the evidence throughout the process.
I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend for bringing this topic before the House, and I am sure that I will be back again to respond to him in debate soon. I hope that in the light of my comments he will be reassured that the Government are aware of the multiple concerns he has raised, and that they are endeavouring to take the right action to address them.
Question put and agreed to.
Courts and Tribunal Services (England and Wales)
Andrew Percy Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) on securing this debate, as well as the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey). I am taken back five years to my first election to this place and the proposed closure of Goole and Selby magistrates courts, which affected my constituency. I was not as successful as the hon. Member for Bath in securing a debate in the main Chamber; I had to settle for Westminster Hall, so in that respect he is already doing a better job for his constituents than I managed to do for mine five years ago. Things have improved since, however.
It is also a pleasure to speak in another debate with my friend the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is also my friend. We have been a triumvirate of common sense in three debates this afternoon.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I hope we are going to talk about court closures, rather than patting each other on the backs. It is a great love-in, but I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying about courts.
Andrew Percy
You will know as a Yorkshireman, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you have to take praise where you can get it.
Andrew Percy
Lord no. We can do better than that, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe, my constituency neighbour, talked about Scunthorpe court. I agree entirely with his comments, so I will not reiterate them all. He shared with the House the fine work of the court and I entirely concur, in particular with regard to the Respect programme. I have seen for myself magistrates and police officers giving up their own time, through the Respect court, to find a way to engage with young people in the system in a different way to try to help them avoid getting a criminal record. It works really well and they deserve praise.
Five years ago, we fought the closure of Goole magistrates court. When it closed, there was no saving grace other than that at least the county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which I partly represent, had two other courts to replace it: Beverley magistrates court and Bridlington magistrates court. At the time, there was a suggestion that Goole had been chosen over Bridlington because of the private finance initiative contract at Bridlington. There is also a court in Hull, so at least there are three courts to replace that one.
If Scunthorpe magistrates court closes, however, not a single court will remain in the unitary authority of North Lincolnshire. That is a big rural area. It is a real concern to me that people will be expected to travel outside the county of North Lincolnshire to access justice. That cannot be right. For my constituents in particular, moving the court to Grimsby is really not—in any way, shape or form—offering local justice.
I represent the area called the Isle of Axholme, which is a very rural and disconnected part of our area, a considerable distance from Grimsby. Grimsby could be a world away in so many ways. Travelling from communities such as Fockerby or Garthorpe on the north of the Isle of Axholme by public transport to Grimsby is really just laughable. It would be interesting for anybody to actually attempt it—I do not think it has been attempted before. I did say recently to somebody from that area, “Have you ever tried to get to Grimsby?” Their first response was, “Why would I want to make that journey?” I explained all the very good reasons why they might want to get to Grimsby and their second more serious comment was, “Surely that’s not possible.” From the Isle of Axholme, Doncaster is actually a lot closer than Grimsby.
As we explained when we were fighting the closure of Goole magistrates court, from our area it would actually be quicker for people to get to King’s Cross magistrates court on public transport than it would be to get to Grimsby. I do not want to leave the Minister with the idea that transferring all our cases to King’s Cross would be a good idea—it certainly would not. Another concern that applied when we fought the closure of Goole is that if people are forced to use public transport, they could end up being on the same public transport as other parties to a case. That raises safety issues.
The Minister deserves a great deal of praise for the positive way in which he has engaged and communicated with me and other hon. Members on this issue. However, for a local authority such as North Lincolnshire Council not to be able to access a local court, to apply for orders and undertake the cases it needs to in its daily workings, will place a huge burden on it. It cannot be expected to make an 80-mile round trip to Grimsby every time it needs to get a court order. It would be a great loss for a local authority not to have a single court in its locality. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind. North Lincolnshire Council has proactively tried to engage, and has said that it is willing to pay for and accommodate a replacement service in its own building—in the civic centre or elsewhere. It will pay for it. It will cover the running costs. It has been open about that, so important is maintaining a court in our locality.
As I said, I need not go into all the arguments about Scunthorpe. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe put them across a lot better than I ever could. I thank the Minister. He has heard our pleas. I hope and believe this is a genuine consultation. Please consider the rurality of our area and the fact that it is a very, very long way to Grimsby. It is in a different local authority area and for a lot of my constituents it simply would not be an option. It is not nearby. We might as well send the court to Timbuktu for all the connection we have with that area—and please don’t do that either. I will end my comments there.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Andrew Percy Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Philip Davies
I absolutely accept that the current Lord Chancellor, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister, is doing his very best to try to undo lots of the mistakes made by his predecessors; I am the first to acknowledge that. My contention is that the Government are not going anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs and expectations of the general public. Yes, of course they are making small steps in the right direction, but they are far too small and I would like them to go further.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
May I reassure my hon. Friend about the views of the public? I spend my weekends out on the doorsteps talking to people in Brigg and Goole, and the one thing they tell me about law and order is that they expect that people who go to prison should serve their full term. The idea that somebody can breach their licence and then in effect have a 28-day all-inclusive holiday is completely and utterly outrageous. I entirely concur with what he is saying, and so do the people of Brigg and Goole.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and, of course, to the people of Brigg and Goole who are so ably represented by him in Parliament. He is absolutely right. Most people think that when somebody is sent to prison for whatever length of time the court hands down, they should be there for that period of time. It beggars belief that even when they are released from prison and commit another offence, they do not go back for the original sentence that was handed down.
There is no licence period for offenders serving less than one year in prison, and that covers about 60% of the prison population at any one time. Many of the remaining prisoners will be released on licence halfway through their sentence. Fixed-term recalls were introduced in 2008 to reduce the pressure on prison places. It was not done because it was the right thing to do, but because the previous Government got completely overwhelmed on the matter of prison places. Unfortunately, not much appears to be known by the public, nor—dare I say it?—by many colleagues in this House about how the system of fixed-term recalls works. A fixed-term recall occurs where the offender breaches their licence and is returned to prison for a mere 28 days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said—not for the rest of the prison term they were originally given, not even for most of it, but for just 28 days.
