Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I want briefly to put on the record my concern that the programme motion does not allow for proper debate and scrutiny of the Executive, in particular in relation to the extradition clauses and amendments.

I appreciate that there are limitations on the number of Back-Bench amendments that can be considered during the Report stage of any Bill. However, yet again, substantive clauses on extradition reform that were tabled in Committee risk not being properly scrutinised by the House. The extradition proposals make up the last of four clusters of amendments to be debated tomorrow between 2.30 and 4.30 pm, so the chances are that we will have no time to debate them.

This is not the first time that that has happened. The Government’s new forum test for US and EU extradition was tabled during the Committee stage of the Crime and Courts Bill earlier this year. The House was again timed out of any consideration on Report back in March.

The broader context is that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have loudly promised extradition reform. It is in the coalition programme, no less. The legislative proposals follow an independent inquiry by Sir Scott Baker, which was conducted at great public expense. It is surely vital that we properly consider the case for reform and deliver on the promises that have been made.

Unbelievably, the Government’s forum clause, which was slipped into the Crime and Courts Bill and which becomes law today, is worse than the status quo. It makes the repetition of unjust cases, such as those of Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, more likely, not less. We have had no chance to debate the substance of those proposals on the Floor of the House. They have had precious little critical, substantive scrutiny.

The proposed safeguards for the European arrest warrant in this Bill are more positive, but they are still too weak. Again, they were introduced in Committee and the whole House should have an opportunity to consider amendments to strengthen them, not least because they will form the basis of the Government’s case for opting back into the European arrest warrant later this year. The programme motion makes it highly likely that we will be timed out again. I fear that that will weaken the Government’s case for opting back into the European arrest warrant, when I believe the intention was to strengthen the case.

It may be a clever device to avoid proper scrutiny, but it comes at a price to our democracy. First, it means that Parliament is not properly scrutinising the powers that the Executive wield over innocent British citizens. Secondly, the lack of scrutiny leaves empty and undelivered the heady political promises that have been made about extradition reform by politicians across this House. I urge the Government to think again and to guarantee enough time for even a short, modest debate about these important clauses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Special Olympics on organising a fantastic and successful event in Bath, which my right hon. Friend the Member Minister for Sport attended. I also join her in celebrating the success of the Redditch athletes.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to strengthen grass-roots sport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Sport England is investing more than £1 billion in youth and community sport between 2013 and 2017. This includes money invested through the whole-sport plans, school games and the facilities development fund, which, at the current reckoning, has improved about 1,400 sports clubs.

[Mr Raab]

Having mentored at the Fight for Peace boxing and martial arts academy in Newham, I have seen at first hand its innovative five-pillar model to get NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—into work or study. A review by the Laureus Foundation found that it saved £4 for every pound invested by cutting crime and welfare dependency. Will my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State come to have a look at the academy and see what the Government can do to put their weight behind it?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that crowdfunding is an option for the creative industries and the arts. We will certainly be involved in that consultation. We listen to representations from trade bodies such as UKIE, the video games trade body, on crowdfunding.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T7. I welcome the fact that UK broadband speeds have increased by a fifth in six months. However, what progress has the Department made in getting BT to disclose the 10% of areas that it will not cover by 2015, so that smaller providers can help plug the gap?

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Again, every member of the Government has made it clear that the original convention was written well and expresses views that all of us in the House share. Members in all parts of the House, even in the Labour party, might admit that the way the legislation is now being used brings human rights into disrepute and that we need to do something about it. That is the work that I am leading on behalf of the Conservative party.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve literacy among prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Part of a prisoner’s induction involves screening for literacy needs, and where such needs are identified, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a priority. Improving prisoners’ literacy is a key objective of the learning and skills service in custody. Improving literacy skills means that a prisoner has a greater likelihood of getting and holding on to a job when released, which helps to reduce reoffending.

[Mr Raab]

According to a recent Ministry of Justice survey, one in five prisoners needs help reading and writing. Charities such as Shannon Trust have pioneered peer mentoring and synthetic phonics to improve literacy rates. What steps is the Minister taking to expand such innovative programmes, and does he agree that they are absolutely crucial to equipping offenders with the skills they need to go straight on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to cite the Shannon Trust. Its Toe by Toe project is an extremely good example of what we are discussing. We will help it in any way we can. I hope that he will hear a little more about that over the rest of the summer. The important changes we have made to the incentives and earned privileges scheme go beyond simply what we may take away from prisoners; they are also about the incentives we give them to help other prisoners. In order to reach the enhanced level of the scheme, a prisoner will have to help someone else in prison. That is a good opportunity for more mentoring and more learning coaching of the type he describes.

Legal Aid Reform

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Teather]

I think the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those in what was originally a category of people needing legal aid will still have problems after being denied it, and will arrive at all our surgeries seeking our help with problems that still exist and are still insurmountable.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Does she know whether the family of Jean Charles de Menezes would have qualified for legal aid under the new residence test? That is a very esoteric but important category which ought to be protected.

[Sarah Teather]

I understand that the family of Jean Charles de Menezes would not have qualified under the new test. As the hon. Gentleman says, that was an incredibly important case which had huge implications for policing policy, and it is for precisely that reason that we need to be careful about identifying categories of this kind.

A number of Members have said that the changes will not save money. That, I think, is the point. The Government are apparently not seeking to save money with the changes in the residence test; they say that their purpose is to shore up public confidence in the legal aid system. However, I do not think that the public will continue to have confidence in a system that denies access in certain cases, including the one that was referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Particularly unjust, in my view, is the position of those who, having gained refugee status, will be forced to wait 12 months before becoming eligible for legal aid. I think it extremely unlikely that we would be complying with article 16 of the Geneva convention if we proceeded with that proposal. Many of the people involved are very vulnerable, and there is frequently a gap in communication between the Home Office and those who should be seeking care for them in the form of housing or benefits. Many would face a period of homelessness if lawyers did not intervene to ensure that local authorities do their duty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I repeat: private companies will seek to maximise their profits. I advise anyone who doubts that to check the financial incentives in the GP out-of-hours contracts and then look at what has happened to the number of people attending hospital accident and emergency centres.

I will now deal with contracting. This time last week, I was in Westminster Hall discussing the court translation services debacle—a true horror story. The response from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), showed breathtaking complacency about the overall effect on and cost to the courts system. She even seemed to be content with a present failure rate that is five times greater than the one contracted for. In addition, as has been noted, early results coming in on the new civil legal aid arrangements show more court cases, not fewer, and many cases doubling in length owing to inadequate representation. Again, I ask whether the Ministry is counting the full costs.

The most lucrative business in this country now seems to be winning Government bidding rounds, then—ideally—selling the contract for a quick profit, as we saw with the court translation service, or taking fat fees and getting other people to do the work, as we see in the Work programme.

[Mr Raab]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Swales]

I am running out of time.

The Ministry has touching faith that many groups of lawyers will come together to bid; in fact, it will be largely the same magic circle of outsourcers, who hover like vultures around the award of almost every public contract—with the rumoured addition this time of a supermarket and a haulage company. One company likely to win work, of course, is G4S, with which the Secretary of State will be familiar from his previous job. G4S’s success in winning work in this sector raises the spectre that a person could be arrested, then have G4S legally representing them at the police station; providing the civilian staff processing them there; transporting them to court; representing them there; owning the court in which that person is tried; tagging them if they are on bail; and, if they are found guilty, transporting them to a G4S prison—oh, and it is quite possible that when they are released, G4S will be in charge of their rehabilitation. The potential perverse incentives in that chain are mind-boggling. I urge the Ministry of Justice to ensure that its contract packages meet its stated aims. The Ministry’s record on contracting is appalling. How will it be different this time?

I end with two questions for the Minister. First, if he or a member of his family were arrested, would he be happy with the new arrangements? Secondly, has he heard the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) express delight that he has just found the cheapest lawyer to fight his case against the Metropolitan police? I doubt it. Equal access to justice is a cornerstone of our society. The Minister has a lot to do to convince this House that that remains an objective of his Department and that it is competent to deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

As there are only five minutes available to me, I hope hon. Members will understand that my arguments are unlikely to be in any great detail, and I will not take any interventions. I should point out that I am a complete outsider to the issue, having no legal qualifications at all.

I note the contribution of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). His tract on the procession of G4S throughout the legal system was particularly persuasive. It is not something that had occurred to me before, but I think it is a cause for real and serious worry.

At the heart of the Government’s proposals lies the question of what is the best method of delivering savings without threatening the quality of justice dispensed. That is the question that exercises us today. Oral evidence given to the Justice Committee on 11 June made plain very real concerns from the legal profession about the proposals. Quality was high among those concerns for completely understandable reasons, but it must be a little worrying that some of the organisations representing the profession are refusing to engage with the process of designing the quality thresholds with which the contracts will be let. I understand their concerns and I understand that these are fundamentals changes being mooted, but I hope that at some stage those organisations will reconsider their position. It seems to me that it is not incompatible to be implacably opposed to the changes, but still to co-operate with the design. Surely to do so ensures that, should the argument be lost, the system will be as good as it can possibly be.

The Justice Committee’s session also threw up evidence from the profession that there were other areas where it felt that savings could be made, and should be made, first. Principal among these were the court system, and persuasive evidence was given that there are huge costs within the court system driven by other agencies and factors outwith the control of those providing legal representation. I have some sympathy with the argument that says that to reform the cost of representation without dealing with those factors misidentifies at least some of the source of the expense incurred.

Michael Turner, the Chairman of the Criminal Bar, gave in his evidence three compelling examples of how fees can escalate owing to factors wholly outside the control of those representing defendants. Although I can see that the pressing need to make savings and the time scale that might be involved in reforming the court system create difficulty for the Minister, I would like to hear from him about any plans that are in hand to deal with these issues.

The witnesses also made clear their concern that with some 13,000 responses to the public consultation, a response date of early September to an exercise that ended in June seems, shall we say, ambitious. Finally, although those who appeared before the Justice Committee seemed reluctant to explain alternative proposals that might meet the available budgets, I have to assume that such have been made and hope very much that the Minister can confirm that they will receive careful consideration, if indeed they have been received.

[Mr Raab]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[George Hollingbery]

Just once.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is very generous, in his own sober and stoic way.

Among the various alternatives that have been put forward, I have received a number of concrete suggestions about tighter court management of delays caused by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the idea of higher fees in commercial cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that such additional aspects ought to be considered by the Government?

[George Hollingbery]

Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It was exactly such issues that Michael Turner brought up in his evidence and it seems that there are genuine savings to be made there, as well as costs incurred by those representing, which cannot be controlled by them. That is a very important point.

In the interests of timeliness, I shall move purely to the representations that have been made to me by my constituents. I have received 40 letters from constituents on legal aid and there are one or two specific, rather than general, issues that I would like to draw to the Minister’s attention. The first is about representation, which has been brought up in the Chamber today.

I met Robert Ashworth of Saulet Ashworth LLP in Portsmouth and although he did not agree with the Government’s changes, the point he made to me that people should be able to choose their representation seemed to be a good one for the following reasons. He believes there are considerable hidden cost savings in certain types of, shall we say regular, clients in having a trusted solicitor whose recommendations will be accepted without debate. A case in point would be a recommendation, after due thought by the solicitor and the representative, to offer a guilty verdict. If accepted, this can clearly lead to a large saving across many budgets. He believes, and I accept the core of his argument, that such savings might be lost to the system under the new arrangements. I know that he submitted his views to the Government during the consultation. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there is an issue to be considered.

The second issue that has been raised with me relates to rural sparsity. One of the concerns that has emerged from the consultation is that rural areas might be disadvantaged as a result of the proposals. In Derbyshire, Cumbria, Wales, parts of Norfolk, and indeed many other parts of the country, it is very likely that the contracts awarded will cluster in or around a small number of larger towns. In my own backyard, the Isle of Wight is a plain example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) has pointed out. That might limit access to justice, given the geographic scale of some of those areas. Once again, I hope that the Minister will offer some indication that that factor has been recognised.

Reform of the legal aid budget is tough. Its sheer scope and size mean that it just is not possible that it can escape savings. The industry itself might come forward with a comprehensive and deliverable package of change that recognises that reducing budgets is unavoidable and timeliness is essential. If it does, I hope and expect that the Minister will give the proposals due consideration. However, although I recognise that the Government’s proposals will lead to considerable change in the industry, they currently appear, at least to an outsider, to be the only game in town. I believe that, if handled correctly, they can be the right way forward, although, crucially, they must protect the quality of outcomes at the same time as saving money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman had no difficulty serving in the Government of Tony Blair, who observed in 2003 that it was time

“to derail the gravy train of legal aid”.

