Information Disclosure: Pre-trial Abuse of Process Hearings

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the disclosure of information in pre-trial abuse of process hearings.

As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am pleased to welcome the Minister, who will respond. I am very pleased to have secured this debate, to raise a matter that concerns a constituent of mine, Mr Tom Perry.

The Minister will be aware of the problems arising from failures of disclosure that continue to confront the criminal justice system. Those problems received the attention of the Attorney General in his 11 December 2017 review, which reported on 15 November last year. One of the worst cases, which was reported in The Times on 21 May last year, concerned five defendants who spent seven years in jail after being wrongly convicted of the murder of Mohammed Afsar. Unfortunately, there is another aspect to that disclosure problem, which, despite repeated requests from my constituent, the Attorney General has so far refused to examine to his satisfaction. I applied for this debate to try elicit a response to the concerns of my constituent, who is in the Public Gallery.

Although my constituent’s case is long since over, the abiding issue is the dual and interconnected problem of a non-disclosure by the defence in criminal proceedings in situations where a duty of disclosure rests on the defendant and his or her legal team, and the apparent impossibility of procuring corrections by solicitors and counsel of such failures of disclosure and of erroneous submissions consequently made by them to the court. The procurement of such corrections is part of the professional disclosure obligations that counsel must make to prevent the possibility of a court being misled.

Generally, in criminal proceedings, the duty of disclosure rests not on the defendant but on the prosecution. Exceptionally, however, in cases where the defendant wishes to make an application for an indictment against him to be stayed on permissible grounds under our criminal law and procedure—principally, that to allow the indictment to proceed to trial would amount to an abuse of process—a duty of disclosure rests on the defendant and their legal team to make a full disclosure of all relevant matters, whether or not they are entitled to such an order being made for their benefit.

One class of case in which that frequently occurs is that of non-recent child abuse. Applications for stay indictments in those cases are most often heard in non-evidential proceedings, in which oral submissions are made to the judge only, without any evidence actually being given. As the judge is wholly dependent on the oral submissions made to him, the absence of the production of evidence makes it easier to mislead a court than would otherwise be the case. I am told that there is growing evidence of malpractice arising from this procedure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way—I spoke to her beforehand to seek her permission to intervene. Does she agree that, although the courts have an overriding duty to promote justice and prevent injustice, the duty to stay an indictment must be used only in extreme and clear circumstances, to ensure that there is no abuse of the judicial process?

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

In the context of the debate, the hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.

My constituent, Mr Perry, was heavily involved in the case of Caldicott School, which was heard in Aylesbury Crown court. As a pupil there in the ’60s, he and many other boys suffered very considerable and grave child abuse that has been the subject of criminal proceedings. The Minister may recall that in that case, the defendant, former headmaster Mr Wright, was eventually tried and convicted on 17 December 2013, and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on 6 February 2014.

I say “eventually”, because there were two indictments brought in this case. The first was in 2003 and the second in 2012—tried in May and June 2013 and re-tried in November 2013. Of the two indictments, only the second proceeded to trial. The first was stayed by an order made by his honour Judge Connor, following the application of the defendant and his legal team, at a non-evidential pre-trial abuse of process hearing in Aylesbury Crown court on 26 September 2003.

In criminal proceedings, an order to stay an indictment results in the termination of that indictment. The counts that related to the extensive abuse suffered at Caldicott School by my constituent, as well as by four other former pupils, were contained in the first indictment, which was stayed. That meant that the history of abuse suffered at the school by my constituent and the other former pupils was never heard in open court. Not unnaturally, my constituent and the other former pupils were deeply unhappy with that outcome.

My constituent was even more unhappy about that negative outcome because it later emerged that the court had been gravely misled by the failure of the defence, which applied for the stay, to disclose relevant information to the court. With that information, his honour Judge Connor might not have considered the stay of the indictment justified. My constituent tells me that all the details of that were set out in correspondence with the Crown Prosecution Service at the time and copied to the office of the Attorney General.

It emerged in particular that before the hearing in September 2003, the defence solicitors, Blaser Mills, had engaged in private correspondence with the school on the subject of the availability of the school pupil records to the defence. Had that correspondence been disclosed to the court, it could have assisted the prosecution in opposing the application for the stay and, in all probability, would have undermined the grounds of the application to stay the proceedings on the indictment. However, neither the judge nor the prosecuting counsel ever saw the correspondence because it was never produced in open court, even though, according to the transcript of the proceedings, the counsel for the defendant, A. J. Bright QC, had it with him in court and was aware of its contents.

The contents of the hidden correspondence only became known publicly five years later, when in November 2008, the school released it into the public domain. It then became apparent to everyone involved in those proceedings how the non-disclosure meant that the court had been misled and, in effect, deceived into making the order for the stay of the original indictment. That situation was bad enough, but according to my constituent, what followed was arguably worse still.

With the trial on the second indictment looming, my constituent and his co-complainants, who had resigned themselves to the impossibility of their cases ever being heard in open court, were naturally concerned about the position of the other five former pupils whose abuse at Caldicott School was the subject of the second indictment. Their concerns grew when it became known that the defence intended to argue that the second indictment should be stayed on the same grounds as had applied to the first indictment. Accordingly, they repeatedly pressed the CPS to ensure that those submissions made to the judge and accepted by him in the September 2003 abuse of process hearing should be formally corrected to the court.

Their argument was that those submissions, which the defence already knew to be false at the 2003 hearing, were now known to be wrong by all parties and the public at large following the release into the public domain of the correspondence between Caldicott School and the defence solicitors, Blaser Mills. Formal correction of those false submissions was needed to prevent the possibility of the court being misled in the same way that it had been in 2003.

Attention was drawn to the explicit wording of both the Solicitors Regulation Authority handbook and the Bar Standards Board handbook—I have made the relevant sections of both available to the Minister—and to the professional obligation resting on all solicitors and counsel, as officers of the court, to correct submissions of fact made to the court once they are known to be erroneous, to prevent the court from being misled further. It was noted that no one, not even those responsible for making the wrongful submissions in the first place, has been heard to deny that false submissions had been made at the September 2003 hearing or that the effect of that was that the court was misled and proceeded to rule on the basis of false information.