When fixed-term recalls were introduced, they excluded certain offenders. However, in his bid to reduce the prison population still further, the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, relaxed the eligibility criteria by way of a change in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I always had my doubts about the fact that the punishment of offenders was mentioned in the title of that Act, because it seemed to do anything but punish offenders, and I was right to be concerned. As of 3 December 2012, fixed-term recalls were made available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew—that is, serving some of their prison sentence at home—and, most shockingly, those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence. I suspect that not many people realise that, and they certainly will not like it when they do.
One unbelievable thing that I recently found out is that in the nine months from January to September last year, 785 of the prisoners serving sentences of one year or more who had been released on licence before the end of their sentence were not only recalled to serve just 28 days for breaching their licence once, and then released, but subsequently recalled to serve another 28-day spell and then released again before the end of their original prison sentence. In nine months, 785 of the most serious offenders in our prisons were released from prison having breached their licence, returned to prison for 28 days, released again, and then, for a further breach of their licence, returned to prison for just 28 days and then released again. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a complete failure of policy that is completely indefensible and unjustifiable. I am not easily shocked when it comes to any matters relating to justice, but this has to be one of the most unbelievable policy decisions of all time, and I doubt there is much support for it among the general public. I would love to hear the Howard League for Penal Reform, otherwise known as the prisoner’s friend, and other do-gooding organisations justify this kind of approach.
In answer to one of my recent parliamentary questions about the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
“Fixed term recalls will continue to be used in low-risk cases where a short period back in custody is sufficient to deal with the breach and the offender can then safely be re-released to continue with their rehabilitation under licensed supervision in the community.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 641W.]
My new clause would remove those who have committed serious offences from eligibility for the 28-day recall, as well as those who have already been given a chance on a 28-day recall and gone on to breach their licence conditions again. If what the Minister says is really the case, surely he and the Lord Chancellor, who is, I believe, much more in tune with public opinion and more on the side of the victim than the criminal—certainly compared with his predecessor—will do something to rectify this appalling state of affairs and support my new clause. Unless he can offer some sensible measures to address these points, I intend to press it to a vote.
New clause 31 proposes that time spent on tagged curfew would not count as time on remand. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow periods of time spent on tagged curfew, on bail, to count as credit towards any eventual custodial sentence. As I said on Second Reading of this Bill, I want an end to the ridiculous position whereby time spent on tagged curfew is credited as though it were time spent on remand in prison. The new clause would remove that entitlement. Currently, when someone is on bail on an electronically tagged curfew from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, and they then receive a custodial sentence, the amount of time they have to serve in custody is reduced by half a day for each nine hours or more spent on the curfew beforehand. I have never understood the maths of it. If nine hours is spent on a curfew, how does that equate to half a day in prison, even if the two things were comparable, which, in my view, they are not? I appreciate that some people will have had curfews longer than nine hours, but some of those who had nine-hour curfews will still be getting the benefit of this credit. The credit also inevitably means that some people avoid prison altogether. If they have been on a curfew for a certain period of time and then receive a custodial sentence of a certain length, they will never see the inside of a prison cell despite the court having deemed that only a custodial sentence was appropriate for the crime they committed.
I can do no better than repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said as shadow Minister in 2008 when this proposal was first being made by the previous Labour Government:
“One of the greatest concerns of the public is that the current system leads to dishonesty in sentencing. People do not seem to understand that when a person is sentenced to two years in prison, that actually means that he will be in custody only for one year. It provides yet another example of how the Government, in order to overcome the difficulties of prison overcrowding, are guilty of promoting an untruth.”
He went on to say that a curfew
“cannot be considered the equivalent of having spent time in prison awaiting sentence, but the new clause directs the court to take all that time—described as ‘the credit period’—into account in reducing the custodial sentence. I am afraid that the public will find that rather difficult to understand.”
He went on to say, as I quoted on Second Reading:
“If someone has committed an offence that crosses the custody threshold—an offence that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence—it will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]
As it happens, back in 2008 the Conservative party voted against the then Government introducing this particular measure. Indeed, the Minister voted against it when in opposition. Has he changed his mind about this ridiculous system—if that is the case, he can tell us why—or does he still think it is ridiculous even though he does not accept my new clause? I would be extremely grateful if he could tell us why he intends to defend in this Parliament something that he thought was wrong and voted against in the last Parliament. We can only conclude that he has somehow changed his mind, but I am not entirely sure what caused that to happen.
My other new clauses, 37 to 42, all relate to open prisons and can be taken together. I am sure it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that open prisons have been a hot topic in the past week or two, with the absconding of the “skull cracker” from an open prison. The prison authorities might have thought there was a clue in his name before they decided to release him, but it appears that that was beyond them. This is a multiple armed robber who was serving 13 life sentences and had absconded from prison before—twice, I believe—but who somehow, unbelievably, found himself in an open prison and being released on temporary licence.
I had been looking at this issue for some time before the “skull cracker” case, and the more I learn about it, the more I despair. The actual facts regarding open prisons and the sorts of people being let out on day or night release are shocking. People say that open prisons are an essential part of people’s rehabilitation and that, just before they are released and have gone through all their rehabilitation, it means they can gradually work their way back into the local community. We know that that is clearly not true, because of the police’s reaction when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison. If all of this guff about rehabilitation of people in open prisons were true, when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison the police would have told the public, “Don’t worry about it, because this man was rehabilitated. He was going to be released from prison very soon anyway, so he is of no danger to the public.” Of course, the police did not say that; they said, “This man is immensely dangerous and must not be approached at any price.”