He might like to think about his own background before he criticises anybody on the Government side of the Chamber.

Of course choice is important, but if we are to have a sensible and intelligent approach to choice, we must recognise that when choice is funded by the taxpayer, it should not come with a completely blank chequebook. It is legitimate to look at the way in which choice is delivered. We should link to the question of choice the important commitment to a proper quality standard. I hope that the Bar Council and the Law Society will work with the Ministry of Justice to develop a quality standard to ensure that the lawyers who come forward under this scheme are not just acceptable, but really good and able.

[Mr Raab]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I have given way twice, so my time is running out. I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me.

There might be different means by which the same objective can be achieved. It might be possible to have some form of panel system. It might be possible to have a different approach to police station work, where there is a strong argument for saying that firms need a guaranteed volume of work to make the business case sustainable, as opposed to the preparation of litigation and the ongoing court work in both the magistrates court and the Crown court. It is not unreasonable to say that choice has to be provided in the context of affordability. We must not be afraid to say that.

We must recognise that the number of people seeking work at the Bar and in the solicitors’ profession has grown greatly, frankly to an unsustainable level. The profession has to recognise that too many people are chasing a diminishing work load. The number of cases that go to court has reduced by broadly a third since I came to the Bar, whereas the independent Bar and the solicitors’ profession have become about three times as large. Something has to give. Let us sit down sensibly and find ways in which that can be achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

My name is on this motion not because I do not think we need to control the cost of legal aid—we do—but should it be done in this way and at this speed? I think not. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is barely complete, and has had no assessment. The consultation was extremely brief and we understand that the Government intend to place contracts in the autumn. Frankly, without primary legislation, the likelihood is that this business will be challenged in the courts. We will have more haste and less speed on the delivery of savings.

I want to deal with some fundamental points. This is not, as has been intimated, about the protection by silver-tongued lawyers of serial offenders: in the Crown courts in contested cases, half are found not guilty. What we are talking about, therefore, is providing justice to the innocent and to victims.

[Mr Raab]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the discrete risks of allowing large firms to swallow up small firms may be a loss of small specialist firms capable of demanding the trust of specific local communities —in particular, practices representing victims such as in the Stephen Lawrence case and others?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that I will return to later. He is exactly right—this is one of the likely unintended consequences of what is being proposed in the consultation.

In their efforts to cut legal costs overall, the Government are overlooking a far bigger cause of waste in the system than legal aid, namely the sheer inefficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. In 2011-12, more than 123,000 prosecutions failed after charge because either no evidence was presented or the case was eventually dropped. The cost to the service, the courts and aborted defences was measured in tens of millions of pounds, not to mention the stress faced by people who were, presumably, innocent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I wish to make a few short remarks about the “Transforming Legal Aid” consultation, which has sparked such lively debate in this House and across the profession, to put it mildly. I qualify my comments by making the point that I am a member of the Select Committee on Justice, as is the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), whom I follow. The Committee is conducting a mini-inquiry into these proposals. Representatives of the profession have been before us already, and we will see the Lord Chancellor on Wednesday next week. So I have to say that I do not recognise some of the knockabout from the Opposition about the Lord Chancellor somehow being absent on this one. Members from across this House will be very welcome to come along when he comes before the Committee—we have never been so popular.

Some claims have certainly been made about these proposals in the past few months, one of which was made at the Committee’s first hearing on the subject, on 11 June: that the proposals will spell the end of the independent judiciary in this country, no less. That is quite a claim, but I do not think it is true and I do not think it helps the debate. Concerns certainly exist about the reduction in the number of those at the Bar if these proposals go ahead—future judges are, of course, drawn from these people. That point has not been aired enough in this debate so far, so perhaps the Minister will touch on it and allay the fears. Another point that has been made is that the effect of the proposals will be a fundamental change to the criminal justice system, and that is certainly true.

Many Members still wish to speak in this debate and I know that they will discuss many of these fundamental changes and what they might mean, so I wish to focus on the issue of choice. It has been repeatedly raised with me by constituents, as it has been raised by other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. During the consultation, a practising barrister in my constituency sent me what I thought was a useful case study—and one that I hope will show the human side of this point. Under the current system, he explained, a young man with profound mental health problems was again arrested for having a knife in a public place. My constituent, an experienced solicitor, whom the young man knew and trusted, was called. He had the defendant’s previous psychiatric reports on file and even his psychiatrist’s number in his phone. The defendant was questioned by the police and advice was tendered. A number of appearances in the magistrates court led to the case being committed to Crown court, at which point my constituent was instructed, as he had been before, and updated psychiatric reports were obtained.

Following various pre-trial hearings to sort out reports, a two-day trial was held, at the end of which the young man was acquitted and further psychiatric treatment was ordered by the judge. Happily, according to my constituent, the young man is now on the right medication, and has a diagnosis of Asperger’s. He even has a job for a couple of hours a week. My and my constituent’s concern is that under price competitive tendering, the duty solicitor, who almost certainly would not know the defendant, might well advise a guilty plea, with an alien barrister, either in the magistrates court or at first appearance in the Crown court. My constituent tells me that the fee is the same for a guilty plea as it is for a short trial, so what is the incentive to have a trial?

There is a huge potential conflict of interest for the advocate, says my constituent, with the young man possibly being sent to prison, resulting in devastating consequences for him and the state. I think he makes a powerful point. Putting aside the arguments about a reduction in choice in relation to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the European convention provisions on the right to a fair trial, which I understand opponents of the proposals will bring forward, if they are pursued, Ministers must address PCT and the choice issue, so that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and lose this fundamental right.

Hon. Members might know that Winchester is the home of the western circuit—or, more precisely, the chambers there have for centuries been the major providers of legal advice and advocacy for the large area they cover. The depth of specialist knowledge available across the circuit is its strength and benefits those whom I and others in the area represent. Many members of the western circuit will recognise the example I just gave and share the concern that many of us have about the future of specialisms.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The aim of the reforms is to cut the number of firms from 1,600 to 400. On the four to five-year tendering periods, does he share my concern about the countervailing risk that we might see a small number of large firms snuff out the competition, creating a monopoly and leaving no incentive to compete on quality?

[Steve Brine]

I am not sure that that is the aim of the reforms, but it might be one of the consequences. I am concerned that without such competition, at the end of the contract period, a firm would be in an incredibly strong position to say to the Government, “Well, this is what we want to continue”.

PCT is seemingly not that popular, but I wonder whether it has to be the start and end of this conundrum. It might be the future, but perhaps not now and not to this very tight time scale. As we have seen this week, there is no money left. Clearly, savings must be found—we are told £220 million—so what is to be done? My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has rightly said that we have one of the best legal professions in the world, and he is dead right that in a time of major financial challenge, the legal sector cannot be excluded from the Government’s commitment to getting better value for our constituents’ money. I asked the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association at a Select Committee evidence session whether he took at face value the Secretary of State’s assertions that we needed to make significant savings, and the response was this:

“There is at least £100 million that can be saved by plugging the gaps in the system. As we have also pointed out, if he wants real savings to the taxpayer and listens to the proposals that we have put forward, he can have himself £2 billion for a legal aid budget. The real sadness, for us, is that we are just not being listened to.”

I disagree with that. They are being listened to. The very fact that this debate is happening on the Floor of the House is proof of that. I suggest that the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and others get these proposals into my right hon. Friend’s hands and give him some options.

I do not accept that this country faces a choice between well-funded public services that we cannot afford and terrible public services that we can. We need sustainable public services that we can afford in the long term, and that is as true in legal aid as anywhere else. It is true that we have one of the best legal professions in the world—a lot of it resides in my part of the world—and I want to see it live within its means. It is open to reform, but we might need to think, slow down, find initial savings and then reform the system in a way that leads to reliable savings in the long term. I still think that the Government and the profession can jump together on this one, if they slow down and talk. I remain ever the optimist that we can do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid that that contribution is what I would expect from the Labour party. This is not about creating an opportunity for giant firms. It is about saying to small and medium-sized firms, “You will need to change the way you do things to bring down costs, to share back offices, in a way that enables us to get better value for money for the taxpayer.” If Opposition Members really want me to place financial constraints elsewhere in the system, to close courts and to have fewer probation officers, rather than having a more efficient criminal justice system in the legal aid arena, that is their choice. I know which route I am taking.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

16. What steps he is taking to reduce drug addiction in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The Government are committed to helping prisoners with a drug dependency to live drug-free lives. We are working with health services to reshape drug treatment in prisons, establish wings in prisons that focus on recovery and abstinence, and connect offenders with community drug recovery services in custody and on release. We are also keen to use our new reforms, particularly the through-the-gate provision and the reconfiguration of the prison estate, to build on that collaboration.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. The Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust estimates that if just 10% of drug-addicted prisoners received abstinence-based rehabilitation, we might be able to save almost half a billion pounds a year. What progress has been made on replacing methadone prescriptions with abstinence programmes in our jails?

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely agree that we need to see more abstinence from drugs. My hon. Friend will know that one of the obstacles to proceeding down that path with many drug-addicted offenders is that they stay in prison for a very short period and there is no confidence about what happens when they leave custody. [Interruption.] Our through-the-gate reforms mean that we will be able to move more offenders on to that pathway much more quickly and be confident that they will be supported when they leave custody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I certainly enjoyed my visit to Manchester, where I could see that a great deal of good work was being done. He can take reassurance from the fact that the system we will roll out will reward those things that work. If the intensive alternative to custody programme is as effective as it appears to be, it will work and it will be rewarded.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

T5. The Bill of Rights commission report that has just been published has split views on many issues, but a majority think that the status quo is unstable and, interestingly, a majority want further reform of the Strasbourg Court. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give us that he remains committed to defending the House from the creeping usurpation of democratic power by the Strasbourg Court?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute commitment. The Conservative party—although not the Opposition, from what we have heard today—is committed to the need for change and to ensuring that international human rights frameworks do not inappropriately intrude on the democratic decisions of this Parliament.

Leveson Inquiry

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree with the premise of my hon. Friend’s point but think that we perhaps draw different conclusions from it. Lord Justice Leveson has stated, as did our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate, that the status quo is not an option, so if we learn nothing else from Leveson, we should learn that what went before cannot go on. It seems to me to be uncontroversial that the PCC is dead, for example. We need some other form of disciplinary body or regulatory system that matches public concern but also has parliamentary approval. We could approve through parliamentary procedure a body that is not statutory, but we could also approve a regulatory body that is not the creature of Parliament but that would be recognised and saluted by statute. There are plenty of other bodies that discipline the professions or other public bodies but that are not controlled by the Government.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Lord Justice Leveson’s approach is to argue that regulation must be independent not only of the press, but of Parliament, but he then calls for a statute, drafted by Parliament, detailing the criteria for recognition of the regulations, and that covers everything, from membership of the regulator to the content of the new rules and its powers. How does my hon. and learned Friend reconcile what strikes me as a fatal paradox in that approach?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not have to reconcile it, because I find the answer on page 1,780 in part K of the report. I will not read it out because I do not have enough time, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that it repays reading. He should look at paragraphs 6.38 and 6.39. If I was a member of an appellate court, I would simply ask the shorthand writer to transcribe it into my judgment, but I cannot—I say to the Hansard reporter, have a go. Essentially, my hon. Friend’s point is one that is often made. If I may say so, with a little thought and study of the report, he will find that it is not strictly necessary to have the concerns, genuine though they are, that he displays and that they are dealt with by Lord Justice Leveson.

Time is running short and I have galloped through the points I wanted to make, no doubt inadequately and in a somewhat garbled fashion. There is plenty in the report that touches on the police, the conduct of the press and the appalling treatment meted out to victims, such as the Dowler family and others. That is all a given. It is also a given that the status quo ante must finish.

The debate that we are having, in this House and outside, is about what we mean by statutory regulation. To me, statutory regulation means no more and no less than what Lord Justice Leveson says: that a statute will recognise as an effective way of dealing with press conduct—and wider media conduct, including the internet—the disciplinary system to which the press must adhere. Clearly, we need buy-in from the widest possible section of the media, including the ordinary traditional press—the newspaper groups—and television and broadcast media through to the local press and others. I recognise that there will be difficulties over individual bloggers and so forth.

If we concentrate on what this report is not about, we miss a trick. Let us concentrate on what it is about, which is the democratic and constitutionally proper regulation of a disciplinary system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

I will not at the moment. Lord Leveson proposes giving a state regulator the power and duty every two or three years to review and approve—or disapprove—the code and how it is implemented and enforced by the regulator. That is either a substantial power with important consequences or a trivial power with negligible consequences. The latter is unimportant so why insist on it? If the power is significant and will have substantial ramifications and consequences for the way the regulator behaves, the content of the code and the way it is enforced, we should look at it very carefully.

