Criminal Justice System

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I want to speak about information and draw attention to the Victim Support survey, which stated that 82% of people did not know their local candidates for the position of police and crime commissioner. We have seen the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) working hard to change that percentage. More than two thirds of those surveyed thought that they should be better informed about an offender’s progress and what an offender is doing, particularly if they are serving a community sentence.

The Government have set as a priority the issue of information. Indeed, in response to a question that I asked in the House on 18 September, the Justice Secretary said that that has to be a priority. It has been mentioned before. Louise Casey told me that across a whole range of issues affecting victims the big task needed to improve the service dramatically is relentless information throughout the criminal justice system. She said that in 2010.

The previous Labour Government talked a lot about the issue, too. Indeed, in 2002 they threw £11 million at the Crown Prosecution Service, setting a target of tracking all cases of victims online by 2005. Sadly, as with many other targets set by the previous Government, that was not met and the money went into the ether.

We must ensure that we can do better than that. From my own experience—I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor, although not practising much now—I know that the system of criminal justice is too closed and too insular. The coalition programme said clearly that we must be the most open and transparent in the world, and that light must also shine in the shadows and darknesses of the criminal justice system.

We have some momentum across the political spectrum. The Institute for Public Policy Research report this year supported the tracking of cases online. In these days of information technology, we must be able to enable victims to track cases, from the moment when they are reported to the point at which justice is served. All too often the CJS Online information is largely impersonal, and when victims want personal, relevant, useful and timely information, it is lacking.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that victims are entitled not only to things being tracked properly and so on, but to proper compensation? Has he looked at the Government proposals on the cuts to compensation and does he agree that they need to be abandoned?

[Mr Burrowes]

I am happy to talk about that and, if the right hon. Gentleman is patient, I will respond shortly, but first I must finish my train of thought on information. It is important not to lose the momentum gained from the development of online crime mapping and take it into online victims’ justice mapping. That must happen. Yes, there is benefit from social media and peer support, but there are examples from across the sea, in Florida, where VINELink can be used to track information properly online. Avon and Somerset has TrackMyCrime and a 90% satisfaction rating for victims.

On the case for compensation, I was the shadow Justice Minister in 2008 and during a delegated legislation Committee it was interesting to note the concern in respect of removing or limiting the scope of compensation under the criminal injuries rules. The Labour Government were seeking to reduce the scope then, but I did not see the attention and concern among Labour Members that I see among them now.

An issue that we should all recognise is that “criminal injuries compensation scheme” is a misnomer; it is a criminal injuries contribution-to-compensation scheme—it is a contribution and essentially limited. Homicide victims who have not come through the criminal justice system but are going through the highly bureaucratic process do not get adequate compensation; they get to a maximum level, which is a derisory amount for the victims of crime in many ways. It is essentially limited, and compensation has to be broader than that.

Yes, we should provide the support, in particular where the offender has not been identified and brought to justice—that lies within the scope of the scheme—but we ought to recognise the progress made by the Government. For the first time, we have a statutory duty for compensation on all offenders who come to court. Let us ensure that, when cases get to court, victims are properly compensated, so that they do not have to go through civil and other remedies.

It is also planned that offenders will now have to pay an extra £50 million into the victims’ pot; there is the prisoners’ earnings scheme, which will go to victims, as well as the additional surcharges. Let us recognise that the issue of compensation covers a whole range of areas. Let us get the right compensation and the right information. Let us ensure, as I am sure we can with the new Minister, that we carry out the central task of doing so much more, so that those surveys from Victim Support and others do not come back and tell us that too many victims feel that the criminal justice system does not treat victims fairly.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Having done my previous job and given my current job, I will obviously examine that matter carefully. Of course, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the backlog was not created under the current Government. We inherited it, on a much larger scale, two years ago.

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

Too often, victims of crime get inadequate information about their case. What are the Government doing to ensure that better information technology is used so that victims are given the right information at the right time?

[Chris Grayling]

I regard the provision of information to victims as one thing that we really need to focus on. I have sat with many victims of crime and their families who have said that one of the biggest frustrations has been not having information about what is going on. I assure my hon. Friend that, although it is early days in the job, that is very much on my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the collection backlog, and thereby raises the collection inadequacies of the previous Administration which we are now having to sort out. In 2011-12, the payment rate was 106%, and last year, for the first time since 2003-04, the outstanding balance was reduced by £16 million—that is, 3%.

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

Given the new statutory presumption that victims of crime will be compensated, can we ensure that whatever the means of offenders, they will all have to make amends to their victims?

[Mr Djanogly]

Absolutely, and if that is by way of a fine, we intend to collect it.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

We are looking at local commissioning of victim support services by police and crime commissioners. Then we must make a decision about which victim support services are commissioned locally and which remain to be commissioned nationally. The homicide service and rape support centres are currently commissioned nationally. After the consultation, we will consider the matter and reach our decision about whether those services should be retained nationally.

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

Does the Under-Secretary agree that one of the greatest needs for victims beyond seeking justice is timely information—what Louise Casey has called “relentless information”? Will my hon. Friend assure me that all steps are being taken with the Home Office to ensure that victims are treated not as an afterthought, but as a priority when information is released?

[Mr Blunt]

I can definitely say yes to my hon. Friend. There has been a steady improvement in services to victims and witnesses in the past two decades. The resources that we are making available from offenders and the move to restorative justice are part of a much wider process of engaging victims much more centrally in the criminal justice system. I am therefore very happy to give my hon. Friend a positive response.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

The Government have calculated the cost of accepting the amendment at between £5 million and £6 million, which is a mere 4% of the cost of providing legal aid to under-18s. What thought has been given to the cost, both human and financial, and the lasting implications of the proposals? Children and young people might not be able to get the help that they need at the most critical point, and they could easily be overwhelmed. In the worst cases, they could face homelessness, permanent exclusion from school or spiralling debt leading to crime. The criminal justice and welfare systems and the NHS will bear the far greater cost of picking up the pieces, and local authorities will bear the cost of the removal of legal aid for unaccompanied child asylum seekers. I urge the Government not to overturn the amendment. Targeting the most vulnerable in this way is simply unjust and a false economy.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will not, as the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole debate.

