Draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023

Conor Burns Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 General Committees

[Ellie Reeves]

If HDC is done properly, it can work well, but my concern is that this measure is being rushed through, without a properly thought-out process. I will talk a bit about the probation service and the challenges that it is already facing. This measure comes on top of that and will increase its workload further, which is why I have real concerns about how this will work in practice.

The probation service now faces severe staff shortages and unmanageable workloads, and morale is at rock bottom. All of that has led to a failure to monitor dangerous criminals, putting the public at risk. Meanwhile, we hear time and again of prisoners who have been released to sleep rough on the streets or drift back into drug abuse, making them more likely to commit further crimes. And what did we hear from the Government last week? They are forcing 5% of headquarters staff to move back to the frontline.

It is another sticking-plaster policy in response to 13 years of failure, and today’s proposals will likely add a further burden to an already overstretched probation service. They mean that officers will need to complete more HDC assessments, testing the suitability of the proposed release address and examining any previous behaviours by the prisoner on licence or bail. However, the chief inspector of probation recently detailed the current poor standard of risk assessments, with two thirds of those inspected being insufficient. If risk assessments are done quickly, there is a real danger that they will not be completed to the required standard and so the public may be at risk from those released.

We need assurances from the Minister today about what will be done to ensure that the probation service has the capacity to take on the sudden spike in cases from implementing this plan. How will the Government ensure that assessments are not rushed but are properly carried out? Can the Minister confirm that all those released early will have the same checks as they otherwise would have had, including home visits, checks on the proposed release address, and domestic abuse call-outs?

In conclusion, real harm is being done by the chaos in our criminal justice system.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

The home detention scheme was introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and came into force in January 1999. The period has been extended twice—first to 90 days in October 2002 and then to the current 135 days in April 2003. The hon. Lady’s party was in power on those three occasions: the introduction and the two subsequent extensions. Does she not think that the arguments that the current Government are making for this measure—logical arguments, for evidence-based decisions—are probably the same as those that were made when her party was last in power?

[Ellie Reeves]

I am grateful for those points, but I have outlined in my speech some of the huge capacity issues that we see in the probation service when it comes to properly assessing and managing risk. That is why the Opposition are seeking assurances that the Minister recognises these, and that increasing the amount of time that someone can spend on home detention curfew will not make the public less safe. That is what we are concerned about. There is a capacity issue and it needs to be addressed. We need those reassurances.

Rushed attempts to clear people out of prison are not a replacement for the proper management of rehabilitation. I hope that the Minister will respond to these concerns and outline how the Government will ensure that prisoners are properly risk assessed before release, and how the public will be kept safe.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Conor Burns Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

We are here today debating this Bill as a direct consequence of the free vote of the British people in the referendum last year, when they gave us their explicit instruction that we were to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. There was an extraordinary article in The Mail on Sunday yesterday by a Member of the other place, who said the Government were rushing this decision because they were afraid that the people would get their hands on the decision, but it is because the people did get their hands on the decision and decided to leave that we are here today.

Many of us who campaigned in the referendum to leave did not do so out of any sense of flippancy. I came to the conclusion over a long period. I came to it disappointed, after decades of listening to successive Governments and Prime Ministers talking about how we were going to reform the European Union from the inside, with subsidiarity and all the rest of it. That body gradually acquired all the attributes of statehood and citizenship: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a Parliament and a supreme court. For me, it became the antithesis of what an independent nation state was all about. Those of us who campaigned to leave were clear in our objectives: we wanted to make our own laws in this country; we wanted to sign our own trade deals; and we wanted to end the massive payments to the European Union and decide our own immigration policy.

