Oral Answers to Questions

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I, too, welcome him to the Dispatch Box. It is a pleasure to hear him. We need now—not on account of the hon. Gentleman’s answers, but more generally—to make somewhat brisker progress.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

6. What progress he has made on reform of probation services.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

18. What progress he has made on reform of probation services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

On 27 March the Government published a consultation entitled “Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”, which is looking at a wide range of options for service improvements. Alongside it is a consultation on the overhaul of community sentences, aimed at delivering effective and credible punishments. We will publish our response to both consultations in the autumn.

[Heidi Alexander]

According to recent press reports, the London Probation Trust is due to run a research project later this year that would require offenders in Bexley and Bromley to report to electronic kiosks, as opposed to trained probation staff. What reassurance can the Minister give me that the trial will not endanger the public, and how can he be sure that the machines will be as capable as human beings are of detecting the early warning signs that offenders may be posing an increased risk to the public?

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Lady raises the proper concerns associated with the scheme: that is why it is a trial and a pilot. We will assess it, and the London Probation Trust will help other probation trusts come to a conclusion on the merits of such supervision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Lord Chief Justice on the potential effect of his planned changes to legal aid on the number of litigants in person.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Lord Chief Justice on the potential effect of his planned changes to legal aid on the number of litigants in person.

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

Substantial numbers of cases already involve litigants in person, so the courts already deal with this situation. The Government recognise that the changes to legal aid are likely to increase the number of litigants in person. The evidence appears to show that some cases featuring litigants in person are resolved more quickly, whereas some cases take longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

Well, we have just discovered that the Labour party’s policy is to make substantial cuts in criminal legal aid. If the Government had made that proposal, that would no doubt have led to amazing attacks on our disregard for the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty and to comments about the high risk of injustice in criminal trials. On the savings we are making in the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the fact is that courts already deal with litigants in person. Any judge or tribunal knows that they have to pay particular attention to make sure that people are not disadvantaged by not having legal representation, but as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), has just explained, we have tried to identify cases in which the informality of the tribunals means that applicants should not be at any particular disadvantage if they do not have a lawyer there in any event.

[Heidi Alexander]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the additional cost that will be incurred by the legal system overall as a result of the increased numbers of litigants in person?

[Mr Clarke]

We are not persuaded that that will give rise to any increase in costs. Everybody accepts that cuts need to be made to legal aid. It is just that the Labour party is against every single cut that we suggest in particular. This cut is perfectly straightforward and will not give rise to the difficulties that the hon. Lady points out—[Interruption.] I can only say to the Opposition spokesman that he is obviously so discommoded by realising that he nearly gave out a policy on the subject a moment ago that he is getting rather carried away. We have carefully selected cuts in legal aid concerning less serious cases where cuts can be made without any risk to justice whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

We are reviewing the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We have to strike the right balance between protecting the public and ensuring that those whom we want to resettle in society and get the right kind of work are able to do so.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Earlier today I visited Bronzefield women’s prison in Surrey with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). We observed a financial literacy course run by Principles in Finance. What plans does the Minister have to increase the amount of financial training available in prisons, given the link between debt and reoffending?

[Nick Herbert]

I mentioned that we have re-commissioned the provision for skills with a focus on employability. That must be the right approach. It is important to address the causes of offending to establish whether this is one of them and to ensure that we have proper programmes of rehabilitation in prison that will support people on their release to enter the world of work and responsibility.

Gangs

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on opening the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on initiating it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) would also like to take part, but she cannot be here today.

Lewisham is by and large a safe place to live. People generally get on with one another. Children play in our parks, and I shall walk home from the station tonight without fear. I mention that because my experience of Lewisham is probably different from that of some of my younger constituents, who have seen the lives of friends and family devastated by serious youth violence. My perception of Lewisham is probably different from that of local parents who are worried about the safety of their children. In the past four years, there have been 67 incidents of known gang-related crime in the borough, four of which resulted in someone dying. In the same period, there were 673 instances of gun and knife crime, and 17 people were killed. I do not quote those figures to sensationalise; I do it so that everyone will be clear about the scale of the problem.

In the past few months, since the riots, gangs seem to be back on the Government’s agenda. Whether the subject is a cross-departmental taskforce to look at ways to deal with gang culture, or extensions to gang injunctions, Ministers want to talk about gangs. It is all very well to be interested in gangs now, but with the exception of Brooke Kinsella’s report last year and the announcement in February of some ring-fenced funding to tackle gang, gun and knife crime, the Government have been dangerously slow off the mark in addressing the challenges posed by gangs and gang violence.

Last September, in an Opposition-day debate, I urged the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice to look at ways of tackling material that appears on the internet glorifying gang membership and the carrying of knives. Video after video, filmed in a car park in Catford in the heart of my constituency, is put on YouTube. They are often viewed as many as 16,000 times. Young men, or perhaps I should say boys, brandish knives in front of the camera as if they were cigarettes. I wrote to the Minister two days after the debate, providing him with an example of the footage and asking what action the Home Office would take. In November I wrote again, chasing a reply. In January I spoke to him after he appeared before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, but to date I have not had any response to my inquiries; so when the Government talk tough on gangs and want to find someone and something to blame for the riots, I cannot help but wonder why they did not do more to address the sort of problems that many of us were bringing to their attention long before the riots.

If I am honest, I do not know what the Government can do to tackle the problem of online material such as the videos that I have described, but I fear that, if thousands of young people have viewed that footage and think that it is in some way cool, it would not be at all surprising if some of them also got caught up in thinking that some of the agitators in the riots were pretty cool, too.

[Mr Mark Field]

The hon. Lady complains that the Government and perhaps the current Mayor of London have not produced the goods, as she would have liked, but it is only fair to mention that, in the past few years, 10,000 knives and guns have been taken off the street, in a widespread amnesty, and we have also ensured that there are an additional 1 million police patrols per year on the streets of London. It is also fair to say that that builds on what happened under Mayor Livingstone, but the trajectory has been in that direction: we have continued some of the important work done in our capital city in the past decade.

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech that in recent years there has also been an upward trajectory. He urged patience, and I am not sure that patience is possible in this situation, because young people are being killed and maimed on our streets. We need to tackle the situation urgently.

I have spoken about my frustration in trying to get the Government to examine the big issues, and I urge the Minister to update us on the conversations that he has had with companies such as YouTube about how, when the police know such videos are out there, they may perhaps be enabled to get that material taken down.

Having spoken about online manifestations of gangs, I want to turn to some of the wider action that is needed if we are to deal with a problem that blights the lives of too many young people in big cities. Yesterday, I visited XLP, a youth work charity based in my constituency. Its founder, Patrick Regan, is the author of “Fighting Chance: Tackling Britain’s Gang Culture”. I urge the Minister and all hon. Members who are present to read it. It is a powerful and enlightening contribution to the debate about why young people are involved in gangs, what solutions are needed and, indeed, what solutions work. Anyone who reads the book will realise that there is no magic wand to be waved to tackle the problem of gang violence. What is clear is the fact that any gang strategy must address all aspects of the problem. We must seek to understand the reasons behind gang involvement and, equally, why most kids do not get involved. Let us be clear: the vast majority of kids, even on some of the most challenging estates, are not involved.

To put it simply, if we are to tackle the problem of gangs, we must find a way to get those who are now in gangs out of them; we need to help those who are in prison as a result of being in gangs not to return to gangs when they come out; and we must help those who are caught up in gang violence to deal with their anger in different ways. Often, retaliation and reprisals lead to an escalation of violence. How do we stop things getting worse at that stage? Most importantly, we must prevent people from getting involved in the first place.