In regard to Lords amendment 194, the Government have repeated their intention to continue to provide legal aid for victims of domestic abuse involved in private law family cases. However, as children are necessarily involved, I am naturally concerned that the adults caring for them should have unfettered access to legal aid, so that they can protect themselves and their children. The Government’s U-turn on the definition of domestic abuse is welcome, but it does not deal with the crux of the matter, which is that the evidence required to prove domestic abuse on an assessment for legal aid is unduly restrictive.

Victims will pass through the narrow evidential gateway. Broadly speaking, an order will need to have been made within the past 12 months or still be in place, and the abuser will need to have a criminal conviction or be party to ongoing criminal proceedings for abuse. The evidence will have to have been generated within the past 12 months. On that basis, a letter from a refuge, to which a woman has fled from domestic abuse, stating that she is a victim would not suffice, and neither would a letter by a social worker stating the same thing. Victims who have not previously sought help from the police or lawyers, those who are too scared or proud to do so and those enduring low-level but nevertheless unacceptable abuse are among those who might be denied support.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

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

17. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Yesterday, in a statement to the House, I launched a consultation on far-reaching proposals on the support provided to victims and witnesses of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think that 51% of victims have a factual basis for saying that. I share the hon. Lady’s concern, however, that whenever questions are asked, if they are asked in the right way, we get that kind of answer. We have to get across to the public that the system does indeed punish offenders properly and attempt to reform them, and that we are steadily attempting to improve the support that we give to victims. It is extremely important that the criminal justice system should give the highest regard to victims, because protecting and giving justice to them and their families is one of the principal aims of the service.

[Mr Burrowes]

Will the implementation of the Government’s welcome victims strategy ensure that convicted offenders take personal responsibility for their crimes and make reparations to victims? Will it also, once and for all, take out of circulation the dreadful term “victimless crime”?

[Mr Clarke]

I share my hon. Friend’s view of the significance of this issue so that, wherever possible, criminals should make reparation for their crime and compensation should be paid to the victim. We are looking to take further action to reinforce the need for courts to try to make a compensation order whenever possible, and we are looking at ways of steadily improving how we collect the money from compensation orders when they are made. We are seeing steady improvement, but we need to go further.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.

I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.

I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.

I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.

I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.

Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.

Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.

This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience in this area. I declare an interest as a duty solicitor still on the books for doing my duty at police stations. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the practical application of a clause that I understand the Government have indicated they have no immediate plans to implement. Will he expand on the details about the interests of justice test? Does he agree that there is specific interest of justice in respect of the advice and assistance at the police station given to a detainee who has already lost his liberty? The issue of stating his case is different from what it would be in court, and he might need specific, independent advice.

[Karl Turner]

I would need more time to think about that, but I am tempted to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point. On the first point, however, am I supposed to believe the Minister when he says, “Well, we want this on the face of the Bill, but we are never going to use it.”? That is absolute, utter and complete nonsense. I asked my researcher to make inquiries with the Library and find out on how many occasions the previous Government—of whom I am entirely proud—may have used this provision as a tool. My researcher came back to me to say, “As far as the Library is concerned, there is no example whatever of a Government building provisions into an Act of Parliament that they never have any intention of using.” It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Gummer]

At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.

We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.

[Mr Burrowes]

All Members want there to be proper access to justice for all, and informed legal advice that can address miscarriages of justice and uphold people’s basic human rights in police stations. Might those charges be best recovered at the point of conviction? That would not create risks in respect of access to justice. Also, in prosecutions by the Department for Work and Pensions and other agencies, applications are made that cover the costs for the whole of the investigation as well as the court costs.

[Ben Gummer]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior experience of such matters. There might be a mechanism under which retrospective charging would be possible. We could debate that, and Members on both sides of the House would make reasonable arguments. Given the phrasing of the provision currently under discussion however, such a debate is not possible now.

I hope the Government will be able to provide assurances on another problem. In principle, I am against contingent legislation. I remember sitting up in the Public Gallery when I was very small, watching others in this Chamber discuss prevention of terrorism legislation. The then Opposition, headed by Neil Kinnock, were arguing passionately against that legislation for precisely the reason I am discussing. I do not think that they were right in that circumstance, but I find troubling the idea of putting contingent legislation on the statute book that could be re-enacted by order later without reference to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Government will either flesh out their proposals for the retrospective charging of defendants should they be convicted or decide to approach this matter in a different way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

As we look forward to Christmas and see today the Third Reading of a criminal justice Bill, I am reminded of previous Government Bills that ended up as Christmas tree Bills with baubles being hung on them at any given opportunity as they went through Parliament. I am sure that as this Bill goes to the other place, Ministers will want to ensure that further baubles are not hung on it in the form of extra pieces of law that take the fancy of noble Lords, as well as any little elves.

I am particularly grateful for two important baubles in clauses 113 and 114—the significant victory for victims of crime concerning knife crime and serious injury by dangerous driving. One could look at the bottom of those provisions and see “Made in Enfield” on them. Six years ago, the Galli-Atkinson family in my constituency came to me after the sad loss of their daughter, who was the victim of a road crash in 1997. They told me about the impact on them of losing their loved one through the actions of a dangerous driver. They had campaigned vigorously for changes in dangerous driving legislation and increases in penalties, but when they came to me there was unfinished business with a gap in legislation. That led to my tabling an amendment in 2006 to try to plug that gap by ensuring that there is a specific offence of serious injury by dangerous driving, and that is now in the Bill.

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that we now have a maximum sentence of five years for such offences. That deals with issues such as the very recent incident involving Rachel Jones, who is aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously at 98 mph by Carl Smith, who was unlicensed and drunk—an all too familiar story, sadly, across this country. Rachel was left with severe brain damage, and she will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith’s two-year jail sentence as “a joke”. Thanks to the Bill, there need be no more jokes like that; such offences will be taken seriously and will attract a five-year sentence.

Clause 114 deals with knife crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for championing this issue locally and nationally, and raising awareness in Enfield and elsewhere of the prevalence of knife crime—

[Karl Turner]

What about me?

[Mr Burrowes]

I was talking about knife crime, but I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on injury caused by dangerous driving. He made his case very well in Committee, and I recognise my omission.

Knife crime is a real issue; I have seen many cases going through the youth courts. Sadly, there seems to have been a blind spot when it comes to sentencing, however. There has not been uniform enforcement of the law in this area, and there is a need to plug that gap. Under clause 114, anyone carrying a knife who is threatening and endangering life is likely to go to prison. If they are 16 or over, they will have to go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, we must pay due regard to the circumstances of young people, but the intention of the clause is that a custody threshold will have been reached. That has been welcomed in Enfield and across the country.