That is what the Bill sets us on the road to do. Clause 1 makes it clear that the European Communities Act will cease to apply on the day we leave the European Union, and it provides that, the day after exit, the House and our courts will be supreme in making the decisions that affect us in this country. It is the mechanism to transpose the body of law under which we live, much of which emanated from the European Union over a period of almost 45 years, into United Kingdom law. It rightly makes little mention of some of the fundamental things that affect us as a country. Correctly and properly, the Government have committed to introduce legislation on the Floor of the House on some of the big matters. Bills that will be put before Parliament include a customs Bill, a trade Bill, an immigration Bill, a fisheries Bill, an agriculture Bill, a nuclear safeguards Bill, and an international sanctions Bill, all of which were announced in the Gracious Speech after the general election this year.

The Bill also puts specific limits on the powers that are laid down. The Government cannot make regulations to impose or increase taxation; to make retrospective provisions; to create relevant criminal offences; or to make regulations to implement the withdrawal agreement. Crucially, there is a sunset clause, so that two years after we leave the European Union the measure will cease to apply. I will be 45 in two weeks’ time. Her Majesty gave Royal Assent to the European Union Communities Act 1972 just a month after I was born. Although I gained political awareness reasonably early, I have not been politically aware throughout that entire period of nearly 45 years. I do not recall, in the period in which I was politically aware, great complaints emanating from every part of the House about the constant stream of legislation from the European Union that was implemented unscrutinised and which we had to obey.

The Government are putting that sunset clause in place. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said that there was confusion among Government Members, and a difference of opinion about our policy on leaving the European Union. He could easily, and perhaps more effectively, direct that at his own Front-Bench team. The shadow Home Secretary supports free movement. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union say that it must end. The deputy leader of the Labour party says that we would stay in the single market forever. The shadow Chancellor says that we should leave the single market to respect the referendum. The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade has said that staying in the customs union would be a disaster; the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union supports the UK staying in a customs union; while the deputy leader of the Labour party says that we could stay in the customs union indefinitely. One could be forgiven for thinking that Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople are getting their inspiration from Heinz, with 57 varieties of Brexit on offer. While the Government have introduced a sunset clause in the Bill to make sure that its provisions cannot last for more two years, Labour policy on Brexit can barely last two days. If it lasts two weeks it appears to be a long-term policy indeed.

Before the general election, the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. Tonight, it should do the same on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. In the words of one of my more succinct correspondents, who wrote to me yesterday and urged me to tell the House:

“For goodness’ sake just get on with it”.

Public Disorder (NUS Rally)

Conor Burns Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I have received no such information. I repeat that the vast majority of the 40,000 who were demonstrating yesterday did so peacefully, and the Government have no issue with that, or with their right to protest. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the response to the Tomlinson incident. I discussed this with the commissioner of the Met this morning. He was clear that there had been a failure on the part of the police force to assess the risk properly, and he is reviewing that. He did not seek to attribute the blame to any deliberate change in policing tactics as a consequence of the Tomlinson incident. It is worth reflecting, however, that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary stated in a formal report following the Tomlinson incident that the British model of policing

“can be easily eroded by premature displays of formidable public order protective uniform and equipment which give the perception—inadvertent or otherwise—of a hardening of the character of British policing.”

That was a criticism directed towards the police by the inspectorate, and it shows that they have difficult balancing judgments to make.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Yesterday afternoon I agreed to give an interview outside St Stephen’s entrance to some students from Nottingham university. After that interview we were joined by a bearded, slovenly man in his 40s wearing an “End capitalism now” badge—[Hon. Members: “A Lib Dem”.] I was wearing a yellow tie, so perhaps he mistook me for one. This man sought to wind up the students. In my judgment, he was an old-fashioned agent provocateur who had infiltrated the group. What assurances can the Minister give the House about future intelligence gathering, so that those who come here to make legitimate protests do not get infiltrated and have their legitimate causes hijacked?

[Nick Herbert]

Neither I nor the Government have anything against bearded people—or even against anti-capitalists, although we may disagree with them. We do, however, take issue with those who resort to violence, criminal damage and intimidation. It is clear that a small minority came along to yesterday’s demonstration intent on pursuing those acts. They have been disowned by the president of the National Union of Students, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) pointed out, and it is only fair not to characterise the rest of the demonstration by association with the actions of that thuggish minority.