To my constituent’s complete and abiding astonishment, the CPS did absolutely nothing. While not disagreeing that the defence had acted improperly by telling the judge that the pupil records could not be obtained from the school, or even tacitly accepting that the court had been misled by that, it took no action at all. However, not only were the records available but, in the hidden correspondence that the judge never saw, the defence had actually relinquished its request to be given them.

In addition, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board took no action. Likewise, the Office of the Attorney General, from which at least my constituent might have expected some intervention, given the failure of the regulatory bodies to deal with the situation, did nothing. Only at a much later stage, when the defendant, following his conviction and sentence, applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, did the CPS finally agree with the complainants that, if leave to appeal conviction were granted and if the defence were to argue that the grounds of the imposition of the stay of the indictment in September 2003 were relevant to the appeal—in fact, it transpired that the defence did intend to argue exactly that—it would finally take action. It would require corrections to be made to the false submissions made in 2003 by counsel and solicitors for the defence in order to ensure that the Court of Appeal would not be misled in 2014. However, the appeal did not proceed and in the event, therefore, those corrections were never made.

At the request of my constituent, I have referred to what he considers—as I do—the embarrassing irregularities that unexpectedly and unusually came to light in the Caldicott School case, and those have a public profile. I have been led to believe, however, that similar problems were experienced in a number of other cases of lesser profile. My constituent has generously offered to provide the Minister with the details, if she so wishes.

It is too late now for the complainants in the Caldicott School case to be accorded the simple justice of the correction of known false submissions that were made to the court, that derailed the first indictment and that they believe denied them justice in 2003.

Rape Trials: Treatment of Victims

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

I thank my hon. Friend for coming today. He will find out that we are trying to do exactly what he said. My constituent is in the Public Gallery—not because she can change what has happened to her, but because we can try to change things for the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on everything he does in the House, and particularly on this case. I commend him for what he is doing on behalf of his constituents. There have been 820 accusations of rape in Northern Ireland, but only 15 convictions. Does he believe that the CPS, in co-ordination with the police forces, can enable more cases to be tried successfully by offering greater support to the victims and their families—in other words, by working together on behalf of the victim?

[Robert Halfon]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman gets it in one. From what I am about to say, he will see that I agree with him. I am sure the Minister is listening to what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) are saying.

First, I want to raise the issues of sentencing for attempted rape and the lack of transparency in published statistics. Secondly, I want to turn to the treatment of victims who report their assault, and call for Government action to make this process easier. We must strive to ensure that justice is served and that there is always compassion and support for the victim.

Section 1(4) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 sets out that the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. Under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, a person who attempts to commit the full offence of rape shall also be liable for a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In the case of my Harlow constituent, her attacker had the intention, or mens rea, to commit the full offence. Had it not been for the fact that she had the sheer physical strength to fight him off until a security guard heard her screaming for help and intervened, his attempt might have been undeterred.

In their legislative form, the offences of attempted rape and rape are considered punishable by equal measure. However, by taking into account the circumstances of the case under the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, the court often imposes a lesser sentence on perpetrators of attempted rape because they have not committed the actus reus of rape. For my Harlow constituent, she feels let down by the justice system—robbed of the possibility of a longer sentence for the perpetrator because she fought so hard to fend him off. Will the Minister clarify the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for attempted rape and the basis on which their effectiveness as a means of securing justice is tested?

Another key problem on the subject of sentencing for sexual offences is the lack of clarity in the statistics. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s response to my letter on sentencing for attempted rape, but I was shocked by his acknowledgement that

“The Ministry of Justice does not disaggregate attempted rape from rape offences by sentence length in published figures.”

Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice will commit to transparency in sentencing figures for rape and attempted rape, so that we have a much clearer basis on which to assess the suitability of existing law? Will she ensure that this is clearly published, rather than buried in spreadsheets and data tools?

Only 15% of sexual violence cases are reported to the police, and only 7.5% of rape charges result in conviction. These statistics are devastating and demand urgent Government attention. A whole host of factors might well be to blame for these figures: a high threshold for sufficient evidence; the CPS’s continuous demand for more intrusive personal data, including from mobile phones; and the myths surrounding what constitutes rape, to name but a few. However, some responsibility must be borne by the treatment of victims before, during and after trial. We are discouraging people from reporting their assault or forcing them to drop charges, because they cannot bear to continue.

After making the courageous decision to give her statement to the police, the process of my Harlow constituent’s fight for justice has been arduous and often extremely uncomfortable. It is important that I go through some of her experiences in detail—sadly, my constituent’s account is not unique. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, she waited eight hours in discomfort, exhaustion and emotional trauma to have forensic evidence collected at the sexual assault referral centre, or SARC. She was not permitted to wash and was asked to strip down before being swabbed from head to toe and photographed. She was then interviewed and asked intrusive personal questions. At the time, she was constantly waiting for nurses, police and support staff to attend to her.

As they are often the first port of call after an assault, SARCs play a crucial role in the victim’s ability to secure justice. It is possibly the most critical part of the process in obtaining forensic evidence that can be used by the prosecution at trial. However, we make victims wait in distress and discomfort, because otherwise they risk evidence being lost due to a lack of qualified staff. The rape support fund has been a cornerstone for support services, and I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment under the victims strategy to increase spending from £31 million in 2016-17 to £39 million in 2020-21. The solution is not necessarily throwing more money at the problem, although more money will always be welcome; it is essential that money is being used wisely and efficiently to maximise reach.

NHS England says that SARCs delivered services to 20,000 people in 2017-18. In the same year, Rape Crisis supported 78,000 individuals on £10 million less funding. What measure will the Minister take to ensure that the £39 million is used to staff SARCs properly? While they are not staffed properly, we are not only adding to the distress and anguish of victims, but potentially risking the successful prosecution of people who commit such horrific acts. Additionally, the all-party parliamentary group on sexual violence, together with Rape Crisis, has identified concerns about increased competition for this extra money and whether there will be any significant changes to individual centres.

The consequences, of course, are felt by the end user—the victim. As my constituent’s experience shows, the Government’s commitment to strengthen victim support, although wholly admirable, does not always trickle down to the people using the services. For example, sexual assault victims do not get the psychological support that they need. Waiting times for counselling are as long as one year, and the counselling sessions that individuals are offered may be just for a few weeks.