The Bill is good news for the victims of knife crime and of dangerous driving. The duties in the Bill relating to compensation are now going to be systemic, and that is important to the victims of crime. Prisoners will need to consider their victims as they serve their sentences; when they earn money, it will go into a victims’ fund. We will also at last see an open door to businesses, ensuring that prisons will work. The prisons Minister joined me in celebrating the 2,000th graduate from the National Grid young offender programme. Those people are now getting into real work and getting out of crime. Their reoffending rate is a very low percentage, compared with the national average. The Bill opens up the way for projects such as those, and many more. On prisons, we want to say that we are not locking out the community; we are open for business.

This is a reforming Bill; it does not simply seek to introduce more legislation without due regard. As we look to the new year, I want there to be a resolution that we shall not be coming back to the House next year with another piece of criminal justice legislation. I commend the sentencing part of the Bill to the House.

Justice and Security Green Paper

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Well, we will look at that, because I stress that this is a Green Paper and we are seeking cross-party consensus, which, were we ever to go into opposition again, I trust we would maintain on such subjects. The shadow Home Secretary made the same point, and we will look at it, but the idea that the Chairman’s party allegiance is an important consideration is not immediately obvious to me. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman confirms that the current Chairman, who happens to be a Conservative MP, is a former Foreign Secretary and whom nobody criticises as Chairman, is the right person to be Chairman. A rule that the Chair switches party might be relevant to other Committees, but for this Committee it is not quite as necessary as it obviously is for a Select Committee.

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

I commend the Justice Secretary for drawing the politicised sting from the false battle between justice and security. Will he give us his early thoughts on the possibility of creating an inspector-general of the intelligence services in order to ensure that oversight is concentrated in a single body?

[Mr Clarke]

The idea is floated in the Green Paper, and it often comes up. We will obviously look at it, alongside all the other things we are looking at to make the security services more accountable, but it is a suggestion often made, it remains a live issue and we will consider it very carefully.

Ian Puddick (Internet Crime)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I do not know whether it is something in the water, but Enfield has recently produced constituents whose cases are of high national importance, which are challenging legislation, international treaties and guidance. I refer, of course, to my constituent Gary McKinnon, to Andrew Symeou in the neighbouring constituency, and to Ian Puddick, the subject of this Adjournment debate.

I do not wish to entertain the House with the salacious details of this case, which are at times complex and at other times bizarre and, frankly, quite frightening. I wish to explore the principles and practice involved in the case, about which the whole House will no doubt be concerned, as they are fundamental. My primary concern, which again the whole House doubtless shares, is with the principle of equality before the law—the principle that money and wealth should not be used to warp the course of natural justice and that equality should not be eroded in the age of the internet and super-injunctions, which we have seen in recent times.

It is only right for me to start by explaining some of the details of my constituent’s case. In June 2009, Mr Puddick became aware that his wife was having an affair with her employer, who is a board member of a large reinsurance firm. He found on her phone explicit text messages from this man, which then led to his wife’s confession that the affair had been ongoing for some 10 years. In his emotional state, my constituent began calling clients of this large firm, informing them that their manager had used company expenses to fund an affair with another employee. When the manager concerned became aware of this, he hired a private security firm, linked to his organisation, to discredit my constituent and to build a case of harassment against him. Mr Puddick received a phone call from the chief executive of the security firm, who reportedly said, “Our pockets are deep…we will bury you.” How was he buried?

In August the same year, my constituent’s home, office and his company accountants were raided by 16 officers from the City of London police counter- terrorism and major crimes directorate. They removed his personal computers, his mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras and even his personal sat-nav and sent all this equipment to a high-technology crime laboratory for testing.

My constituent was subsequently arrested and decided not to have a lawyer. He then gave a full and frank confession that he made those phone calls to clients and he apologised for it. He was then charged and stringent police bail conditions were attached. On the first occasion he attended court, the bail conditions were relaxed as it became immediately apparent that my constituent was a man of good character and not likely to commit any act of violence or to make any threats. The court realised that the case needed to be dealt with proportionately.

I understand from my constituent that, to the surprise of the magistrates, when the officers were asked about the evidence that provided the basis for this case of harassment, it became clear that my constituent’s wife had not even provided a statement. Despite all the extreme, disproportionate and expensive investigations that had gone on, which seemed to suggest a major crime, the one witness statement that one would have expected to have been brought forward did not materialise. Any right-minded person listening to the debate—and certainly those listening at the back of the court at which Mr Puddick first came into the public gaze—would have questioned why this was happening.

A trial was set for April the following year. Before that date the man who had had an affair with Mr Puddick’s wife resigned from his position, and the case was dropped. One might have thought that that would be the end of it, and that there would simply have been complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission—as, indeed, there were—which would have been processed in the usual way.

If the case had ended in that way we would not have ended up discussing it here at 4.15 on a Thursday afternoon, but Mr Puddick was rightly appalled by what had happened, and particularly concerned about the disproportionate actions that he felt had been taken by the police. For reasons of his own, which one may understand and with which one may feel a great deal of sympathy, he set up a blog—www.ianpuddick.com—to which he uploaded a love letter that had been sent to his wife, as well as a video describing the disproportionate response of the police and questioning the actions of the private security firm. Entries to the website www.policeexpenses.com and other similar addresses were redirected to the original blog.

What then happened, in May 2010, seemed to my constituent to have come out of nowhere. He was arrested again, this time not by local detectives but by the City of London police murder squad. He was told by investigating officers that he could not put that information on the internet. He replied, “I am just putting out information that is true.” The response from the police, which might be considered chilling by anyone concerned about freedom of speech, was, apparently, “Even if it is completely true, you have committed a criminal offence.”

Mr Puddick was subsequently charged, again, with harassment, but on this occasion on the specific grounds that he had created and distributed three websites which were designed to discredit an individual both professionally and personally. He denied all the allegations, and the case went to the magistrates court in June this year. It was put to the magistrates that Mr Puddick was guilty of harassment through Facebook, Twitter and his websites, and it was partly because of those extra allegations that the case made national headlines. However, it was proved in court through cross-examination at an early stage that there had been no use of Facebook or Twitter.

