Legal Aid Reform

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Valerie Vaz]

Absolutely. I am sure hon. Members received the e-mail from Michael Turner QC stating that the Lord Chancellor refused to meet him.

It is not clear what the Lord Chancellor is trying to achieve, other than to undermine the legal system. The Lord Chancellor does not appear to understand that if people are given access to legal services, they do not need to go to court—if that is where he wants to make the savings. Perhaps he wants to make the savings in court time. However, as a result of these proposals, court time will be filled by people who can afford going to court. In certain circumstances, companies can offset their legal costs against tax and even get the VAT back. An ordinary citizen cannot do that.

Judicial review is an important branch of law. Of course, the Executive do not like it because it holds the Executive to account—it looks at how public bodies come to a decision. Given the legislation enacted since 2010, it is no wonder that the Government want a neutered judicial review. No one can predict the outcome of a case, so having to make a judgment that there is a 50% chance of winning to receive legal aid, is absurd. Evidence has to be heard from both sides and a decision is made based on arguments that are made before an impartial judiciary. Lawyers are obliged to advise a client whether a case has merits before they proceed. What about the figures for judicial review? They are not increasing exponentially. A written answer to me revealed that in 2009 there were 2,145 cases in judicial review, with that figure going up to only 2,304 in 2011. In criminal judicial review, it was 316 for 2011. Those are just the figures for cases lodged; they are not even the figures for cases that have gone to completion.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The statistics quoted by those who want to restrict judicial review are that there are just 144 successful cases out of a total of 11,359. We should be careful about those figures, because they include only successful public hearings. Most cases are settled way before public hearing—they are settled before determination—and that is the merit of judicial review.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. He speaks as a true lawyer; I know that he works very hard in his own law firm to deliver justice.

Let us blow the myth that lawyers are in it for the money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) said, legal aid lawyers are not fat cats. Under legal aid, they do much more work than they are paid for. Treasury counsel, whom I had the privilege of working with when I worked for the Treasury Solicitors Department, have also expressed concerns about the reforms. They undertake Government work at incredibly low rates—much lower than if they were working in the private sector. They do both, but they bring the same intellectual vigour to Government cases as they do to anything else.

What of price competitive tendering? The number of contracts is to be reduced from 1,600 to 400. The west midlands can expect only 20 firms. According to the Law Society, however, approximately 800 firms operate in the west midlands. The Magistrates’ Association, another voice against these proposals, says that there appears to be little consistency in the number of contracts allocated to each area. The idea that one would get paid irrespective of how one’s client pleads is absurd. That is not justice; that is plea bargaining. The Lord Chancellor should know the difference. It is not choice either, as it concentrates representation and funds in a few hands. Lawyers pride themselves on their reputation—that is how they get their referrals. This will deny people the chance of choosing who they want to represent them. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) said that that is anathema to Conservatives. It is anathema to everybody when small businesses go out of business.

Michael Turner QC has come up with decent proposals, if only the Lord Chancellor would meet him. He has pointed out that 45% of the criminal legal aid budget of £1.1 billion is spent on fraud cases. If there is a banking case and the bank cannot recover the money, the fraud loss can be written off against tax, despite the state having spent money on investigation.

This is another policy from the Government that will benefit those who can afford it at the expense of the weak and vulnerable. There is no evidence for the policy. The Lord Chancellor has no mandate from the people, and no moral, legal or financial argument to continue with this course of action. He is tampering with one of the important checks and balances of the state. He is trying to weaken the golden triangle of Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive that underpins the rule of law and the framework of a good society—our society. These proposals are toxic to society and should be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. I must declare straight away that I am not a lawyer. I hope that I can therefore approach the debate in an impartial manner. I have been listening to it, and I am concerned to hear that so many small firms of lawyers could be excluded from the large contracts. Devon and Cornwall cover 40,000 square miles, and that will be viewed as one contract. That is a huge area to cover. I am not against the principle behind the reform, but we must be careful about introducing contracts that will cover such huge areas. We must ensure that smaller companies have a chance to tender for that work.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about small firms. I work in one such firm as a criminal defence solicitor. Does he recognise a certain irony, in that the Government want to avoid the legal aid deserts that it has been suggested could be created as a result of the equal-sized contracting model, and that the small firms, the medium-sized firms and the large firms are all saying that the proposed model is unviable?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of experience as a lawyer in a law firm. He has identified the problem with the reform, and I can relate to what he is saying. I suspect that all Conservative Members recognise the need to make savings, but we need to do so in a way that will still allow people to have a choice. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to see small law firms get business and stay in business.

