Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Damian Green Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 16—Restraint orders and legal aid: supplementary.

Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 21, line 22, at end insert—

‘(6A) In fixing such an amount, and subsequent additions, account must be taken of the person’s relevant weekly income, excluding housing benefit and child related benefits, and allowance must be made for the protection of a reasonable financial subsistence level, in the manner used to determine the initial fine.’.

Amendment 103, page 21, line 25, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 96, page 22, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Lord Chancellor must, by regulation, in statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, provide the amount of any costs for services carried out for the purposes of collecting sums.’.

Amendment 97, in clause 25, page 23, line 11, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘civil servant’.

Amendment 98, page 24, line 1, leave out paragraph (3).

New clause 12—Provision of intermediaries for very vulnerable witnesses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must provide for intermediaries to be assigned to very vulnerable witnesses in all court cases.

(2) In the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, after section 29 there is inserted:

“29A Intermediaries for very vulnerable witnesses

(1) A special measures direction must be made to provide for any examination of a very vulnerable witness (however and wherever conducted to be conducted through an interpreter or other person approved by the court for the purposes of this section (“an intermediary”).

(2) In addition to the functions set out in subsection 29(2), an intermediary must be assigned to very a vulnerable witness through their whole experience before, during and after court.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “very vulnerable witness” has the same meaning as defined in section [Court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses] (5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”.’.

New clause 14—Court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for specialist courts for very vulnerable witnesses.

(2) A specialist court for very vulnerable witnesses will consist of a partnership programme within the criminal court structure.

(3) In establishing the specialist court, the Secretary of State must involve the following partners—

(a) the judiciary;

(b) court officials;

(c) the Crown Prosecution Service;

(d) police forces;

(e) witness support services;

(f) victim support services; and

(g) any other specialist services that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) In cases where there is a very vulnerable witness—

(a) no judge can sit on the case unless he has taken part in appropriate training provided by the Judicial College;

(b) a single court usher, who has taken part in appropriate training provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, must be assigned to the witness throughout their time at court;

(c) the case will be assigned to a court with all necessary facilities to offer the full range of special measures set out in sections (23) to (30) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999;

(d) before allocating time for trials the court must take into account the impact of delays on very vulnerable witnesses; and

(e) the services of independent sexual violence advisors must be offered to very vulnerable witnesses in cases involving sexual offences.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance about court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses, which must be published, and may be revised from time to time.

(6) Before issuing or revising a code under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must lay a copy before each House of Parliament for approval within a 40 day period.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

“very vulnerable witness” includes the victim in a case of child sexual abuse.

“independent sexual violence advisers” are victims-focused advocates who work with victims of recent and historic serious sexual crimes to enable them to access the services they need in the aftermath of the abuse they have experienced.’.

Government amendment 119.

[Damian Green]

Given the time pressure on our consideration of this large and disparate group, I propose to speak to the Government amendments—new clauses 15 and 16 and amendment 119—which relate to legal aid, and then, if possible, respond to the other amendments once I have had an opportunity to hear the arguments put forward by their sponsors. I hope that will provide a proper balance between Front-Bench and Back-Bench contributions to the debate.

Access to legal aid is a fundamental part of our legal system. However, difficult decisions relating to how the legal aid budget should be spent are made every day. We must remember that legal aid is not free and that we do not have unlimited resources. As such, we need to ensure that the limited funds are used effectively and directed to those who really need them.

At present, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 prevents restrained funds from being released to a defendant for legal expenses in relation to the offences to which the restraint order relates. Before the 2002 Act, there was a risk that individuals might recklessly dissipate assets through lavish spending on their defence in order to try to secure an acquittal at any cost. In 2002, the then Government decided that it was better to allow access to legal aid than to allow a defendant to draw down restrained funds to pay for their defence. However, that has led to a public perception that rich offenders with significant restrained assets are receiving vast sums of legal aid when they could afford to make a contribution to their defence. For example, over the past three years more than £14.3 million in legal aid was paid to just 49 high-profile individuals. Let us not forget that we are talking about individuals suspected of involvement in serious and organised crime, including drug smuggling and large-scale fraud, the victims of which are all too often numerous. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. May I gently say to the House that a number of Back Benchers on both sides have new clauses or amendments to which they wish to speak, and there is such a hubbub that it is quite difficult to hear properly what the Minister is saying? Let us please have a bit of order, in everybody’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

Since the introduction of the 2002 Act, a system of means-testing for legal aid has been introduced for all Crown court defendants. Those who can afford to pay some, or all, of their legal aid costs are required to do so. Although anyone charged with a criminal offence and facing imprisonment or loss of livelihood is entitled to legal aid, I think that the whole House would agree that if the defendant can pay some, or all, of their legal bill, they should do so. After all, as we ask people on modest incomes to pay something towards their defence costs, it is only fair and reasonable that we ask millionaires to do so. As such, new clause 15 amends section 41 of the 2002 Act to allow payment of a contribution towards, and up to the full amount of, their publicly funded legal aid costs.

The detailed mechanisms of how that will operate in practice will be set out in legal aid regulations made by the Lord Chancellor and, as provided for in new clause 16, regulations made by the Home Secretary, the latter being subject to the affirmative procedure. Both sets of regulations will be developed taking into account the potential impact on returning money to victims and assets that are used to incentivise further asset recovery work.

We can already freeze criminals’ assets to make it easier to recover ill-gotten gains and compensate victims, but that often leaves the state picking up their legal bill, even if the offender has plenty of money to pay that as well. I am sure that the whole House would agree that our aim should be to increase the overall amount of money taken from criminals. As I have said, the full details of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation that will be subject to debate and approval in both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

This is the parliamentary equivalent of “Just a Minute”.

I will speak to the amendments in my name, which are amendments 103 and 96 to 98, which relate to clause 25. Clause 25 commences the process of privatising the work of the fines officers of the courts. They are not just bailiffs, but officers who exercise judicial powers. This will be the first time that the House has privatised any office holder who has judicial powers. What do I mean by judicial powers? These officers can make a deduction from a benefits order, make an attachment of earnings order, and order the variation of the length of time over which a fine can be paid.

Clause 25 will privatise the 2,000 jobs of the fines officers and hand the work over to private bailiffs. We have seen the report by Citizens Advice on the role of private bailiffs. They are misrepresenting their powers, using intimidating behaviour, charging fees in excess of what is allowed in law, failing to accept reasonable offers of payment and failing to recognise debtors in vulnerable situations, as required by the national standards for enforcement agents. We are handing over these powers to private bailiffs, who have failed significantly and have intimidated many of our constituents, and yet we know that the existing fines officers are performing well and meeting every target that is set by their management and the Government.

This is a privatisation too far. We have never privatised the roles of judicial officers. This matter needs the consideration of the House. I urge the Government to think again. This measure is just an enabling part of the legislation and I hope that the Government will step back before they implement it.

[Damian Green]

On the last point, I think it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) thinks that every privatisation is a privatisation too far. He is wrong. Choosing the sanction or collection method, which is what fines officers do, is not a judicial function. Those are essentially case management decisions and have been performed by administrative staff since 2006.

On amendment 1, we recognise that we must make allowances for the fact that some people find themselves in hardship and find it difficult to pay their debts, but that does not mean that the court should permit those convicted of an offence to ignore the sentences imposed on them. Fines are a criminal sentence, and taxpayers should not be subsidising those who avoid payment for whatever reason.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said about new clauses 12 and 14 by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has a distinguished record in this field. The Government and HM Courts Service already do a huge amount to protect victims and witnesses. There is always more we can do and we will take this issue away and consider it.