I understand that an officer from City of London police offered the explanation that the counter-terrorism and murder squads had been called because of the level of distress that she believed my constituent was causing through his websites. One can only speculate, looking at other websites, on whether such distress constitutes grounds for using the precious and important resources of the counter-terrorism and murder squads. I am glad that the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) is present to note my concern in that regard. My constituent was finally found not guilty of the charge of harassment on 17 June this year.

Having listened to that extraordinary tale, some may believe that it involves a purely operational issue which really belongs on the pages of the tabloids—where it did indeed appear in this instance—rather than in the Chamber. However, as I said at the outset, there is a key point of principle: the principle of equality before the law. As my constituent has stated on numerous occasions, if this could happen to him, it could happen to anyone.

I want to raise two key points with the Minister. The first is the apparent influence of wealth and authority on the implementation of the law. It seems clear that had it not been for the well-connected private security company and the high profile of the business involved, my constituent would not have experienced such a disproportionate use of force and response. If there is another reason, no one is aware of it. Indeed, it is interesting that the man who had the affair with Mr Puddick’s wife was even advised by police in Sussex—the county where he lives—that this was a civil, not a criminal, matter, and anyone looking at this case would say that that seems to be a very reasonable judgment to make. Despite that, City of London police were approached and the raid in May 2009 followed. My constituent argues that the second raid almost a year later, following the publication of the blog and website, was also based on information that came from the private security firm and outside interests.

We can go back into history—indeed, all the way back to AD 43, when there was the first recorded mention of equality before the law, by Pericles, and we can then eventually go on to the Magna Carta and other important integral documents in our constitutional law that establish that equality before the law is an important principle. Pericles stated:

“If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences…class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit”.

Those words and our fundamental principles based on the Magna Carta and established through international law and treaty obligations would seem to be all but forgotten when the 16 counter-terrorism officers from City of London police raided a residential property because, from the point of view of my constituent, who is a mere plumber, that seemed to be in the interests of more powerful and wealthy business interests, which were concerned about the effects on reputation and sought to challenge the concepts of free speech and the truth.

One could take a view about the appropriateness of how my constituent went about this matter. One could criticise that and say that it was not right, but questions have to be raised about the fact that those actions were criminalised to the extent that they were, and that the police decided to act in the way they did and used the resources they used, which is why the matter has come to this Chamber. This is a fundamental issue in the wider context of our legal system. As a practising lawyer, I have concerns, but this should be of great concern to all Members.

I do not need to remind the House of the recent super-injunction controversy and the complexity added to that by Twitter and the open-platform social media that provide a forum. The key issue in that debate was not merely the affairs and the scandals, but the fact that our legal system sought to support, or some would say protect, those individuals of some privilege who were able, through wealth and influence, to seek to protect their reputations and their future incomes, regardless in some respects of the consequences and the human collateral damage.

It appears that my constituent’s experience is not an isolated one, since having secured this debate I was contacted by Dr Howard Fredrics, who is similarly charged with harassment because of a website exposing misconduct by officials at Kingston university. Even though, as I am also informed, Kingston police found no evidence of harassment, the Crown Prosecution Service went ahead with a case against Dr Fredrics, just as the CPS decided not to take account of Sussex police advice and a case was mounted against Mr Puddick. In both cases the common factor seems to be people and institutions of influence, and one would have to say that the concept of the rule of law has been challenged. Those are two examples, but there may be more, which might have gone unnoticed because of the under-reporting of magistrates court cases. The reason for this debate is that they should not go unnoticed by this House or the Government.

The disproportionate response to my constituent’s case raises fundamental questions, and we cannot cast them aside as an operational blip. The reaction casts a shadow over the way in which we respond to issues, not least issues of free speech. These issues are becoming much more complex, but they are so important. That applies to matters on the internet and online, and matters outside and offline.

The issues raised by my constituent’s case, which relate to free speech and the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with enforcement, particularly in respect of the internet, are important and of wider significance. When dealing with cases of cyber-stalking or online harassment, it is important to consider how enforcement is applied and how the guidance really does affect these issues.

We need to recognise that there is no suggestion that Mr Puddick’s comments on his website were untrue. The prosecution because of his comments relied on the argument that the repetition and spreading of the factual points amounted to harassment. It is important for me to make it clear that I entirely agree with the Government’s policy and approach to this issue. The case law and policy make it clear that harassment is illegal online as much as it is illegal offline. We learn of some awful cases of cyber-stalking, and they should properly be prosecuted and punishable with the full force of the criminal law. If an individual persistently contacts or attempts to contact a victim and the court concludes that that conduct constitutes harassment, the police need to follow through proportionately to where the evidence leads them and a prosecution needs to follow, where appropriate. That should happen regardless of whether such behaviour occurs in person or through online social media.

I recognise that sound guidance is in place on dealing with cyber-stalking and harassment. I invite the Minister to consider, after this debate, whether that guidance is fit for purpose and whether it is appropriate, particularly given how it seems to have been wholly misapplied in the case of Ian Puddick. The Government are rightly examining areas of vulnerability in respect of young people and those with disabilities, who need particular protection when it comes to dealing with the internet. We need to recognise that we have a particularly strong duty to those people, and it is right that the Government, in applying the guidance, are examining those areas. We also need to ensure that the fundamental principle of the equality of the law is applied across the board.

As is clear from the account that I have given, it is clear that the proper guidance and way to apply that guidance is far removed from what happened in Mr Puddick’s case. He was told that he was not allowed to put up his website because it, in effect, damaged the reputation of another individual and that that damage amounted to illegal harassment. Since this case has reached the public gaze, several commentators have remarked that if Mr Puddick had been found guilty, the floodgates would have been opened for a number of other such claims.

I am sure that other hon. Members, perhaps in an unguarded moment, would be tempted by the possibility of prosecuting the odd blogger who wrote an article about them with which they disagreed. I have had an attack website constructed against me. It is dedicated to opposing me and, some would say, to damaging my reputation, and colleagues would doubtless be able to give examples of different actions that have taken place. However, many of us would also recognise that there is a role and place for the law, including the civil law—there is no doubt that the law on libel and defamation has a role to play. I welcome the Government’s review into super-injunctions, which is examining how we can properly ensure that our approach to these whole areas of privacy, and libel and defamation are made fit for the modern-day purpose. I would also welcome a proper look at the current Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and how they apply in all the different circumstances.