It is estimated that about £20 million is being spent on the defence of criminals, many of whom are probably not declaring all their assets, and I agree with the Government that that needs to be sorted out. That is perhaps a slightly different issue, but it is none the less essential that taxpayers’ money is used to the best effect. A cut-off point can be set on a person’s income above which they will not qualify for legal aid, but there are also cases in which someone who is eligible for it carries on a vexatious case against a person who is just above the threshold and has to fund the case themselves. That is perhaps not a matter for debate today, but it is essential, if we are to ensure that people can get access to legal aid, to ensure that those cases that are pursued are legitimate and not simply vexatious.

It has been pointed out that we are seeing a great many judicial reviews. It is right that the Government should be challenged, but it is not necessarily right that everyone should have access to a judicial review, as they are often unnecessary.

I broadly support the Government’s attempt to reduce the costs of legal aid, but I am concerned about certain aspects of it, as I live in and represent an area of Devon that is very rural and the proposed contract will be very large. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Minister are listening to these arguments; the Minister is nodding his head. I do not want us to be a Government who reduce choice, who drive out of business many small firms that do an excellent job and, perhaps, who do not save anywhere near as much money as we believe we will. Before we go ploughing on with this, let us sit down and have a proper consultation. I am hopeful that the Government are not just saying this and that they will have meaningful talks. I look forward to that happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My interest is as a criminal defence duty solicitor, so I have a particular interest in relation to the criminal legal aid proposals. It is important that we focus on this issue, but we should not have this debate in a vacuum. Certainly, yesterday’s statement ensures that we do not have a vacuum; there is a need to make the £11.5 billion saving, and legal aid cannot be exempt.

We also heard from the Chancellor that this is about fairness. Reference was made to the national health service as an institution that we can be proud of, that the people are proud of and that is about fairness. The legal aid system is also an institution that is about fairness. It is one that we can be proud of, but it is not one that in polls people say is a No. 1 priority. That makes it even more important that we as a Parliament and a Government make sure it has integrity, but it cannot be excluded from the Budget round.

Why can we proud of it? Members do not have to take my word for it. Just take the word of the Secretary of State, who has been maligned and caricatured in many ways, but I am convinced is open and is listening to this consultation. We need to take his word for it—

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Where is he?

[Mr Burrowes]

Let us not get into the “Where is he?” business, or who he meets with. Let us take this a bit more seriously. Let us listen to what he said in the document. He said:

“Access to justice should not be determined by your ability to pay, and I am clear that legal aid is the hallmark of a fair, open justice system.”

That is what we have all been saying throughout today’s debate. He went on to say:

“Unfortunately, over the past decade, the system has lost much of its credibility with the public. “

I look at the criminal legal aid system, predominantly in police stations and magistrates courts. The Secretary of State went on to say:

“Taxpayers money is being used to pay for frivolous claims, to foot the legal bills of wealthy criminals, and to cover cases which run on and on racking up large fees for a small number lawyers.”

The proposals seek to deal with that; for very high cost cases, I welcome that.

Police stations and magistrates courts have been under cost control for a number of years, with real-terms cuts. Is there evidence that the system has lost credibility with the public and we must change the system wholesale by introducing price competitive tendering? I think not. When we look at the elements of our system and ask what is delivering quality and what is making us proud of it, we see that it is the fact that it is based on the principle of choice. Yes, we can look at procurement going forward, but we cannot undermine the principle of choice.

When we look at those that I and others have represented over the years, we can characterise them as the good, the bad and the ugly. Choice ensures that the most heinous, wretched criminal is represented and has a choice of lawyer. The most worthy of saints also gets the choice of lawyer, without judgment or conditions. That is an important principle of which we can be proud. It means that, when dealing with the regular clients that I have represented over the years, we can enter a timely guilty plea, which is efficient; we can achieve a sentence that takes account of their mental health needs or drug needs and go the extra mile to make sure that they get drug rehabilitation.