Therefore, we know for a fact that the argument that people in open prisons who are coming to the end of their sentence are being rehabilitated is a load of old nonsense dreamt up by the do-gooders. I can see from the facial expressions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the do-gooders are ably represented, as usual. He, along with the Howard League for Penal Reform, is the criminal and prisoner’s friend.
Philip Davies
I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes to speak to the people at the building society who were the victims of the armed robbery by the “skull cracker.” The hon. Gentleman seems to take comfort from people in a Westminster bubble—people who need to get out more—agreeing with him. I am concerned not about whether he agrees with me, but about what the general public think and whether they have confidence in the criminal justice system. He is, of course, a typical arrogant type who thinks that he knows better than the general public about everything. All I can suggest is that he knocks on a few doors in his constituency and asks people what they actually think about the criminal justice system. He may be shocked. It would be better for him not to stick to the people in the ivory towers in his constituency; he should try to speak to people on estates and those who buy their own homes. He might be surprised by what he finds out.
My new clauses 37 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.”
New clause 38 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.”
Andrew Percy
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On deportation, surely the debate about whether an open prison is key to rehabilitation is completely irrelevant, because these people will not be released back into society in the United Kingdom. He should, therefore, enjoy the support even of those who argue that open prisons are part of rehabilitation, because the people affected will leave the United Kingdom. The argument is completely baseless.
Philip Davies
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure we are all excited at the prospect of hearing what the hon. Member for Cambridge will have to say about these particular two new clauses and whether he thinks it is suitable for people who are about to be deported to be moved into open prisons and released on temporary licence so that they can walk out willy-nilly. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he thinks it is quite right for them to be moved to open prisons and released on temporary licence. We await his comments with baited breath. If he were to agree with me, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would be a red letter day. At that point, I think I would be able to claim that my new clause had the support of the House.
The clue to my new clauses is in the title: if someone is liable for deportation following an offence, I do not understand what grounds there can possibly be for releasing them on resettlement licence. The whole justification for resettlement day and night release is that it is supposed to help prisoners reintegrate into the area by re-establishing links with family and the local community. To be honest, I am not a fan of that at the best of times—given that many offenders spend so little of their sentence in prison anyway, I cannot believe that so many of them are not in prison when we think they are—but giving a resettlement licence to someone liable to be deported is utter madness. I cannot for one second understand the logic of it and I would be amazed if anybody could find any support for the idea from any quarter.
New clause 38 would make those liable for deportation ineligible for resettlement licence, and new clause 37 would ensure they were not allowed to be moved to open prisons. I cannot believe that I even needed to table these new clauses—I would have thought they were basic common sense—but I believe this change is essential to remove the much greater risk of these offenders absconding, knowing that they are likely to be deported at the end of their sentence in any event.
New clause 39 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.”
New clause 40 states:
“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.”
There is nothing much more serious than dealing with the case of someone who has been murdered. The individuals who have committed such crimes have shown that they are capable of ending someone’s life, and there has to be a risk that they will do it again. It is all well and good saying that these people should be rehabilitated, but the risk is obviously at the highest possible end of the scale.
According to replies to further parliamentary questions, I was told that two murderers are still on the run, having absconded from open prison a few years ago, and that 106 offenders serving sentences for murder have absconded in less than 10 years. Those are not small numbers. As far as I am concerned, any murderer who absconds from our prison estate is one too many. It is absolutely disgraceful that 106 murderers have absconded from our prisons in 10 years. New clauses 39 and 40 would help to protect the public, who should not be put at risk in this way.
There are real-life, tragic examples of the risk these murderers pose. One of those terrible cases happened when Ian McLoughlin was on day release following a murder conviction, which in turn followed a conviction for manslaughter. He murdered Graham Buck, who had gone to help his neighbour. The offence was apparently committed on his first day on day release from prison after 21 years in custody. One day is all it takes. I believe that putting murderers in open prisons and giving them day release is playing with fire unnecessarily and creating unnecessary additional victims of crime. Such tragic cases should never have happened, and we need to make sure that they never happen again. I therefore hope that colleagues will support the new clauses.
New clause 41 would deny a prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence from being moved to a category D open prison. According to an answer on 1 May to one of my parliamentary questions, there were more than 4,000 offenders in open prisons at the end of last year, including 1,227 who were in for violence against the person offences, 215 for sexual offences, 505 for robbery, 202 for burglary and 1,115 for drug offences. According to other answers, there are 643 life-sentence prisoners in open prisons, as well as 599 other prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. These are not the type of offenders I was expecting to find in open prisons. I believe that most of the public think that open prisons are for people like Lester Piggott, not people serving 13 life sentences.
Not only are such people in open prisons, but they are allowed to go out by being released on temporary licence. Some 611 prisoners serving life sentences were granted release on temporary licence in the last year for which figures are available, and 1,043 serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were granted release on temporary licence. If people serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were fit to be released from prison, they would have been released. That is the whole point of indeterminate sentences. The fact that they are still in prison means that, by definition, they are not fit to be released. I am at a loss to understand how those who have committed the most serious offences—those which justify a so-called life sentence—are allowed to move to open prisons in such numbers.
I also struggle with the basic concept that someone deemed too dangerous for release, in serving a sentence for public protection, is actually released on temporary licence. New clause 41 would ensure that no one serving the most serious sentences—for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, section 18 wounding, conspiracy, robbery, rape, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, riot, blackmail and arson—could be moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence.
Finally, new clause 42 would mean that no prisoner
“serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.”
Victims’ rights should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A victim can be the person directly involved or the affected family. It is one thing to be a victim of a serious crime and it is another to hear the often far too low sentence handed down to the perpetrator, but it is an absolute outrage for the victim and their family to learn that the person has been released early, or is seen to have an easy life in an open prison or by being released on temporary licence.