I am calling for a level playing field—the level playing field that has been established over many years and that this country, rightly, is proud to promote and apply. I hope that my constituent’s case will set a precedent or at least be a marker to suggest that such websites and blogs should be properly considered in the context of an appropriate and proportionate application of guidance in both criminal and civil law. It is important that, as online technology develops rapidly, we ensure that the Government also allow for proper clarity in their guidance so that we do not face situations such as that which sadly caused detriment to Mr Puddick.

We also need to be particularly watchful when criminal law is involved. Cases such as Mr Puddick’s might be rare—we do not have the exact numbers—but we need to recognise that when there is enforcement by the police, liberty is lost and other consequences arise, we must be ever watchful and mindful of the serious repercussions and how they can chip away at, or even take a chunk out, of the fundamental principles that we all hold dear.

In conclusion, the issue in this case is not the affair that some people might have been interested in reporting on, and it is not about my constituent and his phone calls to clients. This is not about the man or the affair. The issue is whether Ian Puddick has made the case that large companies and private security firms have an influence that has led to a taxpayer-funded police force following what some might suggest was a taxpayer-funded crusade. Indeed, it was called Operation Bohan—I am not sure why it was named after Bohan, the son of Rueben—and the whole operation was dedicated to this case, seemingly to silence his accusations because they might harm financial interests.

One could argue that if the complaint had been made to the City of London police by an ordinary member of the public—say, a plumber like my constituent—the estimated £1 million would not have been spent investigating and prosecuting the case. It would, I imagine, have been dealt with as a civil matter, worthy, if the police had been involved, of a quiet word from them. I say that the £1 million is an estimated figure, and Mr Puddick has been asking questions to find out the true costs. If possible, I would be interested in hearing at some point—I know the answer will not be available today—how much the police operation and prosecution cost.

Without any further information, it would seem that Operation Bohan flew in the face of the key principle of equality before the law by seemingly putting the interests of wealthy organisations above the free speech and basic rights of the everyday citizen. I do not say those words lightly. I have been a criminal solicitor for 14 or so years and have great respect for the rule of law, for our system of justice and for how it is properly applied day in, day out, by police officers and prosecuting authorities. When we see cases that seem exceptional and that are exceptional in their application of power, we must stand up for our constituents. It is worse for everyone, not just my constituent, that the operation was funded by the taxpayer. My tax-paying constituents—all of them—played their part in paying for the anti-terrorist officers, the high-technology laboratory and the extensive surveillance. Indeed, they also played a part in the Crown Prosecution Service’s seemingly doomed attempt to prosecute Mr Puddick.

My constituent is concerned about what he would call an apparent perversion of natural justice that must be identified, addressed and appropriately challenged by Ministers. The Government and the Minister are rightly big on accountability and I fully support that, but we also need to recognise that there must be accountability for the actions of the police and the prosecuting authorities. They must be brought to account in cases such as Mr Puddick’s so that we can ensure that another innocent member of the public is not awoken by an armed counter-terrorism unit acting, perhaps, on the whims of wealth and power.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate, which it is a pleasure for me to respond to on behalf of the Government. I know of his long-standing interest in these issues, particularly on ensuring that freedom of expression is protected and I fully understand why he seeks to raise his concerns about the case of his constituent, Mr Ian Puddick. I appreciate that my hon. Friend seeks to put the case for his constituent very forcefully, which he has certainly done.

I know that my hon. Friend understands that Ministers do not have a role in commenting on or interfering in specific cases, but it is important to restate that point. In this country we have a principle of operational independence for the police and it is very important that Ministers do not seek to direct police investigations or to comment on them improperly. However, it is also very important that we have a proper system of accountability for the police and their actions in relation to the law and more widely. I will return to that point. I am afraid that I cannot therefore comment on the legal aspects of this individual case, but I understand that the City of London police took the allegation of harassment against Mr Puddick very seriously and that it was investigated in line with national procedures.

I also understand that the City of London police received a complaint last September relating to the conduct of officers involved in Mr Puddick’s arrest on suspicion of harassment in August 2009. Following a thorough internal investigation the force’s professional standards directorate found no misconduct. Mr Puddick was informed of that decision last December and had the right to appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not know whether he has pursued that course, but my hon. Friend might wish to contact him and help him in that regard. We have a formal complaints procedure whereby the conduct of police forces can be properly investigated precisely to deal with situations in which people feel they have been improperly treated by the police. Having the IPCC means that such complaints and police forces can be independently investigated quite separately from Government, as is proper, but there might be reasons why Mr Puddick has not taken that course.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I will certainly follow up the details of my constituent’s complaint. My presumption is that the progress of his complaint was subject to the fact that proceedings were ongoing, but they have recently been concluded and he will now be able to pursue many avenues. The problem he has probably encountered is that his complaint is not like usual complaints about how people have been treated in detention or on arrest, but is more of a systemic issue about an operational decision that was taken, and so he might find it harder to get to the truth. I therefore invite the Minister to make inquiries into why, given the facts of the case, the decision about Operation Bohan was taken.

[Nick Herbert]

My hon. Friend is seeking to draw me into precisely the sort of comment about individual investigations that I am prohibited from making. Nevertheless, I will say that it strikes me that this case would merit an appeal to the IPCC. I might be wrong about that and will ensure that I follow up the debate by sending him formal advice on whether that remains an option for Mr Puddick.

My hon. Friend referred to the involvement of counter-terrorist officers in the case, which the media also reported on. I can confirm that the investigation was run by the force’s major investigation team, which, although it was set up primarily to deal with major crime, occasionally deals with cases outside its remit to relieve pressure on other departments within the force. The team sits within the force’s serious crime and counter-terrorist directorate, which might explain the confusion and the suggestion that counter-terrorist officers were involved in the investigation.

I know that my hon. Friend will agree that, when the police receive an allegation of a crime, they should consider it properly. Indeed, they are required within the rules set out to record it. The offence of harassment can cause the victim great distress, and the police are committed to responding in a timely manner when they receive such reports. My comments in this respect are not to be taken as an endorsement of the police action in this case, but I think that we would all agree with the general principle that it is proper for the police to respond to and investigate such claims.

The internet has hugely enriched our lives and every Member of the House is fully aware of its potency, but it can also be a useful tool for those seeking to abuse and intimidate their victims, and it is a source of particular concern to the Government that a new opportunity for crime has been created through cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and such harassment of victims. The abuse can continue for long periods, with no refuge for the person on the receiving end of the harassment, and can involve a much bigger audience, with more people becoming accessories to the harassment by forwarding offensive messages and images, making it difficult to identify the perpetrator. For all those reasons, the Government are very concerned about the growth of this form of criminality and are seeking to deal with it.

Let me be clear that we have no plans to block legal internet content or websites. Our view on published material is that it is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protection of the public and that it should be proportional to the potential harm that might be caused. In other words, it is important that the action we take, and indeed the action of those who enforce the law, is proportionate, which is precisely the word my hon. Friend used. We are making progress in this area and there will be a ministerial seminar next week on personal harm on the internet, which will focus on the two key themes of cyber-stalking and hate crime. It is important that we continue to make progress in this area. Nevertheless, I strongly agree with the principle of equality before the law, as my hon. Friend set out. It is important that police forces in this country are impartial and act without fear or favour, and he is right to restate that principle.

My hon. Friend is correct to say that I am big on accountability, and so are the Government. We seek to ensure that police forces are accountable—of course—to the law for their actions, and they are in the case before us. I mentioned recourse to the IPCC, and should Mr Puddick believe that the police behaved unlawfully in his case he also has recourse to legal action. I make no comment on whether that is the case, but the police are not above the law.

The police should also be accountable for their actions, and we seek to strengthen the democratic oversight of policing, but that does not extend to interference in operational independence, because that principle must remain. We are, however, going to give directly elected police and crime commissioners an important role in the oversight of police complaints—not to receive complaints directly, because that will still be a matter for the IPCC, but to ensure that forces generally deal with complaints properly.

I regret that that measure will not be applicable to the City of London police, because it is the one force to which we will not be introducing directly elected police and crime commissioners, but I am sure that the force itself and the authority that holds it to account will watch carefully the developments in our legislation.

On the cost of the investigation, my hon. Friend cited the sum of £1 million. I am not sure whether he thought that that was the cost of the police investigation and the Crown Prosecution Service investigation, but the City of London police state that the £1.5 million cost that was ascribed to the investigation was very wide of the mark. I am not able to respond to his suggested cost for the combined operation of the police and the CPS, but I am happy to ask that the City of London police and the CPS provide that information to my hon. Friend. Importantly, the CPS would of course have had to agree to the charges that were brought before the courts and, in doing so, have taken the view that a prosecution was in the public interest, so the actions that were taken were a matter not just for the police, but for the CPS.

Without trespassing further on the detail of the case, I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the matter and, indeed, respect the fact that he has brought it to the attention of the House. I hope he understands that I cannot interfere, but I hope also that I have provided some useful information.

[Mr Burrowes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. He will be aware, because I have raised the matter with him before, and agree that what is needed among other things in our justice system is information. Indeed, in the words of the victims commissioner, relentless information is a real driver of change and of accountability, and one aspect of that is the reporting of magistrates court cases, which often go unnoticed. I have raised two examples, but in that area as in others the benefits of more information will raise the stakes on accountability and ensure that Ministers are as aware as others of whether there is a prevalence of such cases and of the actions that could lead to criticism and to operational changes.

I therefore ask the Minister to have an eye for that, as well as just to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I will just raise one other matter concerning internet crime, which is the subject of the debate. I welcome ministerial involvement in the seminars on hate crime, which is a real concern. There is a particular prevalence of anti-Semitism on the internet, and I know that Ministers are taking on work from the previous Government in that area.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree about the importance of transparency. The criminal justice system is relatively opaque, but this week the Government have announced further moves to increase transparency. One area in which we wish to do that is the criminal justice system, and I am working on such proposals because I believe that justice must be seen to be done. I hope that my hon. Friend will take a continuing interest in that and will encourage us in our efforts.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting our action on hate crime, and I know that he understands the importance of dealing with it. In respect of this case and the issues that my hon. Friend raises, it is very important that we and the law strike the appropriate balance. Free speech is an important freedom that must be protected to the greatest extent possible, but it cannot be permitted if harm is done to others. The law exists in order sometimes to curtail the operation of free speech where such harm may be done. That is why we have a harassment law. It is right that our law enforcement agencies focus on areas where people may be bullied, harassed or subject to intimidation and threats, and that includes through the new medium of the internet. It is appropriate that our law enforcement agencies take action according to the laws that have been set out by Parliament. It equally behoves those agencies to behave in a proper and proportionate manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I have always had a high regard for Baroness Hale, who is a very distinguished lawyer, and I have heard of her opinions. I shall have to study them and perhaps even meet her to discuss them, because I am surprised by her response. Where we started from was ensuring that we did not damage access to justice for vulnerable people in matters of such importance that society as a whole would want to be sure that they were protected. Either she has misunderstood the effect of our proposals or why we are doing it. We have to get back to spending an affordable amount of money on paying for things that the taxpayer should actually pay for to defend the vulnerable. We all start as lawyers, let alone as citizens, with a slight bias in favour of legal aid because everyone is used to it, but the scale of legal aid has expanded, its scope is too wide and it needs to be reformed.

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

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for saying that legal aid will be available to defend the vulnerable. I declare an interest as one who has been a duty solicitor in the police station. I would like him to consult carefully about the practical implementation of proposals to limit legal aid for advice and assistance in police stations, given that his officials no doubt bear the scars of previous implementations that became bureaucratic nightmares. Losing the benefit of the informed legal advice that one needs in the police station can lead to inefficient justice.

[Mr Clarke]

We will look at that and consider it carefully as we proceed. At the moment, the Bill replicates a provision taken from an earlier Bill by the Labour party. It appears to give a power to take away the right to legal aid. It appears to give a power to take away access to legal advice in the police station. The last Government legislated to do that but never did it. We have no current intentions of doing it. We will consider the issue and no doubt my hon. Friend or others will return to it in Committee. I realise that there has been some concern.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As a duty solicitor, I declare an interest in—as in the title of the Bill—legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). He reminds me of many a client I have represented in Edmonton police station who fails to accept any responsibility despite the compelling case against them. He fails to accept responsibility despite the fact that two thirds of people reoffend when they come out of prison and most of our prisoners are lying idle in prison. Despite the plethora—the incontinence—of criminal justice legislation, all of which he probably had a part in as Home Secretary and Justice Secretary, victims still feel a lack of proper confidence in the justice system, but he does not accept any responsibility for that.

During the 13 years of the Labour Government, there were more than 20 criminal justice Bills, some of which I had the opportunity to scrutinise. I gave my maiden speech on one of those occasions—the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. That was in many ways one of the messaging Bills that were very much part of the new Labour project; they simply sent out a message without having any real effect. We also had many a Christmas tree Bill. For example, one of their last Bills, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, had many pieces of additional legislation tacked on to it as it went through its stages. That is another danger of over-legislation.

