Sentencing

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

I will come on to deal with that point in a moment, but the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said is factually wrong.

Successive Governments have sought to codify the amount of discount one gets off a sentence for pleading guilty, and the first real attempt at codification came with section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This introduced a requirement for the court to take account of a guilty plea. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) may have been alluding to section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which included statutory provision on reductions in sentences for guilty pleas; the Sentencing Council sought to provide structure and judicial direction in this matter.

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

Is it acceptable for a defendant pleading guilty at a timely opportunity—let us say, for an offence of rape—who should have been liable to a tariff of five years, to get a third off, meaning a sentence of 40 months, which would have led, in turn, to the individual being released after 20 months? That would have happened under legislation passed on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch. Indeed, it could have led to an even earlier release if further credit had been given for remorse or co-operation with the police at an interview. Is that acceptable?

[Sadiq Khan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he will be aware that the maximum discount that can be given on a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity goes up to one third, but if there is overwhelming evidence against the individual, the maximum discount is only 20%. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that, because I know he still practises in the criminal courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

When I was a Whip, the quality of interventions was a lot better than it is today.

[Mr Burrowes]

I want to help the shadow Justice Secretary, so I should not be accused of pure opportunism. Does he think it is acceptable that a convicted rapist with a third off their sentence for plea could be released after 20 months: yes or no?

[Sadiq Khan]

I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s question that he will support our motion when it is put to the vote at 7.15 pm.

[Mr Burrowes]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

I have been generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman can have a third bite at the cherry after I have made some progress.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Mann]

I note the volume of Members taking part in the debate: I think attendance is under 3%. Doubtless everyone has better things to do. I note that fact because at some stage—not today—quorums will have to be challenged in the House if Members, not least on the Government side, do not turn up to promote the Bills that they propose.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on his excellent approach to trying to dismantle the Bill, and I fully support new clause 5. Let me give an additional reason why it is appropriate for the House to vote for the new clause. When this fragile coalition collapses, which will no doubt happen soon after the May elections, if this Bill has reached Royal Assent by then, rather than wasting primary legislative time immediately, my hon. Friend could use a statutory instrument to remove the most objectionable parts of the legislation, which were most eloquently described by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). He wishes to direct where police resources go and to make operational decisions, such as those, as he said, on the question of whether policing should be single or double. Those are fundamental operational decisions, and it is quite extraordinary that anyone could oppose the new clause, which seeks to rectify the damage that such a loss of operational independence will cause.

This is an outrage. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and I come under the same police authority in Nottinghamshire, and I do not know whether he has found a single member of the Nottinghamshire police who supports the idea that an elected politician with such powers should be above them directing their work, as the Government propose. In my experience, there is great resentment about what the Government are doing to the police, including the idea that a politician should be elected to do that job, on whatever manifesto. That person might come from the mainstream parties, might be a maverick independent or might be a former senior police officer who has perhaps been forced out of the police for reasons that they choose not to declare. There are many different motives why someone might wish to stand for such a position, but when there is an election, the one certainty is that somebody will be elected. We have seen this with elected mayors: however low the turnout, somebody is elected and sometimes the population is rather aghast at what they have ended up with as a result of their inaction, or their inability or refusal to vote.

It is bad enough when such things happen in local authorities, but to put such a person—an elected politician, playing to the gallery for election and re-election—in charge of operational policing matters is an outrage. This modest but well-written new clause at least offers some opportunity to pull that back. Of course, it could go further. If I were writing the memorandum of understanding, I would ensure that some of the other dangers to British policing that are being and have been brought in by this reckless Government were also rectified. There would also be an opportunity to build in something to stop the use of regulation A19, whereby experienced police officers—including those in my area—are refused the opportunity to continue in policing with the experience and training that they have built up, which the taxpayer has paid for. They want to stay on, doing a job and earning a decent living serving the public, but they have been removed by this Government. Police in my area are also very angry about police pensions.

The dangers to police pensions, and to the basis on which people join and remain with the police, which has been undermined by this rotten Government, could be rectified by some wisdom in a memorandum of understanding or in the statutory instrument behind it, or could be dealt with by emergency legislation on day one when this fragile coalition collapses.

