Police Funding Formula

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the police funding formula calculation errors.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is with regret that the Home Secretary cannot be with us today, as she is attending the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels.

The Government believe that police funding must be allocated on the basis of a modern, transparent and fair funding formula that matches the funding demands faced by the police, but I think we all agree that the current arrangements are unclear, out of date and unfair. In recent years, many chief constables have called for a new formula. The National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary have all called for a revised model. The issues with the current formula are well known. In 2009, the former Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), agreed to review the police funding formula—[Interruption.] Sorry, in 2009, he called for it to be reviewed, but sadly it was not. The Home Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all argued for a new formula as well.

In the previous Parliament my predecessor announced that the Government would review the formula, and in July we went into consultation. That closed in September, having received 1,700 responses. Since then, we have been working with forces around the country on the principle of how their budgets could go forward. I am sad to say that during this process a statistical error was made in the data used. The data do not change the principles consulted on and the allocation provided to the forces was never indicative, but we recognise that this has caused great concern to police forces around the country. I and the Government regret the mistake, and I apologise to the House and to the 43 authorities I wrote to during the extended consultation period as part of the funding formula review.

For that and other reasons, the Government are minded to delay the funding formula changes for 2016-17 that we had previously intended to make, and we will seek the views of the police and crime commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council before going any further. It is essential that we come to a funding formula that is not only fair, transparent and matched by demand, but supported by the police. I have listened throughout the consultation, and the Government will continue to do so in considering the next steps, in conjunction with police leaders. I will update the House in due course. We should all support the reform of the police funding formula. Police forces and Committees of the House have been calling for it for years. We will bring it forward, but we are delaying the process at the present time.

[Keith Vaz]

Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting the urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his answer. I commend him for being the first Policing Minister in recent years to tackle the problem of police funding, which desperately needed to be addressed.

Last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee took evidence on the funding formula. The testimony we received about the process was damning. Last Wednesday, 34 Members took part in a debate on this subject based on the old criteria, and last Friday in a letter to the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner, the Home Office admitted that its proposed funding formula was based on the wrong data. According to the previous formula, two thirds of police forces would have gained from the proposals and a third would have lost funding. Now, 31 forces will lose out. For example, Northumbria in July was first a loser, then a gainer, and now it will lose out again. The Metropolitan police was expecting to lose £184 million, but it appears that it is now set to gain—or possibly lose—a different amount. Leicestershire constabulary was set to lose £700,000 before last week; it is now set to lose £2.4 million.

This entire process has been described by police and crime commissioners and others as unfair, unjust and fundamentally flawed. What started off with good intentions is rapidly descending into farce. To call it a shambles would be charitable. There is now a very real prospect of a number of forces planning to take the Government to court. Given what has happened, will the Minister agree to a number of suggestions?

I warmly thank the Minister for his apology to the House. It was the right thing to do—it is typical of him to come before the House and say that—because police forces and PCCs spend an enormous amount of time and effort on this subject. The Minister has suggested a delay, which I support, but will he go one step further and establish an independent panel of experts who understand the importance of sharing data and, more importantly, are able to count and understand mathematics, unlike some officials in the Home Office?

The Minister will agree with me that this is a defining moment for policing. Last week at the Dispatch Box he said that he was

“proud to be the Minister responsible for the best police force in the world”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 1074.]

Now is his chance to show it by engaging with the police service. This formula will last a long time. If the Penning formula is to last as long as the Barnett formula, it must be seen to be fair, just and workable.

[Mike Penning]

The Barnett formula seems to be very popular in parts of the United Kingdom.

I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of what we are going to do. Many of the things that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for are exactly what we are going to do. The decision I have made today with the Home Secretary is partly based on some of the submissions to the Home Affairs Committee and its recommendations. I listened carefully to that evidence. Not every PCC and chief constable in the country was unhappy—I noticed that not many of them gave evidence; perhaps they are shy. We will listen carefully, get it right and make sure the mathematics are right, so that I am not in this embarrassing situation again.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the Home Affairs Committee inquiry. In fact, the Government caught the Committee by surprise. We were expecting this Bill to come before the House in November. We have finalised our report, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and it is due to be published on Friday. I wish to put it on the record that Members of the House will be able to look at the deliberations of the Select Committee when it comes to the Committee stage of the Bill, because the Minister has moved so speedily and brought the Bill to the House before we expected it.

[Mike Penning]

I look forward to the report, not least because of the excellent work that I know has been carried out not only by the Chairman and other Members but by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).

One reason why we have brought this Bill before the House so quickly and why the business managers have given us the time that we needed is the previous inquiry of the Home Affairs Committee

Police Procurement (Motor Vehicles)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police procurement of motor vehicles.

I am grateful for having secured today’s debate in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).

As the Government struggle to find an answer to their woes about Britain’s lack of productivity and as globalised corporations continue to send more British manufacturing and engineering abroad—not because build quality is better, but simply to boost their own short-term profits—we still have a lead in one sector, in which we are globally renowned. That sector is the automotive industry, where the UK is steaming ahead with a global lead based on design innovation, engineering excellence, manufacturing quality, investment in skills and a commitment by managers and employees alike to work together to achieve common aims of success and, crucially, to share the fruits fairly.