One of the most stark examples is that of offenders who are transferred to open prisons, which must be very upsetting and concerning for victims in many cases. It is absolutely right that before considering any application for people to be moved to an open prison, particularly for those who have committed the most serious offence, victims and their families should have a formal input into, and their objections or comments should be heard as part of, the process of deciding whether or not that person should be moved.
I hear Members talking time and again about how they think that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, that their rights should be paramount and that their views should be more carefully considered by the criminal justice system and the courts. This is an opportunity for them not just to come here and spout about the rights of victims and their families, but to do something about it by allowing victims and their families to play a formal part in the decision-making process. New clause 42 would ensure that victims’ voices are heard, with decisions taking into account what the victim has to say as well as the offender’s impact on them and their family.
I genuinely do not understand—I really do not—why anybody would object to this particular new clause. I hope that the Minister will say that he will support it and that the shadow Minister will also do so, so that we can send out a message from this House, on a cross-party basis, that we do not just say that we want victims to be at the heart of the criminal justice system, but have actually delivered something meaningful that will make an awful lot of difference to how victims feel about the criminal justice system.
I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ views. I have no doubt that my new clauses command the widespread support of members of the public, and I would like to think that they also command an awful lot of support in this House.
Police
Andrew Percy Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s underlying point. I am surprised to hear anyone say that financial pressures make it more difficult to collaborate. The reaction that I have observed around the country, both in police forces and local government, is that financial pressures make better collaboration essential.
Damian Green
I will just answer this intervention before I take another one from my hon. Friend.
I have mentioned the joint police and fire station that I visited recently in Northamptonshire. Fairly recently, I also visited a joint police station and local government office in Chippenham in Wiltshire. Again, that is very creative. Each of those public bodies has to have buildings and each faces the same pressures that are faced by the whole public sector, for the reasons that I have rehearsed. They are using that as an opportunity. Instead of the police being based in the old Victorian police station on the edge of town, they are now in a more modern building that is in the centre of town. That makes the police more accessible. There are opportunities for the police and local authorities to collaborate. In this case, their physical collaboration has brought the police closer to the public.
Damian Green
I know Greater Manchester police better than I know the local council, but it would seem logical for them not to retrench into their silos, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, but to seek out collaboration.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has been very patient.
Andrew Percy
I apologise for my eagerness to row in behind my right hon. Friend on this point. May I give an example of what is happening in my area? North Lincolnshire council, which already had much lower funding than other authorities, has lost about 20% of its funding. It has entered into collaborative arrangements with the police, which have seen it paying for police community support officers itself and having a sharing arrangement on fuel. It is about to go into a sharing arrangement on buildings. It can do all that at a time of reducing budgets, as well as reversing many other things, such as cuts to youth services. Services must work together. In my area, doing that is having a positive impact on policing on the front line.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend gives an example from another part of the country, which is similar to the examples I have seen in the past few months. He illustrates my point that collaboration is necessary at a time when public finances are under stringent control and that it can lead to better services than we had when the public spending tap was turned on more fully. That led to inefficiencies and a lack of collaboration.
Damian Green
I confess that I have not yet read my hon. Friend’s report, and I would, of course, very much welcome a copy. I am glad that he got his plug on the record.
We have also launched the National Crime Agency, which is leading the UK’s fight to cut serious and organised crime. The priority for the NCA is to identify and disrupt serious and organised crime, and I am glad to report to the House that it is already achieving successes. In a recent operation in the Philippines, the NCA worked alongside US and Australian authorities to dismantle an international child abuse ring, leading to 17 arrests in this country. That is an excellent example of the partnership approach that the NCA was set up to develop.
While mentioning partnership, let me move on to collaboration. Police and crime commissioners and chief constables are working to drive efficiency and improve policing through greater collaboration. We know—we have already had an exchange on this—that collaboration initiatives can be challenging to set up, but there is no reason why forces should be planning to deliver less than 10% of their savings from collaboration. If they are doing that, opportunities are being missed.
Let me give some examples. Recently, the independent inspectorate praised the Warwickshire and West Mercia strategic alliance as one of the most ambitious and extensive collaborations in the country. In 2014-15, West Mercia expects 70% of its total expenditure to be spent collaboratively, generating 94% of the force’s savings requirement. Similarly, Warwickshire expects 75% of its total expenditure to be spent on collaboration, generating 75% of the force’s whole savings requirement. That shows what can be achieved.
It is important to recognise that collaboration is not just about sharing with other forces. Mental health, for example, has a big impact on crime and policing, and nine forces are now participating in street triage pilots that involve mental health professionals and paramedics working closely with police officers. They aim to improve the experience of, and access to, the health service for individuals at the point of mental health crisis. The initial feedback from those pilots is very positive, with good partnership working and a reduction in the number of police detentions under the Mental Health Act 2007. That is better for the police and, even more importantly, better for patients.
A further area where reform can both save money and deliver a better service is greater collaboration between the blue-light emergency services. Innovative work is already taking place between PCCs, fire authorities and ambulance trusts, and the Government are already supporting proposals for emergency services sharing properties, services, training and communications, through £3.8 million of funding from the police innovation fund.
Andrew Percy
I am interested in what the Minister has to say. I agree that there has been a lot of collaboration, but there still seems to be a bit of silo mentality in some of the services. Have the Government considered combining the PCC role to become also a fire commissioner and replace fire authorities, and to try to bring the two services together? There is a lot of synergy between them.
Damian Green
Obviously there are a number of such proposals, and the most sensible thing I can say at this point is that the Government will soon publish their response to the Knight review on fire services. That will, I hope, put all this in perspective.