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

It is always interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman scrutinise a Bill. He is speaking on behalf of the three Back-Bench Members of Her Majesty’s Opposition who are present. However, has he asked the people of Bassetlaw properly whether they want to have a stake in the policing in their area, to hold the police to account and to determine the priorities for policing? Is he not being presumptuous in assuming that he knows exactly what they want before there is a properly elected commissioner?

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

It may be more sensible in many cases. That is why we said in the Green Paper that we published before Christmas that we would test options for intensive community-based treatment—both residential and non-residential—and couple that with more rigorous community orders. It is important to have a punitive element for offending as well. The goal should be to ensure that offenders get off drugs, but too often that is not the case.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new drug strategy represents a significant shift from the present treatment system, which is characterised by repetitive assessments and conflicting funding streams, to one of payment by results—those results being the number not of boxes ticked but of addicts in recovery beyond the prison gates?

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree: we do have a problem at the moment. A recent study showed that nearly a fifth of offenders in prison who had ever tried heroin had tried it for the first time in prison. In some cases, offenders get on to drugs, and we also have a problem with treatments, with drug rehabilitation requirements that are not completed. We have to get more rigour into drug treatment. That is why the payment-by-results model that we will pilot to get offenders off drugs, for both community orders and post-release treatment, is such an attractive way forward.

Courts Service Estate

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

The purpose of the review was not to look at the impact of the closure of courts on the wider economies within towns, but the work will go to the remaining courts, which will have implications for putting money back into the system in those other courts.

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

I declare an interest as a court duty solicitor. I welcome the reprieve of Waltham Forest magistrates court, which has particularly effective family and youth court provision. I urge my hon. Friend to develop opportunities with local authorities to accommodate appropriate youth court hearings, so that we can deliver effective localised justice.

[Mr Djanogly]

Effective localised justice is an important part of the Green Paper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published last week, so I can say yes to that. As regards Waltham Forest, again, a delegation of Conservative and Labour Members came to see me and made a very persuasive case for that court.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of providing such support. Last week, I visited Feltham young offenders institution with the Mayor of London and saw how innovative arrangements to provide greater support and counselling for young people had a considerably reduced the recidivism rate on a particular wing in that institution. That shows that, with better rehabilitation, we can get better results. I would be very happy to talk to the hon. Lady about any specific ideas she might have for improving the system.

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

Is it any wonder that children in care do not have the necessary continuity of support once they are in custody, given that the full financial responsibility of local authorities is lost at that point? Will the Government ensure that when such children in care are in custody, they are not out of sight, out of mind and off the financial books of the local authorities?

[Nick Herbert]

It is important to ensure that the incentives are right, that we deter the inappropriate use of custody for young people and that local authorities are fully focused on what they need to do to reduce recidivism before the use of custody becomes important.

Legal Aid and Civil Cost Reform

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I realise that we have had such problems. The LSC’s accounting has been criticised and its performance has not always been what it might—hence the complaints of late payment. The commission seems to have been making great efforts to improve its performance, which we hope to maintain. Obviously, we hope that the transition to the new agency arrangements, as first proposed by the previous Government, will not interrupt that. We will continue to make sure that we do not face straightforward complaints about late payment for services that have been rendered.

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

First, I declare an interest as a legal aid lawyer. Given your earlier comments, Mr Speaker, I hope that that will have no bearing on the length of this question. Will my right hon. and learned Friend measure the success of his proposals in relation not just to the amount of public money saved but to greater access to justice, because there is not always a need for a contested hearing?

[Mr Clarke]

I hope to, but I hesitate to claim that we are providing greater access to justice given that we are taking quite a few things out of the scope of legal aid assistance. However, I share my hon. Friend’s hope that we will encourage better resolution of disputes, of which there are plenty of examples. The president of the family division, Sir Nicholas Wall, has talked about how, in many family cases, long, adversarial conflict proves not to be the best way of resolving differences between parents and certainly is not in the children’s best interests. There are plenty of other areas in which I hope definite advantage in resolving disputes will come from our proposals.

Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I am pleased, Mrs Main, to serve under your chairmanship, and to have the opportunity of debating this report, which has been around for some time. It is from the 2009-10 Session, and represents the culmination of an extensive inquiry that took place over two years. It was a unanimous report, and I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee who took part in it. I particularly single out the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who is here this afternoon and looking ready to take part in our proceedings. He has a lot of experience in this area, and made a major contribution to our deliberations, as did many then members of the Committee.

I also pay tribute to the Committee’s staff, who gave us such excellent support in producing the report, and to the many organisations and individuals who were witnesses in person, who submitted memorandums, or who took part in e-consultation. We received a lot of evidence, and we gave it a great deal of attention. The report was extremely well received by many organisations working in the field.

I shall remind hon. Members of the context. The previous Government had announced that their solution to prison overcrowding, likely further demand, and the use of police cells was to increase capacity to 96,000 prison places by 2014. The Committee was worried that a predict-and-provide approach to the problems was not sustainable in the long term. That was the approach that Lord Carter had recommended in his December 2007 review of the use of custody, but we thought it was short-sighted and could not be maintained.

We wanted to consider whether committing further resources to prison building represented the best possible way to improve public safety, and to reduce reoffending in the context of a fall in recorded crime rates and under-resourced probation services. Interestingly, there has been another fall in the recorded crime rate today—an 8% fall and a 4% fall in the British crime survey figure. I am not claiming that that is success for the coalition Government, any more than I supported the claims that the previous Government sometimes made about the fall in crime. Movements in crime statistics respond to all sorts of things, and have a curious way of being similar throughout neighbouring countries, and indeed throughout much of Europe. We are sometimes in danger of exaggerating our impact on total crime figures, although the system, through the good work of good people, is having a significant impact on the lives of many people who become involved in crime. I pay tribute to those who work in the criminal justice system and whose efforts have turned people away from crime, thereby saving other people from becoming victims of crime.

The fundamental issue is that the first duty of the state is to protect its citizens and keep them safe. We spend well over £5 billion on the criminal justice system in England and Wales, and billions more on policing and the social, health and business costs of crime. We owe it to taxpayers to calculate whether we are spending all that money in the way most likely to prevent them from suffering the effects of crime, but the reoffending rate of ex-prisoners is so high—two thirds of prisoners go on to reoffend—that it seems that we are not. Some offenders are so dangerous that they must be kept in prison or in secure mental institutions for very long periods, but for many, custody is an expensive way of not solving the problems that they present.

A number of things have happened since we produced our report. The previous Government published their response, which accepted much of our analysis, but did not accept or were rather lukewarm about the route that we had identified to deal with the problems. That might be attributed in part to the pre-election atmosphere, but it also reflected the strongly held views of the previous Lord Chancellor.

The situation has changed dramatically for several reasons. First, we have a different Government with a Lord Chancellor who holds different views from those of his predecessor, and is never slow to express them. Secondly, there is a very serious financial crisis which both Government parties and the Opposition recognise requires substantial cuts in public spending. They may disagree about precisely how much and precisely where, but there is common ground between the parties. That has caused the coalition Government to shelve plans that the Committee criticised for a 1,500-place prison, and to make deep cuts in the departmental budget of the Ministry of Justice, which will affect spending on probation and other services that provide alternatives to custody.

The Committee was not unaware of the difficult financial situation. In the report’s summary—we are talking about December 2009—we said:

“Public expenditure generally is under pressure in all areas in the worst economic climate since the Second World War. The Ministry of Justice is no exception, being tasked with finding £1.3 billion worth of cost savings over the next three years.”

The situation was bad then, and cuts had to be made, but it is recognised that the position is worse now and even more demanding. There are two differences: the change of Government and an even more serious financial situation. The third is that the Government are developing ideas such as payment by results and social impact bonds, which we did not examine and which were not part of our report. They are new elements in the discussion.

In our report, we concluded that after the election the Government would face a choice of risks: to muddle through with the previous plans to build more prisons in the hope that commitments made under the predict-and-provide model would prove to be affordable and not merely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy; or to make more radical decisions and investments, putting the system on a sustainable footing in the longer term by shifting resources away from incarceration towards rehabilitation and measures that prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place. It is far better to spend our taxes on preventing suffering from crime than on housing and feeding more and more people who have committed crimes and caused great suffering and distress in the process.

