Point of Order
Debate between Andy McDonald and Baroness Primarolo
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and advice on an exchange that took place earlier today on the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax. I mentioned the need for clarification, given that the Prime Minister told me yesterday:
“Obviously, what we have done is to exempt disabled people who need an extra room.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 254.]
When I raised the matter with the Leader of the House earlier, he said, “The Prime Minister yesterday was absolutely right to say that those disabled people who need an additional room for overnight carers will not have the spare room subsidy removed in respect to that room.” My concern is that additional words have been attributed to the Prime Minister. Words have been added that he simply did not say. I am not suggesting that the Leader of the House would deliberately misrepresent what was said or mislead the House in any way, but I think that inadvertently that is the outcome of the words he attributed to the Prime Minister. I seek your advice on how that might be reconciled—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I think that I have the gist of it. Every individual Member is responsible for what they say in the House. If a Member feels that they need to correct the record in any way whatsoever, there is a route open to them, but it is not currently a matter for the Chair. If there are no further points of order, we will move on. [Interruption.] It would be handy if any private conversations about the record took place outside the Chamber, not across the Dispatch Box from a sedentary position.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andy McDonald and Baroness Primarolo(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I share with other speakers the view that there is much to be welcomed in the Bill, including the provisions on the diversity of judicial appointments, extending the jurisdiction of youth courts and drug-driving.
I note that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is not in his place, but I too would like to pay tribute to the work he has done. He is quite right in what he says about other instances of the same sort of events that affected his constituent. Some 10 or so years ago, when I was practising as a solicitor, I had the privilege to represent the Nellist family of Acklam in Middlesbrough. As they returned home from an evening out—they had not been out socialising for a long time—they got off the bus opposite their home and their young son Anthony was waiting for them to come back. He was peeping out of the curtains looking to see them come home. He saw his mum and dad walk across the road, only for Susan to be struck by a speeding vehicle coming down Trimdon avenue, knocking her some clear 70 yards down the road, killing her outright.
The self-same issues about impairment and the links between impairment and the charges levelled against the youth concerned raised their head in this case. I was involved not in the criminal side but in the civil case. When we served our proceedings on the defendant, he showed absolutely no remorse whatever. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Bizarrely in those days, he served his driving ban while serving his term of imprisonment. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who put right that wrong in subsequent years, making sure that any driving ban was served at the end of the custodial sentence. That made the sentence more relevant.
Is it ever right for someone in such circumstances ever to get behind the wheel of a car again? Perhaps we can take a look at that as we take the Bill through Committee. Given the tragedy suffered by that family and the fact that not everyone enjoys the privilege of driving a motor car, it is not acceptable for someone in those circumstances to serve a ban for such a short period.
I support the fight against organised crime, but we on the Labour side are concerned that the Home Secretary is undermining that fight by cutting the budget to tackle it. However, I am happy to recognise the valuable work of the north-east regional organised crime unit, which was established by the chief constables of Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria in March 2010. It consists of a specialised team of detectives who target the organised crime groups that pose the greatest threat to the communities in those three areas. No doubt the House will want to congratulate officers in the unit who, last Wednesday, used a warrant to search premises in Topcliffe, north Yorkshire, and recovered approximately 30 kg of heroin and an estimated 40 kg of amphetamine. The street value of the drugs is estimated to be between £6 million and £7 million. Two men have been charged; the investigation continues, and there is more to come.
There is a welcome consensus on the issue of avoiding reoffending. The starting point of the consultation was a good one: the Government acknowledged that nearly half of all adult offenders reoffend within a year of leaving custody, and also acknowledged the need for reform of the criminal justice system. Cleveland’s newly elected police and crime commissioner, Barry Coppinger—in common with many others—has made
“diverting people from reoffending with a focus on rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending”
a key priority. So far, so good. It seems there is a common purpose, but the question must be whether the proposals in the Bill are adequate to assist the attaining of that vital objective.
The powers that the Bill seeks to introduce are already available to sentencers. They can already impose punishment in combination with other elements. Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, described the proposals as
“offensive to the judiciary, who strive to ensure that each person dealt with by them is sentenced to the appropriate sentence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 529.]
Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, called them “totally unnecessary and counter-productive”.
In the brief time remaining to me, let me say something about clause 23. My constituent David Jukes has written to me pointing out that 2,000 people are employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in the enforcement of criminal fines. I hope that we shall have a chance to ensure that the existing service is given every opportunity to be maintained and to succeed, and also to ensure that rigorous standards and targets are set for recovery of fines and fixed-penalty notices.
Finally and very briefly, I want to comment on the law of self-defence as it applies to householders. I recently went around the houses in Middlesbrough, and none of those on whose doors I knocked told me of their overbearing desire to knock seven bells out of a burglar. People were more concerned about, for instance, employment and being hit by the under-occupancy tax. We must think carefully about whether clause 30 takes us any further.
The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) referred to the guidance notes that are issued to officers. I rather think that that tells the tale: the notes are available to officers to prevent householders from being taken to court unnecessarily, under the law as it stands—