Jack Dromey
My right hon. Friend, with her formidable experience and the remarkable achievement of building modern policing, is right to make a strong argument in favour of that kind of integration. I pay tribute to her work in government. The lasting legacy is neighbourhood policing that this country so rightly prizes, albeit that the thin blue line is now being stretched ever thinner.
Andrew Percy
I am little surprised at what I am hearing, given that it was during the previous Government and under the chairmanship of a local Labour councillor that Humberside police got rid of its neighbourhood policing teams, got rid of local instant response teams in neighbourhood areas and created much bigger local policing teams that were not on a ward basis. I do not recall any opposition from anybody in the Labour party, locally or nationally, when that happened, so I am surprised at what I am hearing today. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the position of the Labour party is to support what it did when it was in power, or is this a new policy?
Jack Dromey
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I do not know the details of the issue he raises. What I do know is that, as I go up and down the country—on 50 occasions, arising out of the Stevens report—the message I get from police officers, communities and partnership agencies is that they value what the Labour Government built. That is coming under increasing pressure as a consequence of what this Government are doing.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Lady for saying that. I am delighted that she was listening to me in Committee—I thought we just spoke in this place and that no one actually listened. I am sad that my words were not heeded. We had a commitment from the then Minister with responsibility for policing to get something done and to sort the problem out. Well, it is not sorted out. We have a significant gap in policing national crime. That does not just affect Northern Ireland; it affects what these people do when they export their terrorism here to mainland Britain and on to Europe. We have a national responsibility to sort this matter out, and to sort it out fast.
I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, was the first Chair of that Committee to visit Northern Ireland for about 20 years. He paid significant attention to this matter and met the Justice Minister at Stormont and the Chairman of our equivalent Select Committee, Mr Paul Givan. He went through the key issues with him and said that he and his Committee wanted to see the NCA operating properly and effectively in Northern Ireland. I will leave that matter with the Minister and I hope he will pick it up.
We have significant national crime problems in Northern Ireland and that is what I want to focus on in the rest of my remarks.
Andrew Percy
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion relates to England and Wales and the hon. Gentleman has spoken for a considerable time solely about policing in Northern Ireland. He has just told us that he wishes to go on speaking about Northern Ireland, but the motion in the name of the Secretary of State states:
“That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales)…which was laid before this House…be approved.”
There is no mention of Northern Ireland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I am sure the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was going to come back in order for the debate on the motion.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) who, up until his outburst on me, I considered an hon. Friend—I agree with many of his political positions. He said he would go on to speak about policing in Northern Ireland, and I believe I was perfectly entitled to question whether or not that was in order, particularly because I have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate waiting to speak, and because the debate relates to the police grant in England and Wales. That is not to decry our fantastic Union—it is always a pleasure and delight to hear about Northern Ireland—but I am sorry he interpreted my attempts to bring him back to order in such a manner. I am sure we will still be friends.
I shall speak to the report as it relates to England and Wales, and my police force in Humberside, which serves the East Riding of Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire. I speak on the police grant debate most years. I have always abstained on the budget because of my concern, as previous Ministers have heard, about the scale of the reductions. I fully understand and support the need for reductions, but I am concerned about their scale, particularly as they come at the same time as a change in officers’ terms and conditions, which has had an impact on morale. I shall say more about that later.
I tend to say something about the Labour position every year in such debates. In 2007, police numbers were falling in my area—they fell by 137. [Interruption.] It would be nice if I could hear myself. There seems to be some noise coming from the Government Back Benches.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I will chair the proceedings. If every speaker were heard in utter silence, I would be so pleased, but that rarely happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends can take note that he is struggling to make himself heard above the noise.
Andrew Percy
I am happy to be ignored in perfect silence or to be heckled, but when the noise is so close, it is a little difficult to hear oneself think. One expects an element of quiet—perhaps it comes with being a schoolteacher. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my neighbour, will concur with the requirement for people to listen in silence.
On the Labour position on policing cuts, 137 officers were cut in 2007 in my area. There was no opposition from Labour representatives at the time. In fact, they supported the reductions and the civilianisation of roles, so I am a little amused when local Labour politicians engage in campaigns against police cuts and reductions in police numbers. They did not have such an issue with them in 2007. I respect the shadow Minister greatly, but I was unclear on the Labour position on funding for our police. He did not rule out cuts—he clearly could not do so given the statements made by the shadow Chancellor—but he did not tell us what the scale of those cuts would be. It is a little unfair for him to be critical of the Government without putting a proper alternative forward.
Jack Dromey
I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but let me make myself absolutely clear: the best advice from HMIC was that 12% cuts could be made without impacting on the front line. We accepted that in government and then in opposition, and it has been our position ever since. The problem is that the Government have gone far beyond that, to 20% cuts, and as a consequence we have lost 15,000 police officers, including 10,000 from the front line.
Andrew Percy
We know the argument about whether the figure is really 12% or 14%. Either way, however, Labour has not said how it would pay for it. It has made a range of spending commitments, including repealing various welfare measures, but it has not said how it would pay for them. It is fine to say, “Let’s limit cuts to 12%”, but it is incumbent on the Opposition, who after all aspire to government, to explain how they would pay for it. We did not hear that today.
I am unclear also about neighbourhood policing. In my area, we have seen a move away from neighbourhood policing. We went from ward-based policing—a lot of public money was spent on ward-based police stations that never opened to the public—towards larger local policing teams. That happened before this Government came to power. I heard Labour’s commitment to neighbourhood policing, but we tried it in Humberside, and we have now moved to area-based policing, which has been very effective. It contains elements of neighbourhood policing and best practice, but not quite as originally envisaged.