The report highlighted the fact that, although the prison population has increased as a direct result of the introduction of longer sentences and better enforcement, rather than an increase in crime, there were other contributory factors. They include the press, perceived public opinion and political rhetoric. Paragraph 36 states:

“Wider factors, such as the media, public opinion and political rhetoric, contribute to risk averse court, probation and parole decisions and hence play a role in unnecessary system expansion. … A good deal of media comment assumes that sentencing is below the level that the public expect, whereas the evidence suggests that the public—when asked to make a judgment—set out expectations that are close to the levels that are actually being set by the courts… The Government should lead a public debate on the aims of criminal justice policy, and seek to influence, as well as to be influenced by, the public response…In basing arguments for reform on the best use of taxpayers’ money, the political argument could be shifted away from notions about which party is ‘harder’ or ‘softer’ on crime and criminals to questions about the most effective use of scarce resources…It is time for an objective consideration of what is in the best interests of society”.

I welcome the fact that the Lord Chancellor has recognised the importance of rational political debate and has tried to stimulate it. That is precisely what he did in his speech at King's college at the end of June, and I hope that we will see a move away from the numbers game that he said characterised the penal policy of the past 25 years. The key messages in the Committee’s report were reflected in the Lord Chancellor’s inaugural speech and those of other Ministry of Justice and Home Office Ministers. They have moved on from the previous assumption that a high and rising prison population is inevitable.

Even without a deliberate policy shift, yesterday’s spending review made it clear that the financial situation made change unavoidable. In its report, the Committee drew attention to clear precedents that proved that it was possible to reduce the prison population and public spending without compromising public safety.

Finland successfully reduced its prison population over two periods in recent history when it decided that it could not afford to build more prisons. When we were in Finland some time ago, we questioned officials on why and how they had embarked on a substantial reduction in the number of prison places and people in custody. We expected a deep philosophical answer from the thoughtful Finns, but they said, “Well, the Ministry of Finance told us that we couldn’t have any more money for prisons.” It is remarkable how economic circumstances can sometimes create policy changes. Those changes did not result in any increase in crime in Finland, as some in this country might fear such a policy.

Some American states have become more sophisticated than England and Wales in their thinking about whether prison represents the most appropriate use of taxpayers’ money, and they recognise that the expansion of imprisonment can come at the expense of new hospitals and schools. Those states faced the same choices as we do now against a background of historically high rates of incarceration.

Several US states have adopted “justice reinvestment” approaches. That term refers to criminal justice policy reforms that are designed to reduce prison spending by redirecting resources from inside and outside the criminal justice system towards more productive, locally-based initiatives to tackle the underlying problems that give rise to certain kinds of criminal behaviour. Hon. Members know the sorts of problems involved, such as unemployment, mental ill health or drug and alcohol dependency. Such initiatives are targeted at the populations that are most at risk of offending and reoffending.

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

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has undertaken over a number of years. The report on justice reinvestment has been long in the making and it is good to bring it to light. I know that there are a number of cricket supporters in the room, so early in his innings, I would like to bowl my right hon. Friend a full toss to whack away to the boundary. Does he agree that it was disappointing that the Government sought to compartmentalise their response by suggesting that the Committee overestimated the benefits that could accrue from moving towards a justice reinvestment approach, by distinguishing between less serious and more serious offenders when looking at the impact of early intervention and prevention? Plainly, early intervention will have an effect on whether a person ends up as a more serious or less serious offender. If we can get there early, we will save taxpayers and victims a lot of damage.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It must be remembered that that was the response of the previous Government. I found that part disappointing because it got into a circular situation. If we simply look at the present prison population, we are looking at the failures of the past. If we do not change the policy, the situation will continue. I will return to that theme later in my remarks. Catching people early is of vital importance. The people who initially commit relatively minor offences sometimes go on to become those who, through drug dependency or something else, get into more serious offences and become subject to repeat custodial sentences because of the ever more serious or frequent crimes that they commit.

In 2007, the Texas state legislature rejected plans to spend $0.5 billion on new prisons in favour of a justice reinvestment approach. Half that money was spent on expanding the capacity of residential and out-patient treatment for substance misuse and mental health, community-based sanctions for offenders and post-release support to prisoners. Parole revocations were reduced, and the increase in the prison population was 90% smaller than had been predicted. Significant savings were made within two years, because the costs of increasing the capacity of treatment and residential facilities were significantly less than the cost of increasing prison capacity.