My constituent realised that she needed much more counselling. She actively pressed for more, and was given it. On top of her emotional trauma, she felt guilty that she may have been depriving someone else of vital support. People who have already been through an emotional and horrific ordeal should not be concerned about that. Will the Minister ensure that the additional funding outlined in the Government’s victims strategy will be channelled to staff support services properly, minimise waiting times and allow survivors to start getting on with their lives?

In the months leading up to the trial, my constituent was contacted regularly by the police, who asked more questions and wanted more statements, interviews and photographs of the bruising. The trial took more than a week and a half. She had to express her discomfort at the idea that her attacker would be in the same room as her before a screen was put up. She described the trial and cross-examination as:

“A torturous experience of being asked the most vulgar questions...based on the attacker’s recall of the event, which made me feel so uncomfortable and emotional, whilst being forced under pressure by the lawyer”.

Even after a guilty verdict has been reached, victims are still not free to get on with their lives. My constituent had to wait months before her attacker was sentenced to six years.

Survivors of assault put themselves through that not because they want to, but because it is their only hope of building a case, and yet we jeopardise it by making the process so difficult. Minister, what can be done to speed up the process from reporting to the police to sentencing, so we do not prolong the suffering for longer than is wholly necessary?

Since the perpetrator’s imprisonment, my constituent has been asked by her attacker’s parole board to fill in reams of paperwork to put in place measures not only for her, but for him. Although he got six years—now reduced to just three—my constituent feels like she has been served with a life sentence. She is reeling from the anguish and suffering she experienced. Why on earth should she—the innocent party and victim—face a never ending struggle to keep the perpetrator in prison and feel some sense of safety?

I recognise that resources are limited, and that this is a particularly sensitive area of the law, but we cannot sit by and ignore the problems. The statistics relating to this area of justice are dire, as has been highlighted, and they are not getting any better. In 2017-18, the number of rape referrals from the police to the CPS fell by 9%, the number of suspects charged for rape fell by 8% and the number of rape prosecutions fell by 13%. The volume of sexual offence prosecutions excluding rape also fell by 11%.

My constituent suffered because of the lenient justice system. She suffered in the reporting of the attempted rape and suffered again in the aftermath. That is just wrong. She, like every rape and sexual assault survivor, has suffered enough. The Government must review all these areas and ensure that no one feels let down by the justice system again.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point in his own way, but my point is that on Monday the House will need to choose. If the Government cannot do it, the House must do it, and we must remember that in spite of some of the things that are said, including from the Government Front Bench, the Government are accountable to Parliament and not the other way round. No two colleagues agree entirely in what they say in this House, but in my view there will be a result on Monday, and the Government must honour it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I am so sorry; I do not have time to give way.

I hope very much that the Prime Minister will agree that members of the Cabinet—all Ministers—can vote freely on Monday. Otherwise, senior Members of Parliament will be disenfranchised from this process. There should not be a Whip. If we come to this on Monday, it will be a House of Commons occasion. The House of Commons must seek to sort it out.

I find myself in a minority in the House of Commons. I think the House overstates the dangers of no deal. I do not believe there is such a thing as no deal. I think that, were we to leave with what is called no deal, there will be a whole series of smaller deals, some temporary and some more permanent, and some stops, so I do not worry as much as many of my colleagues do about the dangers of no deal.

Equally, I think that the House massively underestimates the dangers of advancing towards a second referendum. The anger, irritation and annoyance of our constituents will be palpable, and in my judgment, it would be very likely to solve nothing at all. Imagine the nightmare of the country reversing the earlier vote and voting 48:52 to remain. What would that mean for our democracy? What would that mean for the votes of the people in both those referendums? For this House to advance down the route of another referendum would in my view be a very serious mistake indeed. However, if the Government cannot do a deal that the House of Commons will accept, and if the House of Commons cannot come to an agreement in the way that I have described, the ineluctable logic of that position is that it will have to be referred again to the British people, and in my view that would be an absolute disaster.

I end on this point. This is an important negotiation. I think that we have been out-manoeuvred as a country by the European Commission and the 27 standing absolutely firm, as they said they would, which many of us did not believe. However, this is an important negotiation, and they have interests and we have interests. In my judgment, unless the European Union and the Commission can show a little bit more of a sense of compromise on what the Government have been saying, it will leave a profound legacy of bitterness across the channel between the European Union and this country. They are our friends and partners. We will trade with them, do business with them and work with them over the coming years and generations. We also have huge security interests that bind us together. I obviously hope that the Government are successful today, but if they are not and we move into those further processes—the unknown—the Commission will also bear in mind its interest in trying to reach a deal that is good for both parties and is not imposed on one of those parties.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. I say at the start that I will do this afternoon what is in the best interests of the country and my constituents by not supporting this deal. I have to say that I was disappointed by the contribution of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). We agree on 95% of everything in this particular EU debate. To attack the Labour party, rather than the Government for the deal in front of us, perhaps shows where SNP Members’ thought processes are at the moment.

Let us not forget that the House voted for this process, against the Government’s wishes. One thing we can all say with great certainty is that, since mid-November last year, nothing has changed, either in the withdrawal agreement or in the political declaration. The only thing that has changed is the Attorney General’s legal advice. If you ask a lawyer for the conclusion that you want, and you pay them, you are likely to get what you are looking for. There is no trust in the Government in this place. We tried to do everything we could as a Parliament, and we had to drag the Government through hedges, to get to a place whereby we could have even this proper debate.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will not, because it would mean that my Back-Bench colleagues will not get a chance to speak.

Today is 29 March—the day we should have left the European Union—so it is a good day to look at the report cards for the Government and the leave campaign on where we should have been by today. Where is the £350 million Brexit bonanza for our NHS? It is not there. Where is the easiest trade deal in history? Not only is it not the easiest in history, but the Government have had to take it out of this particular debate to get their deal through. Where is taking back control? Indeed, we are ceding control. Where is the promise of no border on the island of Ireland? The solution cannot be found by the Government because of the red lines they set themselves. Where are the 40 bilateral trade deals that we should have just rolled over by midnight tonight? Where is the cap and the reduction in net migration? It cannot be met. Where is more money going into our public services, when £4.2 billion is being spent on no deal? Those are not just broken promises; they also broke the law. There are no sunny uplands in this process. Today we should all say loud and clear that we are slaying the unicorns once and for all.

This is not meaningful vote 3, it is meaningful vote 2 and a half. The Government are not complying with their own legislation, and they know it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was absolutely right: there is nothing wrong with somebody selling their house, but they have to know where they will go next. The Government are asking us to sell the house without knowing where we go next. It is not only that we do not know where we will go next with the political declaration, but that we do not even know who will do that negotiation. This is a blind Brexit with a blind Prime Minister and a blind Government. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a wonderful speech from the Front Bench, and he was absolutely correct: the entire debate on our future relationship with the European Union will be conducted after a Conservative leadership election that could provide a Prime Minister who will rip up the political declaration and take us into territory that we do not want to be taken into.

What happens if the motion passes today but the political declaration—or, indeed, the implementation Bill—does not pass? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central was absolutely correct that, come 22 May, we will again end up in the situation in which it is the Prime Minister’s deal or no deal, with no opportunity to extend the process.

In this process, the Prime Minister is the shopkeeper in the “Monty Python” sketch involving the dead Norwegian parrot, and Parliament is Mr Praline. It is quite clear that her deal is no more. It has ceased to exist. It is bereft of life. It rests in peace. It is a deal that has been nailed to its perch. It is an ex-parrot; it is an ex-deal. Interestingly, at the end of that sketch, the shopkeeper says, “this is getting silly”, and the sketch gives up. Prime Minister and Government: this is getting silly. Give up and listen to the House.

We might end up having to revoke article 50 come 22 May if we pass this motion but have no opportunity to do anything else. I suggest that the Government now listen to the indicative vote process that happened on Wednesday, act with dignity and respect this House as that process continues next week. They should also listen to what the public are saying. It is completely unfair that the Prime Minister can keep flogging the dead horse of her deal as many times as she likes in this House yet the public got one chance three years ago, with all the sunny uplands and broken promises they were given in 2016. Let us give the British people a confirmatory vote and let them back into the process to break the impasse in Parliament. If they still wish to leave the European Union, and if the Prime Minister is so confident about her deal, she will go to them and get them to back it. If they do not, we can maintain the best deal we have at the moment, which is to be a fully-fledged member of the European Union.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

This debate is quite extraordinary. There is no doubt that the British people feel anger, resentment and a great deal of disappointment towards this House and politicians over Brexit. They expected us to be leaving the EU today. I do not think we need to go over old ground, which has already been articulated, on why we have had to postpone our leaving by legislating through statutory instrument in this House.

The motion is yet another disappointment to everyone who voted to leave the EU. It follows a demand from the EU, made through the European Council decision of 22 March, to agree to extend the period under article 50. Under the provisions of that decision, the UK will be bound into staying in the EU until 22 May, if the motion is agreed to. Of course, agreeing to the motion also means accepting the withdrawal agreement in full and as drafted. Paragraph 11 of the preamble to that decision makes it clear that, by agreeing to the motion, the withdrawal agreement as drafted would be locked in, with no change possible. It binds the United Kingdom into accepting the withdrawal agreement, stating that it

“excludes any re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement. Any unilateral commitment, statement or other act by the United Kingdom should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement.”

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and commend her for the stance she has taken so far. May I say very gently to her and to the House, and to the Government in particular, that my party has been consistent in its stance over the past two years? A legally binding, time-limited backstop is what we have always asked for; that has not changed and we have not deviated. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has referred to that. Does she too hold to that stance?

[Priti Patel]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, the purpose of today’s motion—he and I have commented on this—is that once the withdrawal agreement is agreed, there is no turning back, because the UK will be bound into an international agreement with the EU. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, that means there will be no chance to change the withdrawal agreement, no chance to change the Northern Ireland backstop, no chance to put safeguards in place to protect our democracy from the harmful laws that will be imposed on us, no chance to freely negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world, and no chance to change in any meaningful way the legislation coming forward to implement the withdrawal agreement, because seeking to amend the legislation would risk putting the UK being in breach of our international obligations.

Agreeing to the motion means facing a Brexit deal that is dreamed up, drafted and decided by the EU. Once the motion is passed, we will be forced to comply with the EU’s demands. That is not what the country voted for, when 17.4 million people voted to leave the EU in the greatest show of democracy this country has ever seen. However, once again we will see the EU’s will being imposed on the British people. Of course, the withdrawal agreement represents a legally binding treaty, which will deny the British people and our Parliament the sovereign right to choose our future and be in control of our destiny.

I was elected to the House of Commons with a mandate to deliver Brexit, and the withdrawal agreement does not give this country the freedoms, independence, democracy and control that people voted for. It is becoming increasingly clear that MPs elected on a mandate to take Britain out of the EU and the customs union are—we have to be honest—going back on those pledges and want to impose a customs union on this country. The withdrawal agreement already includes a single customs territory, which is a form of customs union, and we know that many MPs want to go further. That would prevent Britain from negotiating its own trade deals with the rest of the world and effectively keep us as a rule taker.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I was puzzled as to what I was to answer. I disagree with my hon. Friend. We will leave legally on 29 March. To get back, we would have to apply for accession under article 49. We will be in a fundamentally different position on 30 March, if we can get there—and we have to get there, because that will honour the verdict given by the British people on 23 June 2016. The best way of ensuring that we do that, whatever the unsatisfactory elements that I accept are involved in this deal, is to take the key to the door of the cell, and get out on 29 March. This deal is the best means of doing that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the Attorney General’s somewhat bombastic responses to hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies, he has not addressed the issue to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) referred: the backstop down the Irish sea. Will he outline the legal implications of Northern Ireland entering into a customs union with no voice or vote for an indefinite period of time, which to all intents and purposes would create a united Ireland without the mechanism of a border poll, a vote called for within the Belfast agreement?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Member puts his finger on something that I do regard as being one of the undesirable features of the backstop, which is that there will be rules passed relating to goods. The trade in goods is a narrow field of human and public life, but rules will be passed and the people of Northern Ireland will not have the right of representation in their passage. That is why I think it is essential it should be temporary, why we must strive to make it so, why the extension of the implementation period is a real option in those circumstances, and why I believe, for the reasons I have already given, we can avoid it or avoid it being of any great length.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

My hon. Friend, who is a former Government lawyer, will recall that the circumstances of the publication of the Iraq advice were dramatically different from the current circumstances. In brief, extracts from the then Attorney General’s advice were leaked to the press during the 2005 election campaign, and in those exceptional circumstances, the then Labour Government took a collective decision that the Attorney General should publish the full text. That is the only time it has happened. It was an exceptional case that I do not think sets a precedent here.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Can the Solicitor General outline the legal implications of Northern Ireland entering into a customs union—including, to all intents and purposes, a united Ireland—with no voice or vote for an indefinite period and without the mechanism of a border poll, as called for in the Belfast agreement?