I know from many years of studying regulation that one consequence of regulators being given the power to review and prescribe detail is that the regulator—the state supervisor—will at every biennial or triennial review demand not less but more and stricter regulation. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) ever known a regulator demand less regulation rather than more? It is a recipe for regulatory creep and increasingly detailed specification by the state supervisor of what the so-called independent regulator must do.

The other consequence that some fear from a regulatory system that is overseen and supervised by a statutory regulator is that the regulator will nudge the code and its enforcement in line with the prejudices of the Government of the day. I doubt that that would be the immediate consequence, although it could be the consequence in the long term, but the statutory body that oversees how the regulatory apparatus works would follow either the Government’s prejudices or its own. We want to beware of that. If the statutory body is like the regulatory structures we normally set up, we will have a pretty clear idea how it will behave, but by definition it will be outside the direct control of the House, so hon. Members will have no say in it.

[Mr Raab]

I have an objection in principle to a statutory body or a body underpinned by statute both making and enforcing the rules. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that such a blurring of powers in the new body risks arbitrary decision making and is inimical to the rule of law?

[Mr Lilley]

Exactly; that is very much what I fear if the statutory body, following its own prejudices, determines the contents of the code and how it is enforced. Such a body would almost inevitably be made up of the sort of people who run and control the BBC. The BBC Trust has got into trouble for telling untruths about how it decided there should be unbalanced coverage of climate change and many other things, so we know the sort of prejudices such bodies have.

Lord Leveson specifies only one item of the code that the new body should contain. He says that it should “equip” the

“body with the power to intervene in cases of allegedly discriminatory reporting and in so doing reflect the spirit of equalities legislation.”

The body will be a politically correct one, enforcing politically correct standards on the media and press.

The body will also have the power to establish a

“ringfenced enforcement fund, into which receipts from fines could be paid, for the purpose of funding investigations.”

It will therefore have an incentive to levy fines, and in that way it will carry out investigations to increase and enhance its power and control over the so-called independent regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leech]

I am not for one second suggesting the newspaper should be punished. I am merely suggesting that it is rather ironic for a newspaper publisher bleating about free speech not to allow an opinion to be published in its newspaper, in what is supposed to be an opinion piece by an MP from the local area.

Is the proposed system a slippery slope to state regulation? Newspapers are suggesting that a future Government could legislate further and introduce state control. That is a red herring. A future Government could start the process from scratch and introduce state control. However, setting out the independence of the regulator in law actually makes it more difficult to introduce state control, because the independence of the regulator will already be enshrined in law.

Opponents also argue that Leveson’s model of regulation would not have stopped the hacking and the serious criminal behaviour. That is certainly true, but if proper independent regulation had been there in the first place, newspapers would never have built up a culture of invulnerability and an attitude that they could do whatever they wanted. While an independent regulator would not have directly stopped criminality, I believe it would have stopped the culture that resulted in that criminality.

Finally, I return to my first point about the debate being about the innocent victims. If we implement the Leveson recommendations, can we seriously look the victims in the eye? The answer is clearly yes, we can. I fear that without Leveson, we cannot.

[Mr Raab]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leech]

I will not.

Last week Leveson called time at the last chance saloon. The new bar for the press must be a free house—free of the press and free of the politicians. Leveson’s recommendations would achieve that, and we need to get on and implement them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kris Hopkins]

As was said earlier, much legislation has been put in place to deal with that, yet banks are still engaged in corrupt practices. Legislation is already in place to address all the issues that have been raised, whether intrusion, hacking, bribery or the police being too close to journalists. What we have to do is give prosecutors the confidence to pursue those issues, because we politicians have been somewhat concerned about not upsetting the newspapers and have not been using the legislation already in place to pursue those individuals.

[Mr Raab]

If journalists hack phones, they should go to jail. The problem in this instance is not the law, because a two-year sentence is already available, and it can be much higher if the offence amounts to perverting the course of justice. The problem is with securing witnesses, evidence and convictions. Is my hon. Friend disappointed that the Leveson report says so little about how to address the prosecutorial deficit?

[Kris Hopkins]

To be honest, I am not sure whether that was within the Leveson inquiry’s remit. The party leaders have a responsibility to come together to find some solution that will make this work, and I think that there is a meeting of minds on the vast majority of this, as other Members have said. It will take maturity by the players to find a solution that will make it work.

A few Members have referred to new media. We are addressing this issue, but I think that we are focusing too narrowly on newspapers. As everyone knows, new media, digital media, the internet and other forms of communication will outstrip newspapers. My local newspaper’s website has thousands of hits, possibly more than the number of newspapers it sells, so we are going to see a real change. There are exceptions, but there is very little regulation and few ways of managing or curbing from one country practices that are part of a global phenomenon. We will have to attempt to bring together many nations to address some of those issues. That is where the greater debate is, but we are slightly obsessed with the newspapers.

Finally, on “The Politics Show” yesterday Andrew Neil said that this issue raises the disturbing prospect of former spin doctors, who are known for their ability to sex up the odd document or two, becoming chairs of Ofcom and effectively being appointed by the Government. That is one of my concerns about the regulator and where this will go. The idea that the completely undermined tabloid press will now be orchestrated by Tory or Labour spin doctors who are appointed by Government will not give the public confidence. I want to see massive fines. I want it to be easier for individuals to seek redress and for the people who lie about them and put mistruths out there to be punished. I want an independent body.

Tomorrow is a big day for the newspapers. They should come to the table, because they have been offered the opportunity to make this work. If they fail, I am afraid that they will have damned themselves. Newspapers, both the broadsheets and the tabloids, play a massive part in British society. The tabloids have an important role. They are being given an opportunity to come to the table and they have a responsibility to take it. I do not want statutory legislation to be put in place. I think it would seriously undermine democracy in this country.

Police (Surrey)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Before the debate had even started, I had already benefited from your advice and wisdom. Thank you. I am also grateful for the opportunity to address the Minister and to discuss police funding in Surrey.

Few issues are of greater importance to people throughout the country than ensuring that their local police force has the resources that it needs. The residents of Esher and Walton, and indeed of the county of Surrey, are no exception. Surrey’s front-line police officers do a first-rate job. I commend the dedication and commitment that they bring to keeping our communities safe. We are also blessed with a top-notch chief constable.