I concur with colleagues who are unsure whether to believe crime figures—I was critical of them as a local councillor, under the last Government, when major falls were trumpeted—although there has undoubtedly been a fall in crime, particularly in antisocial behaviour. I was a local councillor for 10 years, and it used to be an issue of great concern—there were issues with street corners and public places—but in my experience it has now abated. Nevertheless, I do not believe the crime figures as they are presented, not least because a lot of crime still goes unreported. In addition, there are many crimes that years ago would have been reported, but are not now. I had my car broken into five times in 18 months, but I did not report each crime, as would have happened perhaps 10 or 15 years ago. So although we should welcome the general fall in crime, I do not believe it has fallen as far as is claimed.
Local authorities can have an impact on local policing. We have seen an excellent example of that in north Lincolnshire under the leadership of Liz Redfern, who took over the council from Labour in 2011. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Absolutely. She pledged to use local council funding to provide additional police community support officers in rural areas so that Humberside police could get on with policing in the urban areas, where the crime statistics showed such policing was necessary. We provided those additional PCSOs through local grants to the police, and only a few weeks ago, I welcomed the new PCSOs, Michelle Thorley and Dan Dreggs, who work out of Epworth and cover the whole of the isle of Axholme. They are doing a great job, funded by the local council.
Despite the massive cuts to local authorities we have heard about, the local council has also provided CCTV funding, and a new CCTV system is now coming into place in Epworth. Moreover, they, along with East Riding of Yorkshire council, have a sharing arrangement with Humberside police for fuel and vehicles, which is to be welcomed, while our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Grove, and his deputy, Paul Robinson, are working on a strategy for sharing buildings, which sometimes involves moving police stations into shared buildings. We must be careful to ensure a continuous presence—we do not want the services diminished—but in fact there is an increasing police presence, and in a couple of weeks a new station will open in my constituency.
The pressure on budgets has led to those developments, which we need to see more of, so I ask the Minister to ensure that funding for local authorities takes account of such innovative practices and working. In my area, Humberside police have received £1 million from the innovation fund to give police officers and PCSOs tablet devices so that they can get out on the front line and be more visible and do their work there, which is to be welcomed. We need funding to support those kinds of measures.
I am working through the 20-day police parliamentary scheme, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my near neighbour, completed a few years ago. I have found that incredibly useful. The weekend before last, I did two night shifts with an instant response team based in Clough road police station in Hull, which covers the eastern part of the city. It was an interesting experience. I have done a number of nights in Grimsby, which was also very interesting, as well as joining public order and traffic patrols in my area. I have been struck by how dedicated staff are, but I have also been struck by how under attack some of them feel. They feel the pressure of reduced resources, as well as changes to terms and conditions and to pensions. I have been very defensive on those, particularly on pensions, on which I have had some robust discussions with police officers.
I am more sympathetic on the issue of how thin the thin blue line can be stretched. I have been uncomfortable with the scale of reductions in spending, although I understand the reasons for them, given the legacy we came to office to deal with. But we have to be careful. We have protection for NHS and school funding. I hope that, in further reductions, we will look closely at policing. In the latest round there has been protection, but we need to move on that. I get a sense from local officers that they are at a point where they can hold the line at the moment, but a small upturn in crime figures might put them under pressure.
I have also been struck by how much of the police work is not actually police work, as has been mentioned. They seem to be massively involved in social work, and in dealing with family disorder and breakdown, alcohol misuse, drug misuse and serious mental health issues. A lot of police officers said to me that they would love to be able to spend their time fighting crime, but they are spending far too much time picking up failings in other services. That must be factored in when we look at the budgets.
Our police service does a fantastic job but I think reform was needed. In my 10 years as a local councillor in Hull, I remember that lots of money was showered on policing locally. Our police precept went up by 500 per cent in the 13 years of the last Government, and a lot of buildings were built that were not open to the public. A lot of money was thrown at initiatives that were not necessarily well thought through or assessed for their effectiveness. It was a question of “There is a problem. Let us throw some money at it and hope it works.” In lots of cases, it did not work. There was a huge waste of money and we are still dealing with the legacy of some of those issues, including the buildings that were built as part of Humberside police authority’s massive expansion programme of police stations that were never open to the public.
Money is not the answer to everything. We know that and I think the Government are going in the right direction in terms of trying to promote innovation. However, we have to be conscious of the fact that we are potentially getting to a point in policing where the line has been stretched very thin and we need to be careful in moving forward. I fear that if there is an upturn in crime any time soon, we may well not be able to respond as we would want to.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the police and crime commissioner. Does he agree that we have seen a fundamental shift from a policing service that was too often looking to Whitehall to one that is grounded in the local community? Does he also agree that Matthew Grove in our area has done a great job of making sure that the police meet local needs, albeit they are struggling with limited resources?
Andrew Percy
Yes, I agree entirely. I shall end with the point that we need to look at whether the PCCs can take over the role of the fire authority as well and try to bring both services together.
Policing
Andrew Percy Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
As it happens, I was in Gloucester yesterday supporting the Labour candidate in Gloucestershire, and one of the main aspects of her campaigning was to keep policing in touch with local people by maintaining police stations in areas where there are high levels of crime. The same will be true in London. That is because Government Members have forced through 20% cuts in the policing budget. That means the loss of 15,000 officers by 2015, which is a conservative estimate. Ultimately, the number of front-line officers lost in the past two years—6,778—is already more than the police inspector intended to date.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is bandying a lot of numbers about. We have a candidate standing in the county formerly known as Humberside who spent £500 million trying to close down our regional fire control centres. That would pay for a large number of police officers. What does he think about that candidate, Lord Prescott?
Damian Green
I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman a prediction, because I can tell him what is happening to crime in Leicestershire. Crime in Leicestershire is down 5% under this Government and I hope that he will welcome that change.
The inspectorate has confirmed what Ministers have said all along—that the front line of policing is being protected. We know that chief constables are prioritising the front line, because they plan to increase the proportion of officers on the front line from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. Protecting the front line does not mean staying exactly the same, it is about the service that the public receive. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says that the service is being maintained, and I hope that Opposition Members will have the politeness to listen to it.
Andrew Percy
May I take the Minister back to policing numbers? My dearly valued colleagues from the Labour party in Humberside will be able to confirm that police numbers there fell in 2007, for the very same reasons that he has outlined here today, and there was zero opposition among local Labour politicians.
Damian Green
As ever, my hon. Friend points out the inadequacy of Labour arguments in Humberside and elsewhere. Since he brings up the subject of numbers, I am happy to tell him that in this Government’s time in office, crime in Humberside has fallen by 12%—a particularly good performance, I think he will agree.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
In the time remaining, I want to concentrate on police and crime commissioners. Despite my reservations about police and crime commissioners, I am reassured that Labour has chosen so strong a candidate as my predecessor, the right hon. Lord Prescott, who I know will definitely act as a final line of defence against privatisation.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
Lord Prescott is worried about the fundamental changes to policing and considers them to be extremely alarming. It is unacceptable to put private security officers in areas where police have responsibility. Lord Prescott was quite right to point out recently that private employees will not be accountable and will be responsible only to private employers.
In conclusion, there are serious concerns about creeping privatisation in the police service. The Peelian principles of policing with the consent of the community must be upheld. I am absolutely sure that Lord Prescott will not only do that, but raise awareness of the campaign in Humberside. I am convinced that he will be duly elected.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). She made a thoughtful speech and although I did not necessarily agree with everything she said, I have an image of the hon. Lady on a horse single-handedly fighting crime in Wigan. I hope it will not come to that but, if it does, I am sure she will do a wonderful job.
The elections for police and crime commissioner are incredibly important. When the proposals were first suggested I was a little nervous about them because of the cost involved in putting the elections together. However, as the campaign developed—a very vigorous election campaign is going on in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire at the moment—I became sold on the reforms for a number of reasons.
I was interested in comments by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who said, I think, that if turnout is low, we should perhaps consider revisiting the issue and look at whether we should abolish the proposals. If that is the case, I simply point to low turnouts in European parliamentary elections—I would support the right hon. Gentleman were he to propose abolishing the European Parliament on the basis of turnout alone. I do not think, however, that we should necessarily read too much into the turnout figures, and there are plenty of councillors up and down the country who were elected on a low turnout. Given the timing of the elections, I believe there will be a reasonable turnout in the former county of Humberside area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, there is appetite for the elections in our area.
Replacing the police authority had become necessary. In 10 years serving as a local councillor, I never served as a member of the police authority, and nor did my Labour or Conservative ward colleagues. Therefore, the residents of the ward I represented never had a direct link into the Humberside police authority. Some people were fortunate enough to have a councillor who happened to be on the police authority, but the likelihood of that happening was minimal.
Similarly, police authorities could not be held to account at the ballot box, because most members were not elected members of local authorities, and independent appointees and people from the Home Office were also members. I never bought the idea that the police authority was electable. I suspect that many more of the good burghers of Brigg and Goole can name the candidates for the PCC elections than can name the last chairman of the police authority.
That is partly owing to the fact that Lord Prescott is doing what the Government want—he is ensuring a high-profile campaign in Humberside. I have found a good appetite in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire for the elections. People want to know why somebody who spent £500 million trying to close our regional FiReControl should get the job. They want to know why somebody who spent £60,000 on foreign trips should get the job. They want to know why somebody wants the job when, in the Yorkshire Post in August this year, he described his current job in the following terms:
“The House of Lords is a bit like a job centre, you have to go down there to get paid expenses, and it just gets totally tiring.”
I can understand why the people of Brigg and Goole want to know why that man should have the job.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises some good points. He is absolutely right that interest in the candidates for the election is very high. Many of my constituents want to know why the wife of the former Member of Parliament for Gloucestershire, who campaigned specifically to abolish to Gloucestershire constabulary, is now standing to be the police commissioner for that very force. Does my hon. Friend agree that some curiosities are emerging?
Andrew Percy
All I can say in response to my hon. Friend is that you literally could not make it up. It gets more ridiculous by the day.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes has made clear, the Conservatives have a very good candidate. They have lit the touch paper on the campaign locally with an exciting idea to charge drunks for wasting police time—that very good proposal needs to be explored. The shadow Minister talked about raising the turnout. I do not want him to come to Brigg and Goole, but he should visit my website, where he can learn of the vigorous campaign in the area. We have had a lot of street surgeries in Brigg and Goole, and many of my constituents have received four or five communications in the past few months. We are finding that there is a lot of interest, and we have a responsibility to try to get the turnout up.
The right hon. Gentleman might find—because of the high-profile Labour candidate and the exciting ideas of the Conservative candidate—that there is an appetite for the campaign. It might not manifest itself in an 80% to 90% turnout on 15 November, and I am not pretending we will get to those figures, but people know about the election, and if they want to take part in it, they can.
As I have said, I served as a local councillor for 10 years in my area. In some ways, the previous Government’s record on crime was very good. I was a bit nervous about the introduction of PCSOs and wondered what would happen, but it was a very good idea. I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work on PCSOs. However, it is not quite as has been presented. As I pointed out in an intervention, there was a reduction in police numbers in the Humberside force area back in 2007, but we did not see a single Labour Member locally campaigning against it. Labour Members now campaign against reductions in police numbers, but in 2007 they made the case for removing police officers and replacing them with civilians.
Although good things happened on crime under the previous Government, there was a 400% to 500% increase in the local police precept. The good people of east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire could not hold anyone to account for that directly. When they get a police and crime commissioner, they will at least be able to hold to account the person who is charging them for their local policing.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Andrew Percy Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Djanogly
No; if the hon. Lady listens, I will answer the question.