[The Solicitor General]

I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that he can put that precise question to my right hon. and learned Friend on the next sitting day. If he does, I am sure he will get a full answer.

Public Legal Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and to follow my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who secured this debate. Like others who have spoken, I too had to educate myself on this subject before I came to speak in this debate. It is really important to welcome the work that the Government are doing in setting up a public legal education panel because the law can appear very complex and intimidating, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds who are not as lucky to be as educated as we in this Chamber are.

The trouble with the law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) has referenced, is that it tends to affect us at the times in our lives when we are undergoing a lot of stress because of life events that come at us out of the blue, such as divorce or bereavement. It has touched me recently in the case of my mother, who is a dementia sufferer. I have had to apply for a lasting power of attorney and go through an entire process, which has been extremely difficult and complicated. There has been help for me, which I have welcomed, but I think a lot of people struggle with such concepts at difficult times in their lives.

We live in a society where there are still a lot of myths around the law. One area is very important. Women still sometimes believe in the concept of common law marriage, which is a concept with nothing behind it, yet sometimes people believe that they have some rights and protections in a relationship. They find out when it is much too late that they do not have protections and are left in a devastating financial position, sometimes losing access to their property or their children. I very much hope that the concept of public legal education can reach out to all areas of society and help people when they have tragic and difficult life events.

I am delighted, like other hon. Members, to mention some of the organisations that do an excellent job. I have been made aware of one organisation called Big Voice London. One of my daughter’s friends has done some work for that organisation, which focuses on the diversity aspect because, when we look at the legal profession, it is still very limited in terms of who comes into it. Unfortunately, social mobility is a real problem. In 2017, despite only 7% of school pupils attending private schools, according to the Sutton Trust 32% of law firm partners, 71% of QCs and 74% of judges attended private schools. As someone who went to a comprehensive, I do not think that is good enough, so I am delighted that there are organisations such as Big Voice. My friend, who came from a non-traditional background, said that it really helped him in his journey. He has just started as a young barrister and is doing very well. I hope that such organisations can continue to be supported.

I will touch on three issues—I do not think they have been mentioned—where public legal education is critical. The first is social media for young people in our schools. They sometimes do not realise the impact on their future careers of what they post on social media.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is imperative that, in a world that is increasingly litigious, people are educated from a young age to understand how systems work and, more importantly, understand where they can seek help from appropriate sources without the worry of feeling isolated, uncertain, overwhelmed and vulnerable?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; I agree with the point he has made. Social media can sometimes combat isolation, but it can also lead to isolation in and of itself.

Social media is one area where young people need to be more aware of the law and how what they post can affect their future job prospects. The other area is housing, which comes up all the time with constituents in my surgery. Unfortunately, there are very bad landlords out there. The Government have done a lot to protect tenants, but sometimes people lack awareness of their rights and responsibilities and they end up living in absolutely horrific housing conditions that none of us would want to see.

The final area is around employment law, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has mentioned, and she was right to do so. There are many small business employers—I was one myself—who feel terrified of battling with employment law, and better awareness in that regard would help them as well as the employees whom she talked about in detail. I will conclude so that others can speak, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire for securing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I very much encourage those who have benefited from a free legal education in Scotland and beyond, and who are now doing well out of being lawyers, to engage in pro bono work. I am proud that the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society of Scotland do that and encourage firms and individual advocates in Scotland to do it too. I will return to that in a moment.

The Edinburgh Napier law clinic is in my constituency. Edinburgh Napier University is a relatively recent deliverer of legal education in Scotland, but I am proud to say that staff and students have set up a voluntary clinic to provide free legal advice and assistance. We have a considerably more generous legal aid scheme in Scotland than in England and Wales, but nevertheless people fall through the cracks, and they can benefit from law clinics such as the one established by Edinburgh Napier University. One of the clinic’s main objectives is to broaden the concept of access to justice, and that is really what this debate is about, at least in part. Public legal education is about educating people and giving them access to justice.

I am also proud that Edinburgh University, which is not in my constituency but is my alma mater, has a free legal advice clinic, as does Glasgow Caledonian University, the University of Strathclyde, Aberdeen University, Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen and the University of the West of Scotland. Those law clinics are thriving. Many MPs and Members of the Scottish Parliament refer their constituents to them from time to time.

The Faculty of Advocates, which is the Scottish Bar, of which I am a member, also runs a law clinic or a free legal services unit, which is part of its commitment to promote access to justice. That means that members of the public can be referred through certain organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to get free advice and representation from practising advocates in Scotland.

[Jim Shannon]

Has the hon. and learned Lady experienced the issue of local citizens advice bureaux being deluged with personal independence payment and employment and support allowance forms? In a great many cases, they find themselves unable to give that legal advice because of the change in the benefits system.

[Joanna Cherry]

Yes, I have. My constituency office in Edinburgh South West, on Dundee Street in Fountainbridge, is next door to the local citizens advice bureau in Fountainbridge library. We work closely together on this sort of issue. Citizens Advice provides an amazing service. In my experience, Members of Parliament who work in conjunction with it can have successful outcomes in fighting issues of administrative justice in the UK social security system. That is a much-neglected area; we need to look at how the social security system is functioning or, in my experience, not functioning, and failing to properly respect people’s rights. We need to look at all the facts of the case. As in the immigration field, there seems to be a considerable amount of capricious decision making, which is why it is important for people to have access to legal assistance in facing down that unfair decision making.