We can also represent the young innocent because their parent has asked us to go down to the police station. They want to choose someone they trust, who can understand the person’s special educational needs, problems of communication or learning difficulties. They need their own solicitor to be involved. We must have choice, yes to protect the vulnerable but also to ensure quality, to ensure that there is a client base that is protected and maintained but also to ensure mutual trust and good will in the system.

Let us look at the costs of justice so that we can deliver efficiency. But let us also listen to the Ministry of Justice over the years, which has said that choice is the key deliverer of quality. Let us listen to Lord Carter, who conducted an independent review and said that choice had to be maintained. Let us also recognise our small firms, who make up three quarters of legal aid firms and do the business end—the 90% of cases that go through to magistrates courts. They are delivering out of good will—yes, they are paid, but a fairly limited wage—because they care about the system. They need to be maintained and encouraged. We need to go along with it, with a timetable and proper consultation so that we deliver an efficient justice system for the benefit of all.

Protecting Children Online

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I am grateful, as always, for the chance to speak in and listen to a debate in the House on this incredibly important topic, and I will not focus on the unfortunate partisan tone of some of the proposals. I would love to support the motion, and if it had been better worded or perhaps more accurate it would have been easier to do so.

I want to respond specifically to some of the criticisms raised in the motion and refute them absolutely. Criticism has been made of the implementation of the Bailey review recommendations, and those of the parliamentary inquiry in which I was joined by more than 60 Members from across this House and from the other place including—as I have said—two hon. Ladies from the Labour Benches and several of my colleagues from the Government Benches. The inquiry came up with a series of recommendations. In 2011, the Bailey review recommended active choice in which parents have to choose whether they want filters, as well as more help for parents. The four main fixed-line internet service providers control 80% of the home internet market—this relates to a point raised earlier. They signed a code of practice to offer such a filter, and said they would roll it out within a year by October 2012. That deadline was met, but as many Members will remember, a cross-party group of MPs and peers did not feel that it was adequate or went far enough.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend who has championed this cause in the House, including in an Adjournment debate back in November 2010, which also coincided with the Safermedia conference. She has been raising the issue of harm related to pornography, and making the point that it is not just a fringe issue for one campaign organisation but a concern shared across the House. That momentum has helped to drive these changes, which will continue, and we do not need to resort to partisanship.

[Claire Perry]

I came to this agenda as a mother, a feminist and someone who is deeply concerned about the long-term social experiment we are conducting with our young children. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said it was good that we had an atheist leftie on the panel as that helped balance out some of the others, and it truly was a coalition of many minds coming together—I hope that will not be depicted in Hansard as an accurate description.

Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was for internet service providers to introduce account filters that protect all devices in the home with one click. Only four out of 10 parents in the country have installed device-level protection of any sort on their home computers. That is completely unacceptable, but the situation is complicated. We all have multiple internet-enabled devices and it is simply not good enough to say that consumers are stupid. We called on internet service providers to introduce one-click filtering on the home network, but as the Minister said, we were told by more than one ISP that that was technically impossible. Guess what? They are all going to implement it by the end of the year—a testament to the ongoing campaigning of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The motion rightly starts with the issue of child sex abuse, recent cases of which have caused so many of us such distress. I want to start by praising the brilliant work of the Internet Watch Foundation; like many other Members, I am one of its champions. I thank the EU for funding it, and I say to Google, “We’re glad you have increased the amount you give to the foundation, but that doesn’t mean we don’t want your taxes.”

I want to focus on the second part of the motion, which considers the broader issue of child protection on the internet. We know that 90% of children live in homes that have internet access, and more than half of those children have internet access in their bedrooms. I got those figures from the report produced by the inquiry on which I was proud to serve with the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). It includes some excellent recommendations, and it has moved this agenda forward in an important way. She described me as fulfilling the need for a representative on that body from the leftie atheist end of the spectrum. We were able to put on the agenda an issue that had not been sufficiently addressed before. Since then, I have been thinking about how many children have internet access not only in their bedrooms but on the mobile devices in their pockets. I suggest that that applies to a substantial proportion of our children.

[Mr Burrowes]

This right-wing Christian served on the inquiry along with that left-wing atheist. Does the hon. Lady agree that the momentum created by the inquiry has led to internet service providers becoming more receptive and that it has moved things on? In some ways, it has created a sea change. We now need to work with them to ensure that they bring about real, practical change, rather than simply positioning ourselves.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I do not think that that is what is happening in this debate. I will come to that point in a moment, as it has also been raised by other hon. Members.

The conclusion of our cross-party report was that parents need help, a topic that has been dealt with to some extent already in the debate. We need to think of better ways of helping parents, because what we have is not enough. I genuinely think that home-level security controls can make a huge difference. The technocrats on the Conservative Benches might suggest that such controls are much less powerful than we think, but they are much more powerful than what is often used currently. We must not make the best the enemy of the good.

Companies need to step up to the mark, and we have been able to put pressure on some of them to do so. During our inquiry, TalkTalk showed how it would be possible to have home-level security arrangements, even though other companies said that it would not be possible to do it in that way. Now, those other companies are beginning to face up to the fact that it is possible.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland]

I believe that Methodists and Catholics should have exactly the same rights as humanists, Baptists, Jews and Quakers. That is my whole point. I do not accept that some religions should have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony but not others; as a liberal, I find that indefensible. My right hon. Friend has to accept, as do I and all right hon. and hon. Members, that marriage is being redefined; the state has chosen, through its Parliament, to do that. Therefore, now is the time to deal with the complex, multi-faceted and, indeed, confusing and discriminatory current marriage laws and to carry out the reform properly, which is not happening.

I suspect that there is also a practical dimension to my right hon. Friend’s question, and I am happy to address that. In order to have the necessary separation between civil and religious ceremonies, we would need to ensure that no religious minister was able to convey the rights of legal marriage. Nevertheless, it is perfectly possible, either through the presence of a registrar at a belief-based or religious marriage ceremony, or by another process, to have that conveyed at the same time. If my right hon. Friend is arguing against that separation, he is defending the situation that the Government are proposing, which will mean having to legislate on what certain Churches may or may not do and needing a complex system of law to ensure that other Churches, including the one he belongs to, are not then forced to do things they do not want to do. If we have a proper separation, none of those things is necessary, and surely that is the sensible way to proceed.

I have had support from all sorts of different sources, including ministers from Churches of various denominations and other religions who are saying that this is indeed a sensible way to proceed. On the Gay Leeds website there is an article by Colin Ross in which he says:

“This seems a very sensible approach to me, I am a gay man and not religious. If I wanted to spend my life in a loving relationship recognised by the state I want to be able to do that—without any religion having their opinion on it—but what is more I want to have the same rights as everyone else. The current Marriage (same sex couples) Bill does not offer equality, the legislation is flawed it still doesn’t provide equality especially in respect of pension rights when one partner dies and issues affecting the Trans community, likewise the Civil Partnership legislation was not about equality—as it neither gave equality to marriage and also did not allow opposite-sex partners to have Civil Partnership as well.”

Similarly, in the release that he put out today under the headline, “Gay marriage bill is not full equality”, Peter Tatchell says:

“Instead of bringing same-sex couples fully within the ambit of existing marriage law, the bill leaves some aspects of marriage law different for gay and straight married couples. Although these are relatively minor, they violate the fundamental principle of marriage equality for all.”

He goes on to say:

“While this may be a progressive reform of marriage legislation, it makes the law unequal. If we want marriage equality, that’s what the bill should give.”

We should also have equality of religions and belief systems, and the Bill does not achieve that either.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the debate on this subject; we had a shorter debate in the Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is clearly explaining that redefining marriage raises lots of complications. Perhaps if we had gone back to first base and had a longer, more considered consultation about the redefinition of marriage, although perhaps not quite as long as the one we are about to have on civil partnerships, we could have reached a more consensual view about the state’s involvement in unions. Has he made any representations to the Church of England? Would not his new clause have an impact on the relationship between Church and state, particularly with regard to the right of every parishioner to get married at their local church?