The automotive sector in the UK presents an ideal opportunity for the Government to implement a positive procurement strategy. More than 600 automotive companies are based in the UK, employing just over 730,000 people and turning over more than £60 billion. The UK produces 1.6 million cars and commercial vehicles and over 2.6 million engines every year. We are now the second largest vehicles market and fourth largest vehicles manufacturer in the European Union. We are also the second largest premium vehicles manufacturer after Germany. Some 80% of all vehicles produced in the UK are exported and, for the first time since the 1970s, the UK has a trade surplus and a positive balance of payments for the auto sector. Take the Range Rover Evoque, built by Jaguar Land Rover in Halewood: demand is such that they cannot build the cars quickly enough. Think also of Nissan’s massive success with vehicles such as the Qashqai or the LEAF.

Yet for all its success, the automotive sector remains if not precarious, then never quite secure. Car firms are only as good as their next model, and the allocation of work to plants across a group will take place many years before production commences. In my former role as an official with Unite the union—I am still a member—and its predecessors, I twice joined in negotiations with the global management of General Motors to try to save the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port. These are tough discussions with big global players that see local management and workers fighting together for their plant but often having to make difficult concessions on pay and working hours to remain competitive. Government assistance to support that competitive position is always welcome, because there is no such thing as long-term security in the car industry.

At this stage, the Home Office Minister may be forgiven for wondering whether it is he or I who is in the wrong debate, but we are sadly now at a point when the Home Office has a direct interest in the motor vehicle industry. Through the central purchasing system set up by the Government and administered by the Cabinet Office, a consortium of around 22 police forces, including my own in Cheshire, are on the verge of signing a procurement deal for police vehicles. Despite the abundance of quality in the UK car manufacturing sector, it is reported that the principal deal is likely to be with Peugeot. No other major EU country would betray one of its leading industries in this way. I challenge all hon. Members to go to Germany and find a police car that is not an Audi, a Mercedes or a Volkswagen or to go to France and find a police car that is not a Peugeot, a Citroen or a Renault.

We must recognise that the supply chain works right across Europe and helps both British companies and those who supply into the British-made market, but is not just the failure to buy British that is the scandal here. There is a double insult because Peugeot chose not to manufacture in this country. In 2006, it closed its plant at Ryton in Coventry and moved the work to Slovenia—lock, stock and barrel. It was not that Ryton was unprofitable or unproductive; it was simply that the global management of Peugeot believed that bigger short-term profits could be made by moving to a country where manufacturing costs are lower. That is its prerogative, even if it did put 3,000 skilled British workers out of well-paid jobs.

That being the case, why on earth, just a few short years later, are we considering rewarding Peugeot with a massive public sector contract, having seemingly forgotten its betrayal of a loyal British workforce?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Had he not done so, we would simply not have been aware that the deal is about to be done. I support him when he says that we should always seek to buy British, but does he agree that, provided that they buy British, it is right that police forces should collaborate in order to procure?

[Christian Matheson]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must surely welcome collaboration between police forces if it leads to greater efficiency and greater savings. We cannot dismiss that process, but wider considerations must be taken into account in the police consortium’s discussions, and I will talk about that later.

In times of austerity, it cannot be right that we are potentially taking millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ cash and posting it across the channel. Does that really represent value for money for British taxpayers? Part of the problem has been with how the Government transposed the EU procurement directive. By transposing the directive into UK law in a weaker form than that adopted by our EU partners, the Government have left the British manufacturing industry at a serious competitive disadvantage. Article 1 of the new directive states the fundamental principle of the right of member states to define and run their public services in their own interests, and as such they are not subject to marketisation under EU law. However, the UK Government decided not to transpose that section and have excluded any reference to that principle within the regulations.

The mandatory considerations in article 18(2) lay down the labour law standards and working conditions that must be respected throughout the stages of the public procurement procedure. Additional social, economic, quality and environmental criteria are those that provide the flexibility to enable contracting authorities to promote sustainable and positive procurement policies. Unfortunately, the Government have taken a distinctly minimalist approach to implementing that article.

Returning to the point that I made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), all this means that the only consideration that ever seems to be taken into account is one of bare cost. I simply cannot understand why the Government, or other public authorities such as the consortium or police and crime commissioners, are so keen to open the doors to foreign corporate bidders and hand over huge public sums to globalised corporations that hold no loyalty to the UK, given that other corporations of similar size and stature have made a commitment to this country by choosing to site and manufacture here. One thing is for sure: it was not due to some Damascene conversion to the European ideal that the Government chose to water down the directive.

Returning to my right hon. Friend’s point, I accept that cost must be a central factor in procurement decisions, as is the question of whether the chosen equipment can actually do the job it is being purchased to do. However, in addition to those two principles, there must surely be a cost-benefit consideration for the British economy more widely.

We must support skilled employment, retain skills and provide opportunities for real apprenticeships, which the Government are keen to promote, as opposed to the more cheap and cheerful training courses. The automotive industry has led the way in providing quality training and apprenticeships, and in bringing real skills and design innovation into this country. It has given real value to the country, and we should be supporting it in its success. