Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Jack Dromey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I note the spirit in which the Minister of State made his remarks, but the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said nothing disorderly. He might not have said as much as he has to say or as the Minister would like to hear, and we wait with bated breath to see whether the hon. Gentleman will spring from his seat to seek to catch my eye, but his behaviour has been orderly and respectful, as always.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on two matters; first, briefly, on enhanced fees. We are not opposed to the principle of what is being proposed, but it is clear from what the Minister has said that this is about more than full cost recovery, the kind for which we argued yesterday in respect of firearms. This is a revenue-raising measure. We will therefore scrutinise carefully any orders brought forward under the proposed legislation to ensure that any charges are reasonable, and that the interests of the administration of justice are best served.

Amendment 95 relates to miscarriages of justice. I am proud to serve the city of Birmingham. In 1974, the city saw the most appalling terrorist outrage when, as a consequence of bombings by the Provisional IRA, 21 innocent citizens died. Six innocent people were then convicted of that terrorist outrage. I should make it clear that I have been a lifelong opponent of violence by the Provisional IRA. My mother and father were both Irish. I was also on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties for many years, and served as its chairman. In that period, we campaigned against terrorist violence and for justice at a time when it was sometimes difficult to stick one’s head up and say that what had happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was unacceptable. Sixteen years after the Birmingham Six were sent to prison, they were released and found to have been wrongly convicted.

On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) are bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. We are rightly proud of our judicial system, but we know that it is not perfect. The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four are but two examples of miscarriages of justice that highlight in extremis the consequences of getting it wrong; taking away years of a person’s life and damaging their reputation, their friends, family and colleagues. It is therefore entirely right that when such a miscarriage of justice occurs, the innocent people who have suffered are entitled to compensation.

At the heart of our legal system lies the principle of innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. However, Government changes to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to

“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”

seem to fly in the face of this age-old principle. Under the Government’s new narrowed compensation tests, none of the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four would have been entitled to payments. Billy Power, one of the six men wrongly convicted in the 1970s for the Birmingham pub bombings, has warned that the changes would mean that

“the standard presumption of innocence would be abolished”.

And he is not alone. A report from the Westminster joint human rights commission said:

“In our view, requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence, which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR. We recommend that clause 143 be deleted from the Bill because it is on its face incompatible with the Convention.”

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

As the hon. Gentleman will hear if I have a chance to say a word, I am very supportive of what he is arguing for and of the amendment that his hon. Friends have tabled. With respect, though, I would like to correct something that he said. The opinion that he just quoted was that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—not the Westminster convention, or whatever he called it—which is making exactly the argument that he is putting to the House.

[Jack Dromey]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is of course right.

We support a rigorous and fair justice system, but it must ensure that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all that they have suffered, which, in the more extreme cases, can involve years of their lives. If a miscarriage of justice has taken place, it is the justice system’s mistake, and it should be its job to put it right, not to make it harder for innocent people to do so. If—God forbid!—we ever saw a repeat of what happened with the Birmingham bombings and the subsequent convictions, it would be absolutely unthinkable that those people would not be entitled to compensation.

I very much hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment and our representations. We intend to support the amendment in the other place, where we believe that further detailed scrutiny should take place, because the Government have got it wrong and we must put that wrong right.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the opening comments.

I thoroughly support new clause 10, because it is right that we recognise volunteers. Too often, people have had to pay far too much to go through the processes necessary to volunteer, as I know from my own voluntary work, although that was more of a problem when people needed separate certificates for everything they did. I am glad that we have made some progress at least.

There is an issue, however, about the availability of the right level of disclosure for criminal record certificates. I thought I knew this area reasonably well, but I did not realise until recently that it was not possible to get a basic certificate—there are three levels: basic, standard and enhanced—listing unspent convictions in England and Wales; the only body that does it is Disclosure Scotland. While getting the pricing correct, therefore, we must also ensure availability. It seems perverse that only under Scots law can somebody get what most employers ought to have access to. Most employers do not realise that they should have the basic, rather than standard or enhanced certificate. I hope that Ministers will consider that point and ensure that while providing the right costings, we also get that right, and that the Government implement the relevant provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

On new clause 28, the Minister made a strong case for having some fees. I think we would all agree that if a Russian oligarch makes great use of our courts, they should make some contribution. None of us would suggest that their having to pay £1,000 or so would inhibit their ability to get justice. Perhaps the cost of using the courts should be a fraction of the fees going to the lawyers; that might be a safe way of ensuring that we make our fair share. That is not the route chosen, however, although it is quite tempting, given how large the legal fees are in many of these cases. It is not just Russian oligarchs, of course; it is anybody with a very big transaction. It seems right that they should contribute to the costs of our fantastic court system.

We need to ensure, however, that people not in a position to pay are not hit. It should still be possible for people without money to access the courts, and in that, the fees system could help, because by taking more money from those who have lots of it, we could subsidise those who do not. I note that there is broad support for the idea that any money made should be reinvested in improving our court system and ensuring that it works well. Broadly, therefore, I am pleased to see the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendments 61, 69 and 73 are consequential on those changes. Amendment 61 will ensure that a range of powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 available to the police and others to deal with indictable offences, which currently includes all theft from shops, will remain available to deal with the theft of goods of a value of £200 or less. That means that magistrates will still be able to issue search warrants, the police will be able to enter premises to search for evidence or arrest suspects, and store detectives will still be able to arrest suspects. I hope that that provides some reassurance to some retailers that I know have been anxious about this. The amendment also ensures that the equivalent PACE provisions applying to service personnel are similarly amended to preserve relevant powers of investigation. This will ensure that cases of shop theft can continue to be investigated and pursued appropriately and rigorously by the police, while providing that where individuals are to be prosecuted in court, that can be done more efficiently and effectively.

[Jack Dromey]

I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.

Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old, excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.

What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Dromey]

Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions today. That will not be a precedent for the future.

On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.

Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the Freedom from Fear campaign.

Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.

It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.

Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.

We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.

New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel they need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.

We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.

Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of highstreet legal high sellers.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

rose—

[Jack Dromey]

I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.

In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.