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.

I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.

If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

First, I want to thank the Clerks in the Public Bill Office for their patience, diligence and fairness in dealing with all the draft amendments that were submitted in the Bill Committee and the remaining stages.

We are in an extraordinary situation for what is the Third Reading of a Bill that redefines marriage, and I never thought our Government would have done this. There was no clear manifesto commitment, no coalition agreement on it and no Green Paper—there was just a sham consultation—and there are no significant amendments to the Bill beyond the civil partnerships review. We have had programme motions that have denied all MPs the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail. Consciences have been constrained. Indeed, a recent private poll of MPs showed that at least one third of Members did not believe they had a free vote on Second Reading. Let us see what happens on Third Reading, but that will no doubt create a concern in the other place when it comes to discuss the Bill on 3 June, if it passes its Third Reading tonight.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their diligence in Committee. If we had not served on the Committee, there would have been almost no scrutiny of the Bill at all.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We find ourselves in the unusual situation that none of the political parties put this in their manifesto. Does my hon. Friend agree that the other place will have complete legitimacy if it chooses to reject the Bill because the Salisbury convention should not apply here?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and the other place is certainly looking in great detail at the way we have handled the Bill.

I welcome, however, the fact that, after the 13 sittings of the Bill Committee and yesterday’s debates, the Government have finally recognised the concern that the impact of the Bill will go beyond the marriage ceremony. My constituents need an explicit assurance that the Bill will not curtail their reasonable expression of their belief in traditional marriage, so I welcome the Government’s late undertaking last night in relation to schools and free speech. We must go further than that, however. If Members believe in traditional marriage and in liberty, they should vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Jim Shannon]

I, in turn, want to thank the hon. Gentleman for his hard work in the Bill Committee. Was he encouraged by the Christian ladies and gentlemen who attended the Bill Committee over a period of five or six meetings and energetically supported us as members of it and by those who took part in the prayer vigil outside over the past two days and who prayed hard?

[Mr Burrowes]

I do indeed welcome their prayerful support and, indeed, the fact that there has been engagement from those who are on all sides of the argument.

There has been much tolerance and respect in the debate from those on both sides of the House, but I must take this opportunity to say—I have informed the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) of my intention to do so—that there have been comments that have gone beyond tolerance. There have been intolerant comments that were, frankly, offensive to my constituents and many of his. How dare the right hon. Gentleman equate the position of Christian Members of Parliament such as me and others with the slave traders of Wilberforce’s time? Wilberforce supported traditional marriage and would, I am sure, have been on the side of the dissenters on the Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that by playing the race card and accusing the Bill’s opponents of being in step with the racists and traffickers of years gone by, he is offending not just me—that does not matter—but the majority of the black and minority ethnic communities who are opposed to the Bill? He has offended the black majority Church leaders in his constituency and mine who wrote to The Times recently and said:

“If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman… The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.”

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

Unfortunately, we are running out of time.

What is pernicious is equating hon. Members’ opposition to redefining marriage with previous discrimination on the basis of race. That plays into the hands of those who have accused me and many hon. Members of being homophobic or bigoted simply for standing up for marriage—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Member for Tottenham shortly. Such intolerant reaction to our belief in marriage runs the risk of being fomented by the state orthodoxy in the Bill about the new gender-neutral meaning of marriage. For our constituents—those who really matter—those who disagree risk vilification and discrimination and they certainly will not get the protection they deserve under the Equality Act 2010.

[Mr Lammy]

I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.

[Mr Burrowes]

The Bill is triumphed over as being all about inclusivity, when what it has done has caused division, not just in the Conservative party—that is not the most relevant point—but in the country. The settled, respected position on supporting civil partnerships and the previously united concept of marriage between Church and state have now had a wedge driven between them by the Bill. Indeed, we had late resolutions to try to deal with the inequalities that are still apparent. What unites the opposition to the Bill is an unshakeable belief that will not accept the state’s redefinition of marriage and will recognise only the distinctive value of marriage as the bringing together of one man and one woman.