The shadow Justice Secretary criticised the Green Paper, consultation and further consultation on the IPP issue. What is he complaining about? Does he want us to move quickly to legislate and run the risks that we have seen before? We have a litany of unimplemented 2003 legislation that we are now having to deal with. That is part of the legacy. That legacy is not only a failure in our prison system and criminal justice system, but a failure of legislation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn and other Opposition Members have to accept responsibility for that.

One issue that will be raised in the consultation is self-defence and defending one’s property. The right hon. Gentleman and others have been involved in discussions about sending out a message on that issue. I encourage him to read the case of R v. Keane or the recent case of R v. McGrath. Those show that his efforts at messaging and putting more baubles on Christmas tree Bills have not made a jot of difference in terms of changing the existing legislation that applies in that area. We need to learn those lessons well, and this Government are doing that, because it has taken 13 months for us to introduce this criminal justice Bill. I hope that we will not come back next year with another criminal justice Bill, and that we will scrutinise this properly, making any necessary changes and then moving forward.

What we need in our justice system is to get back to the three R’s—retribution, restoration and rehabilitation, which need to be properly balanced. The Bill is not the whole story in relation to what the Government are saying about criminal justice. We would not want that. We do not show our card on the basis of how many laws we pass and the extent of this legislation, for example. Our approach is to do with our intervening early to stop many of these people getting involved in the criminal justice system. It is to do with the way we are dealing with drugs and ensuring that many people more recover instead of getting parked up on methadone. That all matters greatly, as does more structural reform.

In some areas, such as youth justice, the Bill does not have a great number of clauses. There is a recognition of the progress that has been made, including the youth rehabilitation order. That needs to be properly implemented.

One area where there needs to be retribution is knife crime, as I am sure we all agree. In our manifesto, there was a clear commitment to it, so I welcome the intention of clause 113 to make it crystal clear that anyone who threatens with a knife will receive a custodial sentence. I welcome that intention, but I know—sadly all too well in Enfield, where we have had seven fatalities in the past three years and one in the past month, all at the hands of someone with a knife—that any possession of a weapon is in effect threatening. Even if the person possessing the knife does not intend to threaten, he or someone else could well become a victim of its use if he gets involved in any disturbance later.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Burrowes]

I give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

[Nick de Bois]

My hon. Friend knows that my constituents in Enfield North will very much welcome the mandatory proposals on using a knife in a threatening way, but is he aware that, of those cases followed up involving individuals carrying a knife or using a knife offensively, more than 30% involved people under 18, and that the legislation before us will not apply to such people? Perhaps that is something we should press for.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend may be making an early bid to be on the Public Bill Committee, but we certainly need to recognise, particularly in areas such as Enfield, that such behaviour is prevalent, that sadly all too often those under 18 are involved in gangs and possess knives, and that clause 113 does not apply to them.

[Philip Davies]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the current guidelines for addressing threatening behaviour with a knife state that a magistrates court should refer the case to a Crown court because the magistrates court is not considered to have sufficient powers to punish such people? A six-month penalty could easily become a maximum, rather than a minimum, sentence for the offence.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes the point that the current guidance states that such people should receive a serious custodial penalty, and the clause tries to reaffirm that in statute, but we need to ensure that, notwithstanding the worthy intentions of the clause, we do not downgrade the simple possession offence; otherwise a clever lawyer might use it to put in an alternative plea of simple possession, which lends itself to a lesser, non-custodial penalty when compared with the aggravated offence. Ministers may want to pass a note to the Sentencing Council to make it clear that the current guidance on simple possession should remain intact.

I also recognise that there are retributive elements in the Bill. There is the important extension of curfews, which my hon. Friends will very much welcome, and we need to recognise that there are more tools in the box for dealing with matters on a community basis and retributively in order to ensure that liberty is restricted and for a longer period.

The second element of the justice system should be a proper restorative element—the basic requirement of justice to make amends as far as possible. Victims should be central to our justice system, and I hate it when people refer to a victimless crime. It greatly concerns me, because when I see what is happening in Enfield, in particular, and elsewhere, I do not see a victimless crime. That is why I welcome the clause that will ensure a positive and much stronger duty to order compensation for any loss or damage, for personal injury and, indeed, for bereavement or funeral payments.

We all know of cases in which people have waited months and months to hear about a claim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for funeral payments, and the Bill will give much greater access to, and opportunity for, compensation involving people who are victims of the most serious crimes. Similarly, there needs to be proper reparation and compensation for minor crimes.

Currently, the compensation order system is seriously underused. Only 18.1% of offenders in 2010 were ordered to pay compensation. That must change and, as a result of this Bill, it will, but I encourage Ministers to ensure that the duty on all courts extends to reparation, so that not just financial but other means of restorative justice are recognised.

Often, when the door is shut on the prisoner, the victim is shut out as well, so we need to ensure that when prisoners are inside they feel a proper sense of responsibility and do not forget that there is a victim. That is why we are implementing the Prisoner Earnings Act. It was enacted in 1996, and ironically we have had a plethora of legislation since, but that good piece of legislation, which Hartley Booth introduced, is now and quite properly going to be implemented.

The Act recognises that we are not going to accept the answer that I received from the Home Office, when I asked it why it was not going to introduce the legislation in 2007. The Home Office said, “We don’t think that prisoners will be able to find the work or work enough to make this viable.” We are not accepting that, because this Government have a much greater ambition.

We are not going to let prisoners sit idle in their cells; they will do proper work purposefully, and their earnings will go into a victims’ fund. The expectation is for £1 million: £1 million of ambition that the previous Government did not have; £1 million that will and should go into the hands of victims. We need to ensure proper enforcement, too, so that the current outstanding compensation payments of some £152 million reach the right people.

We need to ensure that there is retribution, restoration and rehabilitation. The rehabilitation revolution will go much further and deeper than simply this Bill, because it will ensure that we have payment by results. The right hon. Member for Blackburn talked about outcomes—from a previous Government who were all about process, targets and messaging. Well, we are into outcomes, but we are into proper outcomes, so we will have not just the Peterborough example, although that is welcome. Our ambitions are much greater than simply to introduce a social impact bond in Peterborough.

[Mr Straw]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Burrowes]

There is not time, unfortunately.