The Committee gave a great deal of detailed consideration to how justice reinvestment approaches could be applied to the system in England and Wales. We believe that the system as a whole should be revisited through a lens that looks at crime as a problem to be managed in a cost-effective way. A longer-term rational approach must be taken to policy and the diversion of resources. That would enable prisons that are currently stretched to deal more effectively with those for whom incarceration is necessary for public protection, and prevent the need for continued expansion in the number of prison places. Few hon. Members in the Chamber will not have visited prisons and seen the pressures under which prison officers work. Such officers desire more time and opportunity to devote to rehabilitative work. Ideally, they would work with smaller numbers of prisoners who need that kind of support, and they are anxious to provide it to them by using the skills that they have built up over the years.

We also suggest that probation services should be able to pay greater attention to those offenders who represent the greatest risk to the public. Lurking at the back of that is a problem to which I will refer later. We must find a way other than imprisonment to signify society’s disapproval of crime. For some, community sentences can be more demanding than prison. The week before last, we took evidence from four ex-offenders during our work on the probation service. Two of those offenders said that they had committed offences in order to get back inside, because that was easier than the community sentence on which they were engaged. In one case, the sentence did not seem to work well, because the daily supervision requirement prevented the person from taking a job. In both cases, people had committed offences that they knew would put them back in prison, which was the easier option. That is not often recognised by the public, who see prison as the only way of saying that society will not put up with crime. We must demonstrate that community sentences can fulfil that function, as well as reduce the risk of reoffending.

A priority for the Government is to find a mechanism to overcome the fact that we treat prison in the system as a “free good.” If the sentencer—judge or magistrate—has an offender before them, they may consider whether some form of rehabilitative treatment such as intensive supervision or a course of drug treatment, residential or otherwise, would be the right thing. Inquiries must then be made into whether that is available. If the sentencer says “prison”, the van pulls up outside the door and takes the person away. The prison system and the National Offender Management Service recognise that it is their obligation to take whoever the court sends. However, there is an imbalance between the automatic availability of prison, and the uncertain availability of an alternative, which might be much better in a given case.

We thought that the most promising way to deal with that issue was probably the devolution to local agencies and communities of resources that are spent on corrections. The first step would be to look at how money is currently spent on offenders across the system in Government Departments and statutory agencies. We felt that a business case could be made to move resources from a significant part of the prison building programme, if the numbers entering or re-entering the system could be reduced by a sufficient margin before contracts were signed for new prisons.

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy looked at the cost of imprisonment to the state, and developed an alternative model of investment that primarily involved investing in rehabilitation programmes that would break even over five years and yield considerable savings thereafter. It is therefore possible to reap significant rewards by adopting justice reinvestment approaches over a 10-year period.

Fundamental change in the pattern of public expenditure is entirely appropriate during times of economic difficulty. When is it more necessary to look at how we are spending money than when we realise that we have not got as much as we would like? That requires the Government to recognise that change must be facilitated by some movement of money and spending in other areas. When changes cut across departmental boundaries and involve transfers between central and local government budgets, it is rarely an easy process. We are looking not only for justice disinvestment but for justice reinvestment.

In order to release resources in the medium term by halting the prison building programme, investment is required in the shorter term. We must identify where resources are currently being wasted or duplicated, and where quick wins could be achieved by reducing the prison population if that money were reinvested. The amount required for reinvestment is relatively small when compared with the resources that would have been committed to building and running 96,000 prison places.

The Committee’s proposals are in line with what the previous Government sought to do—and significantly achieved—in diverting women away from crime. That explicitly linked the reduction of expenditure on women’s prison places with the funding of new initiatives to improve community provision. For two years, £7.8 million per year was committed to provide additional services in the community for women offenders who were not a danger to the public. That was an attempt to reduce the female prison population by 400 by 2012, as recommended by Baroness Corston in her 2007 report. Those initiatives have already borne fruit in reducing the number of women in prison. The investment required was a tiny sum in the context of spending on prisons.

The previous Government had some similar success in reducing custody for young offenders. We may no longer need a free-standing Youth Justice Board, and it is going, but we should recognise that it helped to achieve a sharp reduction in custody as a way of dealing with young offenders.

In both cases, the significant element was that there was a commissioning process, which created the opportunity to change the mix of custody and alternatives to custody that were available to sentencers. We argue that similar approaches should be adopted to deal more effectively with other groups of offenders, including low-level but persistent offenders, who frequently have problems with drugs, alcohol or mental health, or some combination of those things. The severely mentally ill could be dealt with more appropriately in the health care system.