Our reforms are intended to redress the unfairness that exists in our civil litigation system between claimants and defendants. They will move conditional fee agreements back to the position that they were in before the Opposition’s disastrous reforms in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Our proposals are premised on the similar treatment of classes of cases, based on the costs or difficulty of bringing a claim. The Lords amendments would introduce a new unfairness between claimants, based only on the type of disease or illness, and essentially dependent on whether it was caused in the workplace.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
A number of my constituents who worked on the docks in Goole and in power stations have been affected by this illness. There seems to be a lot of confusion in this debate. For simplicity’s sake, will the Minister say whether my constituents who worked at the docks and who are suffering from this awful disease will receive more or less money in compensation under the Government’s proposals than they receive at the moment?
Mr Djanogly
That will depend on the arrangements that they make with their lawyers. Under the new system, for the first time since the Opposition’s reforms which did so much to create a compensation culture in our country, the client will have an interest in what their lawyer is being paid. Until we get back to that situation, there will be an ongoing ratcheting of costs, which is not in the interests of such claims.
The Opposition’s Lords amendments rate one sort of claim above another. Somehow, a mesothelioma claim is automatically more worthy than a personal injury claim. The Government simply do not accept that. I acknowledge the concern in the other place, which underpinned Lords amendments 31 and 32, that the new arrangements will prevent lawyers from being willing to take mesothelioma cases and leave claimants out of pocket, but I believe it to be mistaken.
Not-for-profit Advice Sector
Andrew Percy Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree. The effect on people using the services, who are disproportionately on a low income, will be devastating. Individuals will not appeal, which will end up costing the state more—hon. Members should remember that they have been unlawfully denied benefit—or may take the case themselves and be unable to present the evidence effectively or provide the right sort of evidence, or will end up at their Member of Parliament’s surgeries. I think all hon. Members will admit that we are not legal experts. However, there will be nowhere else for us to refer such people. I recommend to the Minister a report produced by the Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which demonstrates how much MPs rely on their local advice centres.
Yvonne Fovargue
I need to make a tiny bit of progress, but I will later.
So far we have talked only about welfare benefits. Debt clients will lose access to early advice, giving the perverse result that they may be sent away and told, “If you get into more debt and are at risk of losing your home, we might be able to see you.” Clients who are unlawfully dismissed from employment will have nowhere to go and will end up claiming benefits.
This loss of specialist provision has great implications for the future. The experience of specialists will be lost, not just for this generation, but to future generations, because they are training other advisers—often volunteers—but will be unable to pass on their experience because they will not be there within the agency.
I remind the Minister of the cost of cases. A case such as Sharon’s, which has benefited her, cost £148. That is how much a welfare benefits case costs. A debt case costs £180 and a housing case costs £160. What are the knock-on costs to the other agencies of removing this small amount of funding?
The Minister has said many times that he disagrees with the King’s College and CAB figures on the savings made to the state by keeping such matters in scope. What is his estimate? Has any estimate been made by the Government of the knock-on costs of removing specialist work from legal aid?
The real tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) mentioned, could be the loss of whole agencies. Often, large agencies have done the right thing and diversified their funding and contracted with the Legal Services Commission. The services provided by the Manchester community legal advice service were jointly commissioned by the local authority and the LSC in October 2010. A three-year contract was awarded until October 2013, with the possibility of two more years if the targets were hit—and they have been. Some £1.2 million of legal aid funding will be directly lost by that service and that is likely to have knock-on costs of another £800,000 leading to more than £2 million being lost from that service. In addition, 34 specialist advisers will be lost and 97% of the specialist services throughout Manchester will go. Contracts have been signed for premises and other essentials, predicated on the three-year contract that was given to the service. Cuts pose a risk to the continuation of the whole CAB and community legal advice service in the city of Manchester.
In effect, Manchester could become a desert in terms of face-to-face advice. Who in the city will be affected by that? The majority of the clients, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South said, are on low incomes, or have a disability, or are black and minority ethnic. They experience higher than average rates of unemployment, debt and homelessness. These are the people that the cuts will affect—not fat cat lawyers. Will the Minister please comment on the future of the community legal advice services, whose staff signed contracts in good faith and now find that those contracts are being reneged on? That is just one example.
When this matter is spoken about in the main Chamber there are many fine words from all parties, but as a feisty volunteer said to the mayor when he spoke about the CAB in respect of a funding cut, “Fine words butter no parsnips. Let’s see the colour of your money.” That is what we need.
We may talk about the transition fund—£20 million given for advice agencies—but transition, to me, means moving on. I cannot see where advice agencies are going to move to, to get specialist funding. I feel that a lot of them will be transitioning into oblivion.
Andrew Percy
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. As he must know from his surgeries, many constituents come to us and say that the last thing that they want to do is have a telephone conversation with us—they want to see us face to face. Can he assure us that residents who need assistance and do not want to access it down the telephone line—a lot of older people in particular have problems with that—will continue to be able to get face-to-face advice?
Mr Djanogly
The telephone service will be used only in a limited number of areas, so that we can see how it works, and yes, if someone is unsuitable for receiving telephone advice, perhaps because of their age, the alternative of face-to-face advice will be available.
I am pleased to see good examples of not-for-profit organisations acting innovatively, forging partnerships with other organisations and adapting to the changing face of advice provision. I accept that the proposed reforms are likely to be particularly challenging to the not-for-profit sector. Legal aid, however, is only one of many funding streams that citizens advice bureaux and law centres receive. For example, legal aid represents only 15% of the income of citizens advice bureaux. I also point out that our scope changes have not yet happened and will not do so for another year, giving us time to look at the changing needs of the market. Indeed, one of the major issues for the sector is changes to other sources of funding, such as local authority cuts, which are determined by local priorities, not central Government.