I want to say at the outset that I support the Government’s drive to promote efficiency and reform in the police service, which is in the interests of both law enforcement and the taxpayer. I commend the Minister for his pioneering efforts in that regard. In the current financial climate, all parts of the public sector must do their bit to deliver maximum value for money, and the police cannot be immune.

However, I have concerns about the current consultation on changing or removing the damping mechanism for police funding. The damping mechanism is a critical safeguard for forces such as Surrey, which lose out disproportionately under the central funding formula. In particular, the mitigation provided by the damping mechanism ensures that Surrey police enjoy the same level of increase or decrease in funding as other forces.

Neither Surrey police, Surrey police authority nor I object in principle to a review of the damping mechanism, but logically and fairly, it ought to be part of the wider review of police funding that the Government have pledged to carry out before the next comprehensive spending review. If the anomalies in the current funding formula could be ironed out to create a truly needs-based, fair system, damping could be phased out, but the current consultation, which focuses on the future of the damping mechanism from 2013-14 onwards, risks leaving Surrey financially high and dry through no fault of its own. That cannot be right.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Is it not the case that Surrey taxpayers pay some of the highest taxes into our national Exchequer, yet we also end up paying some of the highest precepts? It is not because Surrey police are not efficient; they are. Surely that cannot be fair.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. As someone who worked in local government before becoming an MP, he knows the details far better than me. That basic logic and flow cannot be right. It cannot be right that we keep paying more and more and get less and less back. It is unsustainable.

That message was borne out in no small part by a 2009 review conducted by Oxford Economics of local application of the central funding formula. Surrey loses out under that formula for various compound reasons. For example, the funding formula takes into account daytime net flows of traffic, but not total traffic or total accidents, which are disproportionately high in Surrey compared with the other indices. It takes into account average deprivation, which is relatively low in Surrey, but ignores our proximity to areas of high deprivation, taking little account of cross-border criminals who may target the county. My borough, which is in the north-east, has a lot of that kind of crime. Nor does it take into account the impact of our proximity to Heathrow and Gatwick, which is also linked to crime levels.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that no account is taken of traffic through the county? That is a crucial point. As I understand it, data are available to show that through traffic relates to crime.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. Oxford Economics considers the issue of flow in some detail. I commend the report to the Minister if he wants to examine the detail of what we are discussing.

Other elements, such as our proximity to high population areas, have also been proven relevant to levels of crime but are not factored into the funding formula, which measures only population levels within the county. Those shortcomings are mitigated by the damping arrangements. It is therefore unfair to remove or revise one without considering the other.

Surrey police do an outstanding job, which is reflected in the public’s 90% confidence rating. Today’s report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, “Policing in Austerity: One Year On”, breaks down the situation by individual forces, showing the progress that the Surrey police have made in dealing with austerity.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we should recognise the achievements of Surrey police in maintaining the same level of service to the public in Surrey, despite reductions of about £7 million in their budget so far, and that further cuts could risk public safety?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key issue is sustainability. It cannot be right that those who perform best in terms of delivering cost efficiencies while adding further front-line officers should be penalised and find themselves victims of their own success.

Surrey has achieved those net satisfaction ratings despite having faced challenging conditions for a number of years. It is important to put the issue in context; it is not all about austerity under the coalition. Surrey did not share in Labour’s “land of milk and honey” spending spree. While real-terms spending on the police increased nationally by 19% between 1997 and 2010, funding for Surrey police was cut by 39% in real terms. Measured by central funding per person, Surrey got the worst deal of all 43 police forces in England and Wales.

Faced with that legacy, Surrey police responded positively. In July 2010, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary praised Surrey police for their efficiency in work force deployment, the way they centralised cross-cutting functions such as human resources and their rigorous and robust approach to achieving cost savings.

Surrey police followed that up with their policing plan for 2011-14, which rationalised the police estate. That, of course, involved a difficult set of decisions that had to be conveyed, sold and communicated locally. It is a very tangible thing to replace police stations or sell off old estate to make way for new hubs. That was difficult. Surrey police also reformed their procurement practices; it is widely accepted that they were in the vanguard in doing so. They cut middle management, which is also difficult, as it creates morale issues in a force. It was not an easy decision, but they took it. Through the net savings, they focused on putting officers into the areas of greatest need, including neighbourhood policing and serious crime investigations, precisely the areas that the public, and I as their MP, want to be priorities for investment.

Over and above all those savings, Surrey police’s rigorous approach and financial discipline allowed the force to reinvest in an extra 200 police constables. That would be extraordinary given the financial straits everyone is in, but it is particularly so for Surrey, given the legacy that it inherited.

Despite the dire financial legacy left by the last Government, Surrey was the only force in England and Wales able to increase officer numbers between September 2010 and September 2011. As the Audit Commission, HMIC and the Home Office have commented, Surrey police are a model of how to get a financial house in order. They did so proactively, before the financial crisis compelled the wider belt-tightening now under way. They did not wait for the waves to hit; they were on the front foot. Like other forces, they are now halfway through a 20% real-terms cut in central Government funding. Surrey police have dealt with all those challenges while improving their record against several key indicators of performance, such as serious crime detection.

However, Surrey has reached its limits. If the damping mechanism is removed, the force stands to lose, in total—there are two components—£4 million in funding, the equivalent of losing 83 police constables. That would be a serious blow to the force and a kick in the teeth, not only to the force, which has taken such steps to be a model of cost-efficiency, but to the people of Surrey, who pay such high levels of tax, too little of which returns as investment in local public services.

Our police need to be properly funded to deal with the wide range of challenges that they face daily. There is a perception of Surrey as a leafy backwater with no crime, challenges or deprivation, whose sleepy towns and villages are the last place where crime or antisocial behaviour is a real issue; but as my colleagues who have spoken, and others, know, that is a myth. The reality is, as has been said time and again, that Surrey is a county force grappling with metropolitan issues.

[Jonathan Lord]

My wonderful ward of Maybury and Sheerwater is deprived by national standards and has a diverse ethnic mix. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can ill afford to lose 80-odd police constables in Surrey?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree with him. One of the problems with the myth about Surrey—it is as true of his constituency as it is of mine—is that average levels of affluence hide pockets of deprivation and real social challenges, which play out in terms of law enforcement, policing, crime and antisocial behaviour. Having made difficult financial sacrifices and tightened their purse strings, communities want to be able to keep the savings for front-line policing. The key issue in my hon. Friend’s and my constituencies, and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), is visible and responsive policing. We are seeking to make sure that that is safeguarded, and the damping mechanism is critical.