Throughout its passage through the House, the Bill has lacked legitimacy and scrutiny. I urge all hon. Members to exercise their consciences, listen to the real concerns of their constituents and join me in voting no on Third Reading.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Given the drive across government to support the recovery of those addicted to drugs and alcohol, can the Justice Secretary assure me that offenders will not be released without planning— they are often released on a Friday night, into the hands of dealers sitting on the streets—but will be met by rehabilitation experts, those who provide a network of recovery champions referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and those who know best how to enable people to go straight?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give that assurance. First, I am looking hard at the issue of Friday night releases. Secondly, the through-the-gate structure will ensure that whenever someone leaves prison they will be met at the gate by an organisation that will take immediate care over their lives. Thirdly, Members will see in the document that a joint project between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health will be trialled to measure the impact of a more substantial through-the-gate rehabilitation treatment service, with a view to extending it more broadly as and when we know the results.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady will know that the Government are absolutely committed to the importance of equality and fairness and of getting more women involved, not just at the top of our organisations but throughout them. What we and other parties are doing is making sure that we develop that pipeline of great women to take those positions in future.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to prevent women from becoming victims of human trafficking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Raising awareness with potential victims in source countries and training front-line professionals in the UK are key to our work in identifying and preventing the exploitation of potential victims of all ages, genders and nationalities.

[Mr Burrowes]

Given the shocking statistic that British girls trafficked for sexual exploitation make up nearly half of all modern-day slavery victims in the UK, what voice and help is the Minister giving those voiceless and helpless girls?

[Mrs Grant]

The Government recognise that, sadly, trafficking can and does occur in the UK. The inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking brings together all parts of the Government and raises awareness of trafficking, which can affect boys and men in addition to women and girls, across the UK. The group also highlights the tailored support available through the Government’s contact with the Salvation Army. The police are also doing a great deal of very good work to tackle trafficking.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that not all Churches have the same governance structures in place. Therefore, the legislation we introduce needs to recognise the different position of the Church of England and the Church in Wales. I am sure that when he looks at the legislation he will see that we are amply dealing with the question of the important protections each of those individual religious organisations require.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

This question of religious safeguards is an issue of conscience that will rightly be determined by free votes across the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proper way to address such an issue of conscience is through a Committee of the whole House, as has happened in the past?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that from the start our party has wanted to listen to all views on this issue. Questions to do with the proceedings of the House are matters for the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House, and I am sure they will have heard his comments.

Transforming Rehabilitation

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This is absolutely about a reduction in reoffending. I have believed for a while that we should carry out this measure. I was particularly pleased when the Prime Minister invited me to take my current position. I absolutely believe that I should try to lead with the reform, and the Prime Minister is absolutely behind it. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in some parts of the United Kingdom, such matters are devolved; I hope that we are setting an example that others will choose to follow.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for fulfilling another manifesto promise in this rehabilitation revolution. Will we be following the great model of the National Grid young offender programme, which moves people into work? Its reoffending rates are in single digits, in contrast to the unacceptable rates nationally. Can we follow through with that model and replicate it across the country, so that we have a conveyer belt not into crime but into employment?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to the work done not only by National Grid but many other companies in this area. I have visited the Timpson’s workshop, which involves the father of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). It is a first-class facility in Liverpool jail of the kind that I would like to see more of. The more that we can engage the private sector in helping offenders make the transition from prison into employment, the better. I pay tribute to all those organisations, and particularly National Grid.

Church of England (Women Bishops)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bradshaw]

No, I am afraid I do not agree. For the record, I support establishment, because it provides for what I call a servant Church—a Church that is there for anyone. Many of us will have had experience of that in our constituencies at times of great civic celebration or mourning or simply in the lives of our constituents who may not feel themselves to be particularly religious but find the Church of England is there for them when they need it when they wish to baptise, marry or bury a loved one.

With establishment comes privileges, such as the presence of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords for example, but with those privileges come duties, one of which is the legal requirement for Church of England legislation to be approved by Parliament. To those who say we should not be talking about this, I say not only that we should be but that we do not have a choice. If Synod had passed the Women Bishops Measure, the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I and a number of other hon. Members and Members of the other place sit, would have had to consider and approve it in the coming months. There would then have had to be debates and votes on the Floors of both Houses.