I am happy to say that on a number of occasions, I have referred constituents to the free legal services unit at the Faculty of Advocates with good outcomes. The Faculty of Advocates also arranges open days to encourage students from schools across Scotland to come and see what life as an advocate is really like.

I am proud that the Faculty of Advocates has done much to increase its diversity since I was called to the Bar in 1995, when I was one of a small number of women advocates in Scotland and there were no female judges on the senior Scottish bench. Now, our second most senior judge is a woman and we have many women on the senior judicial bench in Scotland, but there is still quite a long way to go before we achieve parity with the men.

There is also the issue of trying to encourage more people from working-class backgrounds and from diverse and BAME communities to come into the law. As well as holding open days, the Faculty of Advocates runs a couple of mini trials—or mock trials—initiatives, which are particularly directed at kids from schools and backgrounds from which people would not normally be expected to end up at the Bar, to try to break down the barriers and to show that—if I am allowed to say this—the law can sometimes be fun, and that it is not just for posh people who went to a private school. I hope that my former colleagues are making some progress in that area. They run the mock trials as part of the Citizenship Foundation, which has been mentioned. It is a cross-UK foundation that is supported north of the border by the Faculty of Advocates.

Another way that legal professionals can contribute to legal education is by providing briefings to parliamentarians working on Bills. In the three years that I have been here, I have had invaluable assistance from briefings provided by the likes of the Law Society of Scotland, the Law Society of England and Wales, the Bars of Scotland and of England and Wales, and organisations such as Liberty, and Justice. I am proud that the Faculty of Advocates actively contributes to law reform north and south of the border under the excellent chairmanship of Laura Dunlop, QC, who was my pupil master, although she is not responsible for any of my mistakes—only for the good parts.

The Law Society of Scotland also provides fantastic briefings. I could not have done my job as an MP properly without its assistance in the last few years, particularly the assistance of Michael Clancy, who is the head of law reform there and is well known to parliamentarians from all political parties. In more general terms, it has also engaged in significant activity in the area of public legal education.

The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) mentioned StreetLaw. The Law Society of Scotland participates in the StreetLaw project. That involves sending out StreetLaw trainers to teach students and schoolchildren about the law, the legal process and the sort of knowledge and skills that students can use to recognise and prevent legal problems in their lives, and perhaps also to prompt them to consider participating as legal professionals in later life.

All the Law Society of Scotland’s StreetLaw trainers are law students studying in Scotland who undertake this work on a voluntary basis. I am very proud to say that they are supported by two major international law firms in doing so—CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang, and Pinsent Masons. They have also had support from the Law Society of Ireland and from international leaders in public legal aid education, such as Harvard University, Georgetown University and Penn State University.

As well as participating in the StreetLaw project, the Law Society of Scotland participates in a charitable foundation, which was set up to give bursaries to students and to support summer schools, schools programmes, visits and events. The Law Society of Scotland is also playing an active role in a campaign to increase diversity in professional services in Scotland.

Just before I draw to a close, I will add a note of caution. An awful lot has been said today about the importance of public legal education, but public legal education should never be viewed as an easy way to plug the gaps left by legal aid cuts. Access to justice should always be our paramount concern. Public legal education should be more about developing capacity and not really about answering specific legal problems because of unmet needs due to gaps in the legal aid system.

Recently we saw a leaked Ministry of Justice report that revealed judges in England and Wales are concerned that legal aid cuts are leading to an increase in the number of defendants without legal representation. I think it is fair to say that the extent to which legal aid has been cut in England and Wales has pushed many people out of eligibility for it in crucial areas of justice, meaning that vulnerable people are often left without legal aid and appear in court or before a tribunal without a lawyer. That is not just my view; it is also the view of many of the witnesses who have given evidence to the inquiry by the Joint Committee on Human Rights into the enforcement of rights. It is also the view of Amnesty International, which has said that the cuts included in LASPO—the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—have created a two-tier justice system in England and Wales.

Recently in Scotland, we had an independent review of our legal aid system. It highlighted that, despite the fact that we spend less per capita in Scotland on legal aid than is spent in England and Wales, legal aid is far more widely available in Scotland and covers a wider scope of categories than it does south of the border. As I say, that was not a Scottish Government review but an independent review, chaired by Martyn Evans, the chief executive of the Carnegie UK Trust. It shows that it is possible to have legal aid that is more widely available without actually spending any more money. So, where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I end by urging the Solicitor General to be cautious about letting public legal education plug the gaps that legal aid should fill, and I urge the UK Government—as I have done on previous occasions—to carry out an independent review of the legal aid system in England and Wales, rather than the in-house Government review that is going on at the moment.

Shooting of Abdulkarim Boudiaf

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I wish to use this Adjournment debate to raise the case of Abdulkarim Boudiaf, a constituent of mine who tragically lost his life in Tottenham on 14 March 2009. As Members of Parliament, we are first and foremost representatives of our constituents: we are sent here to speak for them, to represent them, to serve them, and to fight for their interests. This is a responsibility that I have always taken with the utmost seriousness, so tonight I stand here as the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, but also as the representative of the Boudiaf family, who are yet to find closure and are yet to get justice for their son who was taken from them in the most brutal of circumstances.

Eight long years have passed since Karim’s untimely death, yet the family’s grief remains as raw as on the day he died. Their search for justice goes on, and their son’s murderers are yet to be brought to justice for this heinous crime. Many listening may reflect on a high-profile case from a different constituency and think that the case of my constituent is eerily similar to that of Stephen Lawrence. Two of the original murder suspects, Gary Dobson and David Norris, were convicted and are serving minimum life terms. The remaining three prime suspects in the murder of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 are still free from conviction and punishment, however. I hope tonight that I will be able not only to shed some light on the circumstances of the case, but to highlight wider concerns about the implications of the double jeopardy rule in pursuing public prosecutions.

Karim, as he is known to his family, was a talented and outgoing young man with aspirations of attending the University of Northampton to read law. I was once a young man from Tottenham with aspirations to go to university to read law, so it breaks my heart that the opportunity was snatched away from Karim when he was callously murdered outside the Elmhurst pub on Broadwater Road in my constituency on Saturday 14 March 2009.