It is precisely because, overall and on average, Surrey is an affluent area that it has become something of a target for professional criminals from other areas. During my time as an MP, I have seen professionals targeting shops and businesses in Cobham, Thames Ditton and other areas, which also suffer from antisocial behaviour, robbery and other crimes. Overall, almost 50% of crime in the county is committed by non-Surrey residents, while in 2008, 59% of the organised crime gangs affecting Surrey operated from London. That cross-border crime is a serious concern.

Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley mentioned, Surrey roads require constant policing. The county is in the top 6% of local areas for volume of traffic per resident, and in the top 15% for accidents per resident. None of that is accurately reflected in the funding formula. Unsurprisingly, despite all Surrey police’s good work, those factors, which are not picked up by the funding formula, have affected law enforcement capability, which is being measured against finite and shrinking resources.

One specific issue that I have raised with Surrey police authority and the chief constable is Surrey’s sanctioned detection rate, which is the percentage of crimes for which someone is charged, summonsed or cautioned. Surrey’s rate has been either the lowest or second lowest in England and Wales for each of the past three years. In 2010-11, it was 8% below the national average. That is a visible, tangible symptom of the difficult challenges with which the force is grappling with regard to finances and law enforcement capability. Although the figure is improving, the one thing that Surrey police cannot afford is to lose scores of officers, which is the risk we face as a result of the review of the damping mechanism.

The people of Surrey should not be short-changed when it comes to the police. Let us bear in mind that in 2010 Surrey contributed £5.5 billion to the Treasury, but we got back just one third of the national average level of funding for local public services. The residents of Surrey—the taxpayers of Surrey—understand that they need to do their bit. They also understand the need for Britain to cut her coat according to her financial cloth. They have been some of the most proactive participants in that regard, given all that has been said about the discipline that Surrey police have shown in the past few years. However, those residents and my constituents will neither understand nor support changes that result in Surrey police losing millions of pounds every year if their protection from a skewed funding formula is stripped away.

The future of police funding is an important and contentious issue. I know why Ministers are nervous about tinkering with the police funding formula, and a full discussion on how to reform it is beyond the scope of today’s debate. However, that wider debate needs to take place before changes to the damping mechanism can reasonably be pushed through. I urge the Minister to give an assurance that the damping mechanism will only be altered, phased out or reduced as part of a coherent package of reforms, and not in isolation.

Neither Surrey police nor the people of Surrey are asking for special treatment. This is not about a subsidy; it is about mitigation of the knock-on effect of a funding formula that does not accurately reflect local needs in Surrey, and the same is true for other forces. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for a fair deal. The damping mechanism gives Surrey some mitigation from the flaws of the funding formula, and until that formula is properly reviewed and reformed, that protection should remain intact.

Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

That case is far from unique. We should be clear that the Government want to remain within the directive precisely to enable such practical, common-sense sharing of data. It is not because we do not have concerns about the precise details or think it cannot be improved. It is because we make the judgment that we stand a much better chance of securing a sensible deal within the tent than outside it, and without risking the likelihood that by having to negotiate dozens of bilateral deals, we would endanger co-operation that the public depend upon.

It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that press coverage has warned about new rights for criminals under this measure. Let me set the record straight. All UK citizens under current law are able to know what information the state holds about them and can ask for data to be erased. But the ability of criminals to enjoy this right is, for obvious reasons, qualified. Put simply, the rights of the law-abiding public to security come first. Nothing in this proposed directive creates any new right for criminals or for anyone else.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Blunt]

On that point?

[Mr Raab]

On that point. May I quote to the Minister directly from paragraph 50 of the impact assessment? It says that criminal justice sector agencies may also be prosecuted directly or via the Information Commissioner’s Office if they fail to protect personal data. This will represent a cost to them in terms of defending themselves in court and in paying fines and/or compensation that may result from these cases. Does that not conflict directly with what he has just told the House?

[Mr Blunt]

No, because these rights already exist. The suggestion in the newspapers yesterday, which I am sure my hon. Friend had nothing to do with, was about whether we were creating some new set of rights for criminals under the directive. No new set of rights is being created, any more than exist now under our own data protection laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who powerfully and eloquently put the constitutional case against the measure.

The motion gives the House an opportunity to assess the latest proposals from Brussels on the processing of personal data by the police and other law enforcement agencies. Like others, I am surprised and disappointed that the motion endorsing the opt-in, which is an important step for the reasons already mentioned, first appeared on the Order Paper this morning. Now we learn that the Ministry of Justice impact assessment—the basis on which the House is scrutinising this measure—is fundamentally flawed, having omitted the decisive considerations Ministers have relied on. That is a poor basis for Parliament to exercise its scrutiny prerogatives on.

The Commission argues that the provisions are needed because of the speed of technological change and the increasing amount of information being transferred, but the draft directive would make data protection obligations more onerous and more expensive for UK police forces. The police would have to appoint specialist data protection officers. There would be restrictions on the information that could be held, and rules to allow suspects and criminals to know what data are being held on them and to request amendments and deletion of that information. These are clearly and palpably new rights; it is completely wrong to suggest otherwise.

The directive will apply not only to cross-border investigations but to data transferred between two UK forces, subject to what the Minister has said. The EU sees the proposals as a safeguard but, in reality, they risk creating a bureaucratic straitjacket, sowing legal confusion and adding to the costs of police forces on the front line. The Ministry of Justice impact assessment put it very clearly when it stated that

“many of the new obligations appear disproportionate and unnecessary leading to an overall negative outcome.”

So why are we opting in, against departmental advice?

I listened to the new arguments advanced by the Minister this evening, but I find it unacceptable that they are wholly missing from the impact assessment and that they have not been reviewed by the European Scrutiny Committee. We have heard the standard boilerplate arguments for meekly submitting to extra EU regulation, and there has been no analysis at all of the countervailing arguments, which, if they are as serious as has been suggested, we really ought to be scrutinising properly. At the very least, should we not wait until Ministers have quantified the administration costs of the measures to police forces?

The impact assessment estimates that there will be substantial costs to the police and other agencies, but we have no further details. When will a proper assessment be made? Has the Association of Chief Police Officers, or any individual police force, been asked for a view of the operational impact of the measures? We know that the Ministry of Justice has looked at them; have the Home Office or police forces in general done so? We ought to learn a lesson from the Abu Qatada saga, which is dragging on, and be acutely aware of the real risk of European legislation, judicial or otherwise, tying the hands of UK law enforcement.