Local services such as housing, drug agencies and mental health trusts, which could help to prevent people from reoffending when they are no longer in contact with the criminal justice system, are often under-resourced. Targeted investment in the areas where offenders and victims are known to live could ensure that services were more readily available, without having explicitly to prioritise access to offenders, whom the public would regard as a not particularly deserving target in themselves.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth brought to the Select Committee his knowledge of what was happening in Cardiff and the work done by an accident and emergency consultant there. I hope that he will find an opportunity to refer to that in the course of this afternoon’s proceedings.

Criminal Bar (Public Funding)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing an important debate, in which I must declare an interest. I have been a practising solicitor, albeit infrequently, for more than 16 years and for 11 years I was involved with instructing the criminal Bar. I therefore certainly have an interest in the debate.

There is obviously the risk of being accused of special pleading for the profession, but there is no risk of winning any votes in this debate—we all know that there are few votes to be won in standing up for lawyers. I also want to declare an interest in the rule of law, which I am sure all hon. Members who have contributed will share. That subject is of interest to my constituents and to this country. Clearly, a principle of the rule of law is that it cannot exist without there being access to justice for every citizen. An independent legal profession, of which the criminal Bar is clearly a crucial component, is the foundation of that principle.

We, in this country, can be proud of our record—of our principles, of upholding the rule of law and of our legal aid record. In any legal aid debate the statistic is always mentioned that we spend more per capita—per head—than almost any other country. However, at the same time—and rightly—one must consider public services and outcomes. So what is the outcome of this expenditure on legal aid? A recent report entitled “Effective Criminal Defence in Europe” considered which jurisdiction was best at providing an effective criminal defence. It will not surprise hon. Members to learn that the jurisdiction that came out best, along with Finland, was this country. That was largely due to the source of legal aid.

Why do we have this legal aid system? It was established some 60 years ago not because we were cajoled by an international agreement or because we felt we should be subject to any European convention; it was established because we wanted to apply the principle of the rule of law. That was summed up well by the US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in 1965, when he said:

“There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”

An independent criminal Bar funded through the legal aid system helps—indeed, it is crucial—to uphold equal justice. What is that equal justice? It is equal justice for the innocent and the guilty, for the falsely accused who gain publicly sympathy, and for the evil criminals who command public contempt. Looking back over my 16 years in the profession, I can think of some clients for whom the public would not want a penny of public money spent, but legal aid provides it and the rule of law demands it.

It might be helpful to have some distance when making the case for the criminal defence service. The following words were written by a solicitor, Paul Booty of McCarthy Stewart Booty:

“As far as those outside the profession are concerned, we get little sympathy, as all we do is drain the public purse ‘getting off’ undeserving, unemployed, drug-taking individuals on technicalities. We twist the law to our own advantage and are thoroughly unscrupulous, with no sympathy for the victims of horrendous crime. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should endure pay cuts from the government year on year; and who cares anyway, because we all drive Bentleys.

The reality could not be further from the truth. We are called to the police station at any time of the day or night. Quite often we are faced with detainees who, if they are ‘regulars’, are extremely vulnerable individuals, often living on benefit with mental illness, depression and dependency. These people are human beings and deserve dignity and fair treatment.”

And so say all of us, both those with a direct professional interest and those outside in the country.

However, although we certainly want to ensure that the system upholds dignity and respect, we also recognise, particularly in these economic times, that it cannot be immune from cuts. When looking for cashable savings in the Ministry of Justice budget, it is obvious that the legal aid budget will have to shoulder a distinct burden when cuts are made. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) was too generous about the previous Government’s record, particularly their legacy for the economy and for the criminal defence service, which has been cut to the bone in many areas and left with great concerns for the future. We can certainly look at how cuts can be made and at high-cost cases, and means-testing is at last coming back to play a part. There will also be proper case management, particularly in preliminary hearings, where we can be much smarter and more cost-effective.

I want to look briefly at the relationship between barristers and solicitors. It is all too easy to play off barristers and solicitors. Historically, they are complementary professions, which is one of the reasons that we have such a proud record. There are enormous strengths in both professions. In comparison to international litigation, the relationship between barristers and solicitors in the UK makes us pre-eminent as a profession. Similarly, in criminal law there is, in the main, a good relationship. The contrast between High Court advocates and the Bar has often been characterised too starkly. In the main, the improvement is helpful, but it needs to be dealt with carefully, with proper training and quality, particularly for High Court advocates.

Obviously, we need to avoid the abuse of the referral fee arrangements that sadly seems to be emerging in various areas. However, we should not pit one against the other. That is not the real threat to the independence of the legal profession and the Bar. There are opportunities in the commissioning arrangements for smaller solicitors’ firms to be subcontracted by barristers and brought into the family of commissioning, where previously they could be excluded by large contracts. The big threat is in the commissioning field, where we are entering a brave new world, and in the contracting process presently applied by the LSC. I believe that the way in which the LSC has operated in the past provides the biggest threat.

There are warnings that must be taken into account and that are already clear in the field of practice, and there are warnings in procurement processes. What has happened to family legal aid is a legacy of how the previous Government oversaw the decimation of highly skilled and committed solicitors, often with great experience of dealing with key issues and vulnerable clients carefully. Existing experience has, in many ways, been excluded from the process. The rug has been pulled from under the feet of many providers. We have been left with legal aid deserts, as we prophesised when in opposition. Poole in Dorset, with a population of 138,299, has been left with one family law solicitor to provide publicly funded work.

Providing solicitors of choice for vulnerable defendants is a matter of concern. In mental health law, those who currently provide for the most vulnerable often have expertise in dealing with vulnerable clients, but now solicitors are effectively being imposed on those clients by the LSC. In the area of administration, there was an example in July of the duty solicitor rotas being reissued twice for a six-month period. Firms were missed off the rotas, areas were put in the wrong position and a simple process led to chaos. Is that the prospect for the commissioning process for the Bar and others?

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that across England and Wales the number of solicitors’ firms is diminishing fast? In Stapleford, a town in my constituency, there is now no solicitor available to provide advice for people with real need in family circumstances. They must travel many miles into Nottingham for that advice, and they are often vulnerable, quite literally, faced with a violent partner.

[Mr Burrowes]

My hon. Friend makes her point well. In that context, the Minister is facing difficult decisions on funding restraints. That context is so important that I am sure he will take account of it. There is an impression that the Ministry is in chaos and that it is having to pick up the bill, but it is not the same the other way round; there is zero tolerance of any minor error when the LSC submits a bill and funding is not provided. As the Public Accounts Committee rightly concluded, the LSC lacks a grip of the basics and is ripe for reform, and I look forward to that reform being pursued by the Government.

Finally, we have to talk about money—something we do not like doing—because there is a concern about cash flow and payment. Solicitors often have to wait some time for payment, and now the goalposts have been moved by the LSC. Previously, it would step in to help if 5% of a bill was awaiting payment, but now it has moved that to 10%. That is a warning to the Bar about what happens when we get into bed with that area of commissioning.

In conclusion, it is important that we stand up for the important principles of the rule of law that underpin legal aid. We of course must cut waste and inefficiencies, which I am sure the Minister has been tasked with, look at high-cost cases and properly reform the LSC to ensure that it is fit for purpose, whatever form it takes, to deal with the new environment. Above all, we must ensure that we do not undermine the strengths of the criminal justice system and an independent legal profession accessible to all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I said what I said, and I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that I know the Bar has a valuable role and that it serves a full position in our democratic society.

The previous Government had to look at the difficult decisions that we faced in terms of the potential deficit, which we are now challenged to look at across the board, and at how we find efficiencies in the way in which we support the legal aid system financially. My noble Friend Lord Bach, as Minister before the election, tackled that issue head-on. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the notice and order issued on 6 April, before the dissolution of Parliament, which placed on record some decisions that we had to take.

In 2008-09, £2.1 billion was spent on legal aid between the criminal and civil budgets; that is an important amount of resource. It is important work and it is vital that we recognise that legal aid is essential, as is the advocacy role, in developing a civilised society. People depend on legal aid for access to representation in both criminal and civil cases, particularly those who have difficult legal problems, particularly in times of economic hardship. Legal aid practitioners provide a fantastic service and should be paid accordingly. As the previous Government recognised, there are issues with how we rebalance the funding, identify the best efficiencies and run the system in the future, and the Minister will have to face those challenges.

We have seen a huge increase in the legal aid budget from £545 million in 1982-83 to £2.1 billion in 2008-09, which is an average increase of 5.3% a year. The previous Government believed that that was unsustainable, as I believe the current Government will.

[Mr Burrowes]

The figures for the legal aid budget show that it has increased, but is it not important to break them down to show where there have been increases? For example, the criminal legal aid budget in the lower courts is under control, and indeed savings are being made, which is unique in recent years.

[Mr Hanson]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I was coming to the fact that at the moment the criminal legal aid budget is about £1.1 billion of the £2 billion, and that the civil and family legal aid budget is around £900 million. What has happened over the years—this is why Lord Bach made his decision when he was the Minister—is that the criminal law side of the legal aid budget was beginning to eat into the resources available for the civil and family legal aid budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

We will. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in such issues and some of the proposals that he has made in relation to them. We aim to improve the accountability of service providers and redress for complainants through the criminal justice system. It is important that we should address the fact that there can be confusion on the part of victims about whom they should complain to.

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

Last week an Enfield magistrate complained to me about the waste of court time. That magistrate spends one day a week dealing with prosecutions for dropping cigarette butts. If such cases are to be prosecuted, surely it would be in the best interests of the taxpayer and justice for them to be heard in a town hall, rather than in a courthouse.

[Nick Herbert]

It is important for us to look at the opportunities for the administration of justice that lie outside buildings. There has been the development of what became known as the “summary justice agenda”, which is actually administrative justice, with things such as penalty notices for disorder. However, I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about whether the case that he has raised has been dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Police Grant Report

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will have to look at the outcomes of the decisions that his Government have made over the course of the last few weeks.

There is concern across the country about the announcement of cuts in police funding. I have listened to some of the comments made by Government Members. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has left the Chamber. I believe that she asked why we were spending money on police buildings. One reason why we did that over the past 13 years is that some of the buildings were not fit for purpose. If we are to modernise our police force and have civilian staff carrying out jobs such as following up on crime reports by using the best technology we need buildings that are fit for purpose. It is about investing in a police force for the 21st century.

We should also look at the partnerships created over the past 13 years. It should be recognised that the police cannot do the job of ensuring the safety of our communities, neighbourhoods and streets on their own. They have to work with others in local government, and I worry about how the cuts in the police grant will affect partnerships that have been nurtured with local authorities and community organisations. As those partners will be affected by cuts as well, the pot that is available to them, enabling them to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour in a flexible, dynamic, innovative way, will be further diminished by the lack of flexibility that is being imposed on police forces and local authorities throughout the country.

My constituents will be keen to know how the £3 million cut in funds for South Yorkshire police will affect them, particularly given the Government’s refusal to provide the guarantee to protect overall police numbers which we included in our manifesto.

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

The right hon. Lady must appreciate—once she gets past the rhetoric—that there are difficult choices to be made about financial restraints. She mentioned her constituents. Would they be concerned about the choice to spend £6 million on advertising the policing pledge rather than on front-line services designed for their safety? If they were able to make that choice themselves, what would they decide?

[Caroline Flint]

I am interested in the coalition Government’s attitude to the way in which information is given to the public in order to ensure that there is transparency about the provision of public services. They seem to think that that is not an important part of the compact between the people and those who enforce the law. Regardless of the debating points that are made between the Front Benches, it is clear from the findings of all the surveys in various force areas about public attitudes to the police and crime statistics that crime has fallen. However, as a constituency Member I often find that the public do not know about those figures—or, indeed, about the monthly meetings held by the police, the activities of the safer neighbourhood teams, and who is working with whom. When I give them that information in my surgeries, when I am out on the doorstep or in my newsletters, they are very pleased to receive it. I am not saying that a blank cheque should be handed to those who deal with communications. The issuing of information must be thought through properly. It must be established why the information concerned is important, and sometimes we have to pay for that information to be issued.

I will say this to the hon. Gentleman. We currently have some 43 police forces. All of them have communications departments and press officers, and I believe that that is one of the functions that could be managed better across police force areas. The most important element of local policing for the residents of Don Valley is at borough command level, and the most important public face for people in Doncaster is our borough commander. Most of those people do not know the name of the chief constable; they are interested in what is happening in the Doncaster borough. Discussion about what is the most appropriate organisation and structure at force level, and about the elements beyond local crime that require particular attention, should be part of a debate about efficiency savings, value for money and outcomes that genuinely deal with organised crime better than we are able to at the moment.