At the time of the tragic incident, Karim was enjoying an evening out with friends. Aged just 18 years, he was shot in cold blood at point-blank range and sustained fatal injuries to the abdomen and neck shortly after 10 o’clock in the evening. Emergency services were called to the scene and paramedics fought desperately to save his life, yet, sadly, in vain; he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Karim left behind a mother, a father and two siblings. As each day passes, the family struggle to come to terms with what happened and with the horrific circumstances in which Karim lost his life. No motive was identified, nor was the murder weapon ever found. It has been extremely difficult for the Boudiaf family to accept, first, that their son is gone; secondly, that the murder case remains unsolved; and, thirdly, that the perpetrators of this senseless crime walk free among us today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward with such dedication. Does he agree that the reward offered for information in 2016 should be reviewed, and that a renewed publicity campaign should be launched to seek justice for the family of this young man, who was planning to study law and was a much loved member of his family and of the community?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is important that, when we offer incentives to the public to come forward, the sum involved is appropriate and the right amount to draw attention to the crime and to bring people out of the woodwork. The threshold in these sorts of cases is so high.

The perpetrators of this crime are walking free—free from conviction for this serious offence, free from justice, free from having to face up to their crimes and free to live under the pretence of being just another ordinary citizen in society. Karim’s family are not free. They cannot find any peace. They cannot find closure. They cannot live their lives with this injustice hanging over them.

Karim was out with a crowd of friends in the vicinity of a busy pub on a Saturday night. There were numerous witnesses who saw what happened to him, and some of them gave evidence, but their testimony was undermined during the investigation into his death. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service brought charges against two men, Asher Vance and Jack Johnson. However, the defendants were acquitted during a trial heard at the Old Bailey in 2009, much to the family’s disgust. The family’s grief was further compounded when they heard that any further prosecutions involving the only defendants charged with the murder of Karim could take place only if new and compelling evidence was brought to light in accordance with double jeopardy legislation.

Since the prosecutions failed, I have been raising questions about the relationship between double jeopardy and prosecution appeals. Was the original investigation robust and watertight? Were any stones left unturned? Why did the prosecution fail? Why was the murder weapon never found? Why was a motive never established? Is there anything that the police and Crown Prosecution Service could have done differently?

During the trial, Karim’s mother shared her anguish with the public through the recital of poetry. It is heartbreaking to have to say that the family felt that their ethnic background and Muslim faith was held against them, and that they felt marginalised throughout the process. I am no stranger to the issues of how race and ethnicity interact with our criminal justice system, having published a review into this subject area for the Prime Minister in September. The Boudiafs are a proud, loving family of Algerian descent, who have close ties to the Algerian community in my constituency and across London. It is a cause of real concern that any family would feel that their race, ethnicity and religion could influence and play a factor in whether the person responsible for a murder is brought to justice. Unfortunately, this is very much the situation that the Boudiaf family are faced with. Karim’s mother in particular has always felt that her Algerian background resulted in conscious and unconscious bias in the course of police investigations, which in turn contributed to a failure to secure a conviction at trial.

Social divisions, racial inequality and the disproportionate representation of individuals from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds as the victims of crime are issues we have seen highlighted time and again in criminal cases. Notably, all these issues were deeply rooted in one of the most high-profile cases in criminal history in the UK: the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993, and the subsequent miscarriage of justice that saw his case overlooked for 19 years.

Changes to the application of the rule of double jeopardy followed shortly after recommendations in the Macpherson report, published in 1999. Amendments to sections 75 to 97 in part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 permit retrials where new and compelling evidence is brought against the acquitted. Those changes mean that acquittals can be quashed, and that qualifying and serious cases can be retried in the interests of, and in pursuit of, justice. However, it took 19 long years before significant failings were recognised. It was 19 years before substantial changes were made to the application of the double jeopardy rule. Ultimately, it took 19 years too long before only two successful convictions were secured under revisions to the doctrine of double jeopardy. How long will the Boudiaf family have to wait before justice is duly served and they can find some semblance of peace?

Following my interventions, the police launched a fresh appeal in 2015 for more information about the murder. To the family, the police efforts felt cursory. I understand that it is still an open case, but no active investigation is being undertaken at this point. For there to be an active investigation, the Homicide and Serious Crime Command would need to review the case. I am calling for a review and an active investigation as we approach the 10th anniversary of Karim’s death.

Against a backdrop of austerity and spending cuts since 2010, I am also concerned that police services lack the resources they need to actively investigate open cases—even in a brutal murder case such as this. The Met is already having to find £1 billion of cuts, which has led to the loss of 2,800 staff and the closure of police stations across the capital in recent years.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on bringing this issue to the House. Over my 30 years as a councillor, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and now as an MP, I have seen literally thousands of cases, but these cases are different. They stick in my mind because of what happened. In the short time I have, I would like to mention the heartbroken mothers whose lives were torn apart when their children were killed by a drunk driver, and the knife being twisted further at court when the judged passed a sentence that came nowhere close to natural justice.

My heart aches when I think of those scenarios, as it does in the case of sexual abuse of children. They are the most difficult cases that I have ever dealt with as an elected representative. They are very emotional because I become intertwined with the person telling the story. When those abused children become adults and they speak out about what was done to them, the nightmare comes back—something triggers it and I do not know what it is—but all of a sudden their memories of what took place when they were children become part of the living hell that they are in. There is the physical and emotional turmoil of taking the step of reporting their abuser to the police. They then go through the interview process and finally, the intrusive court case, which, no matter how sensitively the judge handles it, inevitably causes more wounds and scars.

After putting themselves through all this, in the hope of finding justice or some form of closure, they find only heartache and even feel dismissed, as if they are not worth the trouble. I understand that it is hard for judges who wish to do more but find that their hands are tied. In Northern Ireland, the Public Prosecution Service offers the following guidance on unduly lenient sentences:

“In certain cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who heads the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), has the power to ask the Court of Appeal to review a sentence on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. An application to review a sentence must be made within 28 days from the day when the sentence was imposed.”

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that. It continues:

“If the Court of Appeal agrees that the sentence was unduly lenient it may increase the sentence…The court also takes account of the fact that the offender has been put through the sentencing process a second time. It will not intervene unless the sentence is significantly below the sentence that the judge should have passed.”