What should we do? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is completely right to talk about jobs. I have said before that young people in my constituency stop me in the street and say, “What are you going to do to help me get a job?” If young people do not have real opportunities, we will not reach a situation where they do not see involvement in gangs as the easy, quick-win solution. However, we need to do other things, such as getting youth-led projects into schools when young people are at the right age, so we can make it clear to them that, if they carry a knife, it could end up injuring them. We need to provide young people with accessible role models, who are in it for the long haul, giving the support and encouragement that may be missing in other parts of a young person’s life. We need to ensure that the one-to-one mentoring and encouragement that a young person in a pupil referral unit might need are available, and can be funded. We need to give confidential support to young people who present themselves at an A and E department with a stab wound, so that they can find a way out of some of the problems. As I have said before, we need to work with those who are in prison to give them a fulfilling life to get away from gangs on their release.

When I spoke to staff at XLP yesterday, I asked them what the Government should do to tackle the problem of gangs. They were clear in their response: jobs, a better balance between enforcement and engagement, and funding of initiatives that have been proven to work. XLP gets £10,000 a year from the Home Office. It has a track record in delivery, going into schools and doing the things that I have talked about. It is changing young people’s lives; it is probably saving their lives.

I say this to the Government: take the millions of pounds that they plan to spend on police and crime commissioners and invest the money in community-led projects that are already tackling gang and knife crime. Young lives are being lost in some of our big cities because of the violence associated with gangs. That has to stop. Talking tough is not going to solve the problem. A proper, thought-out and credible strategy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, might give us a fighting chance of tackling some of the problems, and I implore the Minister to set out what the Government are going to do.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I feel somewhat unqualified to take part in this debate, because we have heard from a lot of lawyers, and I confess to not being a lawyer. I must admit that I am marrying one at the beginning of August, but he is not affected by these changes.

I will speak about the changes to legal aid and the new provisions on knife crime. I do not stand here today to claim that the current system of legal aid is perfect, because it is not. The Opposition recognise that, and we made a commitment in our manifesto to reforming it, but reforming the system is different from decimating it, and that is what the Government propose to do. This Bill will restrict access to justice to those who can afford to pay, and it will leave some of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens completely defenceless. It is a shameful Bill, and I hope that it will change hugely as it progresses through Parliament.

One of the first occasions on which I had reason to think about the availability of legal aid was when I was a local councillor in Lewisham. I was the cabinet member for regeneration, and I led the council’s work to try to find a new Travellers site. Towards the end of the process, the authority’s decision to build a new site was subject to a judicial review challenge that was funded by legal aid.

I remember hearing how an elderly woman of limited means had been persuaded by her neighbours to front the challenge, and I remember being annoyed by that, questioning in my own mind whether it was right, but as time passed I concluded that it was right: right, because there is a fundamental principle at stake, and right that, irrespective of somebody’s means, they can challenge with the appropriate legal advice and assistance a decision that the state has taken.

Although I appreciate the Government’s plan to retain legal aid for such situations, I think that the principle has to apply across the board. Taking whole areas of social welfare law out of the scope of civil legal aid means that hundreds of thousands of people will not be able to secure the legal advice that they need on housing, education and benefits.

Many decisions challenged using legal aid are taken by the state. They include decisions not to award benefits or to provide housing, and some of that work requires a detailed understanding of the law, yet the Government seem to suggest that people will be able to go it alone. I honestly cannot see how that will work.

Every fortnight I hold my advice surgery, to which many people come with plastic bags full of paperwork, and I spend hours sifting through it with them to find the key document, and to understand what stage of the process they are at and whether they have a right to appeal against a decision. Those people are not the people for whom DIY justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) described it, is an option.

A few months ago I visited Morrison Spowart, a small firm of legal aid solicitors in my constituency. Solicitors at the firm are paid generally between £25,000 and £30,000. They are not City lawyers earning £100,000, but they do change people’s lives, and they talked me through a case in which a legal aid fee of £174 enabled them to overturn a council decision not to house a family, thereby avoiding a whole number of knock-on costs to the public purse, not to mention the misery that the decision would have caused the parents and children.