What has been forgotten in the debate since the Synod vote is that it is perfectly possible that we in Parliament might have rejected the Measure. It is interesting reading the proceedings of this House on women’s ordination more than 20 years ago. Then, Parliament acted as a brake on progress. I remember Members such as John Gummer, Ann Widdecombe and Patrick Cormack, who ensured that extra safeguards for the opponents of women’s ordination were written into the legislation.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the issue of women bishops, but does he agree that the vote was not simply about the principle of being for or against women bishops? It was about protections for dissenting voices, like those written into the legislation to which he refers. When we talk about those who were dissenting, we should not just characterise them as being for or against women’s rights when a significant number are simply taking a doctrinal view.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I shall come on to that in a while.

I was making the point that back then, Parliament acted as a brake on women’s ordination, but in the intervening two decades there has been a huge change in attitudes in both Houses to gender equality in general and on the role of women in the Church in particular, as we have experienced and witnessed women’s ministry in practice in our communities. My assessment is that when a resurrected Women Bishops Measure comes before the House, the main danger for it is not that it will contain insufficient safeguards for its opponents but that it will contain too many and be deemed inconsistent with widely accepted views on equality.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We are of course concerned about all victims. The scheme provides some payment in recognition of loss of earnings, but it was never designed to compensate for a full lifetime’s loss of earnings. Eligible applicants will receive a clear, predictable sum that will supplement other amounts that they may receive from other sources, such as state benefits. Our changes to the scheme should also allow victims to receive payments in a much speedier manner.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Do not the changes confirm the important principle that, although the state is not liable for compensating for the criminal actions of others, it has a particular responsibility for the victims of serious crime, to ensure that they do not have to wait months or even years for compensation from an unsustainable scheme?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, I agree completely with my hon. Friend. Our reforms have put the criminal injuries compensation scheme on to a sustainable footing, which will enable future generations of victims to benefit.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has been very fair. At the outset, I said that I accept that there should be a reduction in the budget and that I am willing to work with the Government if they reconsider the draft scheme, which, as he knows, is identical to the one that gave him so much difficulty.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted the following:

“The scheme does not aim to provide individually tailored compensation packages covering each and every type of damage...Anybody who thinks that it does misunderstands the nature and purpose of the scheme.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 14 July 2008; c. 13.]

Those are the words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), when the compensation scheme was last considered in 2008. Does he agree with that and does he recognise the context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We are both lawyers and have an interest in this area—I was a criminal defence practitioner. I also have form as a shadow Justice Minister, and was one of the Members who considered the last revision to the scheme back in 2008. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) accused me of peddling myths when I simply quoted the then Under-Secretary of State, who, when the scheme was last considered, said:

“The scheme does not make the state liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. It is a recognition of the public feeling of sympathy and solidarity with blameless victims of violent crime. Since 1964, the state has sought to provide a monetary award on behalf of the community that is not compensation for all of the injuries suffered, but a recognition of that solidarity, fellow feeling and sympathy.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 14 July 2008; c. 13.]

I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their solidarity with those who suffer injuries as victims of crime. It is one thing to express solidarity, but it is another to jump on a bandwagon on the backs of victims of crime.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) accused the Government of degrading the victims of crime, and that is a very serious charge. I remember that during my years as a shadow Justice Minister I spoke to many families of homicide victims and the associations standing up for them who regaled me with accounts of how they had been let down by the criminal injuries compensation scheme, having to wait for months and months. They were already victims, and then they were victims all over again—victims of an inefficient scheme that left them without recourse for months and even years. They did feel degraded and yes, there is a need for reform.

What did the previous Government do? They consulted, as they did a lot in those days, publishing “Rebuilding Lives - supporting victims of crime” in 2005, which considered the issue of refocusing the scheme more on serious crimes. They decided not to do that. Instead, they decided to make the scheme more administratively efficient to address the fact that it was grossly oversubscribed and there was not enough money in the pot. As was typical of the previous Government, they ducked the issue. They ignored it and did not address it. As we know, the issue of administrative efficiencies continues, and it is not possible to deal with the money available in an efficient way.