When it comes to data protection and related privacy rights, we have been here before. The House will remember the case of Gary Ellis, a serial thief and burglar. In 2003, Essex police were forced to abandon a crime-fighting campaign that would have displayed his picture across his home town of Brentwood in an attempt to deter him and warn potential victims. The courts banned the posters because they breached his privacy rights under article 8 of the convention.

In 2008, the Serious Organised Crime Agency had similar problems with 41 criminals under financial reporting orders. It was forced to protect their privacy and therefore not publish the orders, which led to SOCA’s head, Sir Stephen Lander, publicly expressing his frustration. I appreciate that those cases involve a slightly different set of rights, but they are related and the impact is similar. Is not the reality that this opaque directive will risk arming offenders with yet another legal weapon with which to sue those whose job it is to put them behind bars and protect the public? Paragraphs 49 and 50 of the impact assessment also highlight the cost of civil litigation brought by offenders and suspects against the police and others, and even the prospect of prosecution by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

I note the Minister’s statement that there were no new rights, but paragraph 47 of the impact assessment states that it is likely that this proposal—not existing rights—could have

“a large impact on CJS agencies.”

The risk of such unintended legal consequences is aggravated by the fact that the new directive will be subject to the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is why assurances about the limits of its application cannot be relied on.

When it comes to pan-European co-operation, as opposed to data sharing within the UK, the impact assessment is equally sceptical. It states that, far from making us more secure, there will be an increased risk from criminal acts because the directive will gum up international data sharing by adding burdens that will discourage co-operation. Overall, this is a bleak assessment. It raises the question why is Brussels micro-managing policing and law enforcement? If we need a change to our data protection rules, it should be tailored to the problem under national law and in relation to national law enforcement agencies. Why, given the Ministry’s lousy impact assessment, are we even contemplating opting in?

Bitter experience suggests that we may end up with gold-plated provisions protecting UK criminals while other EU countries would apply the provisions selectively, if at all. The obvious course, which I understand is available—I stand to be corrected by the Minister or hon. Members who are lawyers if I am wrong—is to remain at the negotiating table, albeit without a vote, and to decide whether or not we like the end product in due course. Why have Ministers opted against that specific course of action? Why cannot we go down that route? As to relying on bilateral co-operation outside the justice and home affairs regime, can we seriously say that the prospect of negotiating bilateral treaties has harmed public protection, national security or law enforcement for the Swiss or the Norwegians?

Beyond these practical problems, there is a constitutional dimension. The new directive would replace the 2008 EU rules on data protection. These are part of the 130 measures in respect of which we need to decide whether to repatriate or to accept the full jurisdiction of the European Court from 2014. Any laws amended or replaced are not subject to that block opt-out, so by opting out of this measure, we will prevent the UK from opting out of this area of EU policy making later. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made that point eloquently and powerfully.

As with most international law enforcement co-operation, effective data sharing is achieved through practical co-operation between national authorities, not through top-down bureaucratic schemes. We do not have a proper analysis of the cost of the directive, and we do not have a proper assessment of the operational impact. The impact assessment has not even been signed off by a Minister. In those circumstances, frankly, it would be irresponsible to commit the UK to this measure without further detail and without further scrutiny. I cannot support the motion.

EU Criminal Policy

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

First, I commend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), for coming to the House to debate this subject transparently and openly because it is one that demands scrutiny. I echo the warning in the excellent speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), because today, as the Prime Minister leads efforts to scale back the overweening and often arbitrary role of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, we might well remind ourselves that prevention is better than cure.

The document before us has all the hallmarks of a massive and substantial power grab from Brussels in the area of EU criminal law. We might have ad hoc opt-outs, but the direction of travel has very serious implications for this country. The clear ambition in the document is for a pan-European code on what the Commission calls “Euro-crimes”, backed by EU penalties and jurisdiction. The document talks about giving

“full judicial control to the European Court of Justice”

in Luxembourg.

The aim is for a uniform European justice policy by any other name. One has only to look at the detail in the document, which seeks—I quote these words for the sake of accuracy, to show that this is not just scaremongering—

“approximation of definitions and sanction levels”

for serious crimes. It aims for “common minimum rules”, including common EU punishments. The document reeks of the Soviet style EU double-speak to which we have become accustomed. On one hand it accepts the national “diversity” of the traditions of justice across the continent, including our own, but in the same sentence it calls for “consistent and coherent” EU criminal law. Ultimately, that is a circle that cannot be squared.

What areas will the new Euro-crimes cover? It is one thing to call for direct practical co-operation between national authorities on counter-terrorism and serious crime, although we do not need more legislation in that regard, but the document would expand EU law into environmental crimes, employment offences, data protection, fisheries offences, traffic offences, financial market behaviour—I wonder who that is aimed at—and, of course, at the top of everyone’s list of priorities, protecting the euro.

Britain has opt-outs, but we are still affected by the massive increase in EU law in the field of justice and home affairs. With cross-party support, the House has unanimously called on the Government to renegotiate the European arrest warrant—the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), presciently predicted that I would raise this issue—because it is resulting in far too much rough justice for far too many innocent citizens. As we consider the ambitions for EU criminal law, I should like to know from the Minister where that issue is on the UK agenda and where it is on the EU agenda.

The UK has also opted in to the draft European investigation order, which would allow European investigators and prosecutors to direct UK police forces to pursue leads and collect evidence. That is a threat to the liberty of our citizens, and is the last thing that hard-pressed police forces need right now. What progress has been made on limiting the risk of abuse of such wide powers and on ensuring there are safeguards that comply with British standards of justice? On a more fundamental level, why is the EU expanding its competences before it has corrected the current defects?

This issue is a prelude to the decision to be taken by June 2014 on whether Britain should opt in or out, wholesale, of the pre-Lisbon justice and home affairs legislation. If this document is a taste of what is to come, it demonstrates all too well the magnitude of that decision. This is a fork in the road: it is time to decide whether Britain will retain our unique justice system and common-law tradition. This is one of the most serious constitutional challenges the House will face in this Parliament, and I am confident that Ministers will weigh the consequences of that decision very carefully and ensure that Parliament—consisting of the elected and accountable law-makers for this country—will have the opportunity to debate and vote on that crucial decision.