Members will know that organisation after organisation has sent out briefings for this Second Reading debate, talking about the false economy of these cuts to legal aid. The list of organisations that make the argument is a long one: the Law Society, Liberty, Shelter, Citizens Advice, the Law Centres Federation and the Child Poverty Action Group. I ask the Minister: are they all wrong? The Government have not listened to the consultation’s respondents, and, as I have already said, the Bill is shameful given what it proposes to do to access to justice.

In the final minute and a half of my speech, I turn to the new provisions on knife crime and the new offence of possessing a knife in aggravated circumstances. I represent a constituency where lives have been devastated by knife crime, and the Government will have to do much better than this Bill.

Last year I researched on YouTube the videos that gangs put up. Young men—probably boys, to be honest—brandish knives on the internet and wave them around in front of the camera as if they are just cigarettes. Tens of thousands of people have viewed these videos and I wonder whether that would qualify as aggravating circumstances. The videos glorify knife crime and the intimidating and aggressive violence that accompanies it, so I ask the Minister to think about such incidents and whether any change can be made to the law to try to tackle the culture that exists around the use of knives—

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Heidi Alexander]

I only have 30 seconds and many other hon. Members wish to speak—

[Robert Halfon]

I will not be able to speak.

[Heidi Alexander]

In that case, I will give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.

[Robert Halfon]

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Is the hon. Lady aware that knives are often sold on the internet priced with British pound signs and does she agree that action needs to be taken to combat that?

[Heidi Alexander]

Some of the things that we see on the internet are of huge concern. I tried to get YouTube to take those videos down, but I did not really have a hope in hell of it doing so. I tried to interest Home Office Ministers in the issue and failed. We have to look at what is out there in cyberspace in order to tackle these issues. If anything will entice someone to get involved in knife crime, it might be the idea that they will get their 30 seconds of glory on the internet with 16,000 people looking at their video. Can we think about other ways to tackle this issue?

I do not think that the provisions in the Bill on knife crime will get to the nub of the problem. I cannot see what will really change as a result of these proposals. While I am inclined to support a mandatory sentence for possession of a knife in aggravated circumstances, I question what will really change.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

There is a continual review of the whole prison estate to address precisely the issues that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned. It would therefore be wrong to confirm that about any prison in the system, because there is a process of review to ensure that we have sufficient prison places to jail those sent to us by the courts for the term of their sentence. The last Administration did not achieve that.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The Government are proposing to remove legal aid for all asylum support law cases, while retaining it for other asylum matters. Why is the Minister drawing that distinction, when the vulnerabilities involved are surely the same?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The fundamental principle that we are following is that when security or liberty is at risk, legal aid should be provided. That is why we propose to maintain legal aid for asylum cases, but not for asylum support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heidi Alexander Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I was obviously involved in the collective discussions, as were colleagues, and we took the best legal advice. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Government accepted the legal obligation. The Government in which he recently served undertook two consultations, and they canvassed four years as a possibility. [Interruption.] With great respect, they did canvass four years, and they also accepted that prisoners should vote in all elections, including local government elections and referendums. We have drawn back from that. We are proposing that they should vote only in parliamentary and European elections.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the likely effect on the expenditure of other Departments of his proposed changes to expenditure on legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I have had discussions with a number of ministerial colleagues. Those discussions have covered a range of matters affecting our respective Departments, including the potential impact that our proposals to reform legal aid could have on those colleagues’ Departments.

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I push him a bit further on the longer-term costs to the public purse of withdrawing legal aid for all education matters? Obviously, that includes school exclusions. Given that the link between exclusions and offending is well documented, is it not a false economy to cut legal aid for that type of case?

[Mr Djanogly]

The way in which the impact will take shape in each Department—the hon. Lady mentioned education—is complicated because it involves determining whether our proposals will lead to behavioural change. We intend that that should be the case and that alternatives to court and taxpayer-funded remedies should be used to resolve disputes when at all possible.