[Karl Turner]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be rewarded for his loyalty to the Government, but as a criminal defence solicitor would he not do better just to accept that this is about making cuts? That is the reality—cutting the budget of this very important compensation scheme—and he should admit it.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am a very patient man, but this issue has dragged on too long and people’s patience has been exhausted as they have waited for some compensation from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The reality is that the scheme cannot be afforded. Last year, the authority was provided with additional funding and a total of £449 million was paid to victims, the largest amount in a single year. Despite the cash injection, total liabilities currently stand at some £532 million. This Government will not ignore the historic underfunding of the scheme. We will not hide behind administrative efficiencies. We are facing up to this difficult issue. We want to express solidarity, but we are not jumping on the bandwagon. We cannot simply have a sustainable scheme if it has to go cap in hand to the Treasury every year asking for a top-up. That does not do justice to the cause of victims. It must be sustainable and on a stable footing. We need a decent, open and transparent way to deal with compensation.

[Sadiq Khan]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Dod’s is up to date—is he still a PPS?

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, that is the case.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thought so.

[Mr Burrowes]

Fair enough, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that all Members have a right to speak up about issues concerning victims. Opposition Members certainly do not have a monopoly on that. As the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, this Minister, like previous Ministers, has had to pick up the legacy from previous Governments in terms of compensation for victims. That only £30 million was paid by offenders in court-ordered compensation is not acceptable, given that the criminal injuries compensation scheme costs more than £200 million a year. Like others here, I remember going into court as a defence practitioner. After a defendant was convicted, sometimes a request would come from the court for the application for compensation but there would be nothing in the Crown Prosecution Service file. The information would not be available, and applications would just go by the board.

When a victim impact statement comes through, there is no information about the details of compensation, so they have to go down the long, laborious route of making a civil claim or pursuing criminal injuries compensation. We are saying that they should get the justice and compensation they deserve in court. As one of the architects, I encouraged that approach, and it was followed through quite properly. We now have a proper statutory duty to order compensation, not just in terms of what the Government have sought to do with the victims’ surcharge for those who have fines imposed, but in serious cases involving those who have community penalties and have served prison sentences. I remember too many clients who felt that they got away with it in the sense that there were no victims. The person who gets shut out is the victim.

We have quite properly introduced what was a legacy of the previous Government. We remember many a piece of legislation from the previous Government—one that was on the books in 1997 was the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, which was not implemented by the previous Government. Why was it not implemented? Because the advice the Government apparently received from the Home Office was that they would never find the work in prisons for prisoners to do to make it viable. We are not simply going to accept that; we will make sure that offenders pay for their crime and pay when they are in prison. That is what we are doing.

Despite the cowardice of the previous Government when it came to victims of crime, we are now ensuring that £800,000 each year will go to victims of crime through court-ordered compensation. That will avoid the labyrinth of compensation schemes and avoid the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) about local commissioning. The compensation will go directly to victims when it is ordered, as it should be ordered, by the courts. We are picking up a legacy and that is why it is important to consider the issue in its proper context.

Not only is the victim surcharge being extended in terms of the 1996 Act and court-ordered compensation, but we are removing the £5,000 cap on orders to offenders to pay compensation in magistrates courts. I remember victims having to wait months, if not years, for the opportunity to get redress, with offenders having gone off to the Crown court. That is being changed. The cap is being removed to allow compensation in magistrates courts.

Recently, a constituent visited my surgery who was concerned because she had never received any compensation. She was the subject of a serious burglary. Months later, the offender was found, the offence was taken into consideration in a clear-up, and he went to court, but the victims were not even told so no application for compensation was made. That happens time and again. We need to ensure that offenders pay for their crime. That is what victims want. They want justice. They want redress. We recognise that the scheme has a part to play, but a contributory part. Compensation is perhaps a misnomer when we are talking about wanting to deliver justice properly. That is what we are doing. We are delivering that to ensure that £50 million—let us try and get more—goes to victims. Let us ensure that we are on the side of victims. We will not jump on a bandwagon; we will make difficult decisions to ensure that the scheme is sustainable, fair and just.