There is a big if in the process. A victim is once again looking at a long drawn-out process to have their justice and this is not guaranteed. They must again take the steps to make contact, retell their horrific story, wait to be judged to see if what happened to them is bad enough to be reviewed, and wait to see if another court will uphold, increase or decrease the sentence of the person who destroyed their life. All the while, it is the victim who is suffering in silence, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, while the perpetrator goes through a further sentencing process. Something seems a little wrong with that. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead said that, too, in his introduction.

I understand that our prison service is at capacity. I understand that it is impossible to hand out custodial sentences for every crime and indeed it would be insane to do so. I also understand that the punishment must fit the crime and there are certain crimes that are not punished accordingly. There is an appeal system in place but it is up to us to legislate, to enable judges to make the punishment fit the crime, rather than putting the onus back on the victim and almost re-traumatising them. There has to be a better way.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sentencing in animal cruelty cases. I have asked for sentences to be reviewed in cases involving the horrific abuse of animals and, to be fair, the Public Prosecution Service has looked at those sentences again and increased them. But there has to be a better way, and this House is tasked with finding it. I ask the Minister, with great respect, how this will be accomplished through legislation, rather than through the appeals process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with the hon. Lady. MediaCity is such a great success story. The fact that more people are employed in MediaCity at Salford quays than in its heyday as a major port is a great example of how creative and new industries can bring wealth to the nations and regions. As I said in answer to a previous question, I have discussed the matter with the chair and director-general and will continue to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Over the election campaign there was minimal coverage of Northern Ireland constituencies, which for many underlined the view that the BBC’s regional coverage in Northern Ireland is sub-par. What can be done to increase the resources for the BBC’s engagement with Northern Ireland representatives, to ensure that they match those of other regions across the United Kingdom of Northern Ireland and Great Britain?

[Karen Bradley]

I refer to my previous answers. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the coverage during the election period, I urge him to put them to Ofcom, which is now the BBC regulator, so that it can look into them.

Serious Fraud Office

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Owen. I apologise for not being here on time. I had a meeting with the—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

No excuses.

[Jim Shannon]

I am just explaining the reason—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

You are running out of excuses, Mr Shannon. Just carry on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on making a very good case with lots of knowledge. His immense knowledge has been tremendous to have.

The role the Serious Fraud Office plays is essential and the House should ensure that it continues. The SFO initially had a financial threshold for its cases of £1 million, which was increased to £5 million. However, such thresholds soon became outdated, and the current director has published a statement of principle to make clear the main factors he takes into account when considering a case. We all know what those are: whether the apparent criminality undermines UK plc commercial or financial interests in general and those of the City of London in particular; whether the actual or potential financial loss involved is high; whether the actual or potential economic harm is significant; whether there is a significant public interest element; and whether there is any new species of fraud.

Current cases include, as other Members have said, investigations into the manipulation of the LIBOR rate; the recapitalisation deal by Barclays bank with Qatar at the height of the financial crisis; alleged bribes paid for the award of contracts relating to Rolls-Royce; alleged false accounting relating to Tesco; alleged bribery of public officials relating to Alstom; and alleged bribes paid to induce customer orders relating to GlaxoSmithKline. The list goes on and on.

Members have mentioned whistleblowing, and I myself have referred a whistleblowing incident to the SFO. Although it did not reach the aforementioned level, it was passed on to the financial regulatory authority. There must be a way to deal with the big firms; the individuals—the whistleblowers of this world—cannot take on such cases themselves. The SFO is essential in helping to take on the big firms. We have all watched or heard of the film “Erin Brockovich”, in which the David is able to take on the Goliath, but that is not the norm. The norm is that litigation costs are out of this world and, as a consequence, wrong is allowed to take place.

I fully support the SFO and hope I have made that clear. Indeed, its ability to look into cases should be much wider, and should include the case that I referred to it, which was of major importance at the time. However, there must be value for money and accountability for public spending, and the public must rest assured that there is no way to deal with those issues other than with the funding that is required.

Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about how the core budget can be supplemented by blockbuster funding, and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) mentioned that song from many years ago. He referred to hairstyles; I can refer to the days when I had hair. Indeed, I suspect that you remember those days as well, Mr Owen.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Absolutely.

[Jim Shannon]

It is always good to look back and remember what we had in the past.

The core budget can be supplemented by the blockbuster funding—that is clear—but if we are still recovering those large amounts of money, can that money go to the centre and can those recoveries be publicised, Minister, to show value for money? It is all about how the system works and how it works best.

I agree with the report from Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service, which found that the blockbuster funding model does not represent value for money and prevents the SFO from building future capability and capacity. I understand the reasons and the thinking within that. Temporary and contract staff are often more expensive than permanent staff, and managing surge capacity is a constant drain on human resources and other staff. Increased core funding would provide the SFO with the ability to build capacity and capability in-house and lead to less reliance on blockbuster funding. I agree with that reasoning, and I think that other Members have expressed that also. Minister, I look forward to your addressing those issues to our satisfaction.

In a previous life, I worked as a local councillor—for some 26 years—and often queried the use of long-term temporary contracts for staff supplied through agencies because of the cost increase, often going through the pros and cons of the issue. Although I understand the rationale of needing to grow or shrink depending on the size of the case, a larger base to begin with could—would, I believe—save money and provide job security for those with the specialised know-how. There must always be the ability to access blockbuster funding for cases such as LIBOR, which was an extremely transparent case, but there should not be a standard top-up that excuses the need to do what every Department from Health to Work and Pensions has done—cost-cut, look at efficiency measures and see whether staffing arrangements are adequate.

In conclusion, and ever mindful of the timescale that you set me, Mr Owen, I do not believe that what I have just set out is happening in the SFO. I put on record my wholehearted support for the body, but I believe that it must learn to cut costs like the rest of us. I agree that that can be done through a larger core budget—that is where we start, and the Minister might refer to it—and through the ability then to apply for blockbuster funding in exceptional cases, not just as a matter of note or opportunity. Thank you, Mr Owen.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I now call the Front-Bench spokespersons, starting with Kirsten Oswald.