We will ensure that that is done across the country—paying people to get into work, to stop reoffending and to ensure that they get off drugs. We are driving through a much more ambitious agenda of recovery to stop this everlasting cycle of criminality—being on drugs, committing crime to feed a drugs habit, going to prison and so on. We will break that cycle of crime.

There are concerns, whether it is magistrates wanting to extend the period of imprisonment to the maximum of 12 months or on legal aid, but this is a good Bill that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

This Bill is a shambles and so is the Lord Chancellor’s approach to crime. Far from being a significant reforming measure, it is an incoherent fragment. The Opposition admire the panache of the Lord Chancellor, who is a much-loved and robust performer and who has sought to rise above the U-turns forced on him by a Prime Minister who is more interested in headlines than in reform, but it does not wash.

The Justice Secretary should take particular note of the criticism from his Back Benchers and the significant criticism from the Chair of the Justice Committee. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) kindly said that he thought that the baby was not totally being thrown out with the bathwater, but I am not sure about that and I am certainly worried about the health of the baby.

When the Secretary of State was Home Secretary, he presided over a crime wave. He also offended virtually every profession in sight, especially the police, by the cavalier way in which he fulfilled his duties. This Bill is a shambles, his strategy is in tatters and everyone is in confusion. The main problem is that he has such a piecemeal approach to the issue. The Justice Committee’s report, “Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment”, states:

“A piecemeal approach to justice reinvestment is unlikely to work and a holistic approach to reform is necessary, with a very clear and explicit statement of the purpose of the whole system against which organisational aims can be tested to assess their contribution to cutting the extent and seriousness of offending and re-offending.”

This Bill fails that test.

In that report, we also called for better use of resources and a focus by every part of the criminal justice system on cutting offending, because that is what victims want. We keep being told that the views of victims are important, but more than not to have become a victim in the first place, they want to know that they will not become a victim again in the future. Therefore, the purpose of the criminal justice system—and of sentencing—is to ensure that victims are protected from further offending.

Let us cut to the chase—cutting the number of people in prison may save money, but cutting prison numbers to save money is to approach the problem from the wrong end. There is only one acceptable reason for cutting prison numbers, and that is that offending and reoffending have fallen; fewer people are becoming victims; there are fewer offenders who need to be incarcerated; and our streets and homes are safer.

It is a matter of some pride to me that the number of places in young offender institutions has been cut for precisely those reasons. As a result of the work of the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams, fewer individuals are reoffending and so fewer places are needed. That reduction in numbers leads to immediate savings, but it is even more significant given that time in custody often acts as a training course in criminal activity for young people. So the long-term benefit of keeping people out of youth offending and preventing reoffending patterns is enormous. That makes it very odd that the Secretary of State will do away with the Youth Justice Board and I urge him to reconsider. I know that he is taking many activities inside the Ministry of Justice—and I am glad that he is encouraging the continuation of those activities and the youth offending teams—but he is taking in people who, as part of an independent body, have acted as the touchstone for success in that aspect of reducing reoffending.

[Mr Burrowes]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously has great experience and was no doubt the architect of the first such legislation in 1997. He will be interested to know that reoffending rates were very high over the 13 years to 2010, and that is something for which the previous Government should be held accountable. Does he not welcome the fact that in this Bill there is now provision for supervision of prisoners who have a sentence of less than 12 months? That has never happened in the past. Giving supervision to offenders after they are released will no doubt help to reduce reoffending levels.

[Alun Michael]

I have said for a long time that we should do more to ensure that short sentences work and that they do not accelerate offending. In this legislation, there are things to be welcomed, but the big picture is not bright enough for us to welcome the Bill as a whole.

Yesterday, in answer to my question, the Justice Secretary said:

“The Sentencing Council is already under a duty to provide information about the effectiveness of sentencing practice”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 738.]

Unless there is a clear focus on reducing reoffending and ensuring that that is understood by sentencers, the Bill will not be effective. That is why I call on the Justice Secretary to change his approach and put a real focus on the work of the Sentencing Council not just to provide information about the effectiveness of sentencing practice but to ensure that sentencing practice is driven in ways in which it can increase the success of the system.

The work of the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams shows what can be done if there is a clear and unremitting focus on cutting offending and reoffending. Why not use a new mechanism to focus on the 18 to 25 age group? We are seeing a reduction in the numbers of 18 to 25-year-olds who are reoffending because of the success of intervention with young offenders. Why not learn that lesson and apply it properly to that reduced cohort so that we can further drive down the numbers who reoffend?

The Justice Secretary has admitted that the criminal justice system is fragmented; it does not work as a single system. A series of agencies operate to their own objectives and are held to account for different purposes. Bring it all together. Make it coherent. Let us have some coherent legislation from the Justice Secretary. The criminal justice system should pay attention to the Select Committee’s recommendations on justice reinvestment. The whole of the system should focus on reducing reoffending.

Victims want to feel that they are less likely to be offended against in the future. The Home Affairs Committee heard evidence from people who had been involved in restorative justice and it found that it actually works. When offenders are faced with their offending, they are less likely to reoffend. They are made to engage in relationships, which they have often failed to do in the past and which may have led them into offending in the first place. They do not see the victim as another person.

Although it is essential that we do something about what has been described as relational justice, there is nothing about it in the legislation. Too often, it is low down the agenda. The possibility is there but we are not driving it through the system and getting the benefits. I appeal to the Secretary of State to push relational justice up his agenda.

I also appeal to the Secretary of State to work with the Home Secretary to derive greater success from crime reduction partnerships, which again have been important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said in his contribution a few moments ago. We have been successful in reducing crime, but we can go further and go faster if the right mechanisms are used. In this regard, I commend the violence reduction project in Cardiff, which, since I last referred to it in this Chamber, has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation and is the subject of an article in The British Medical Journal. Such acclaim shows that the approach in Cardiff has worked. It has driven down violent crime by 25% more than the cohort of cities with which it can properly be compared. The project works; it reduces offences and protects people from becoming victims. That is what needs to be put at the centre of our criminal justice system.

I regret that we have a Home Secretary who has failed to defend her budget and is imposing cuts on the police that are too deep, too soon and disgracefully front-loaded, and a Secretary of State for Justice who, by his failure to apply clarity and logic to the challenge of justice reinvestment and effectiveness in cutting crime, is doomed to fail. Sadly, it is the victims and not he who will pay the penalty for that.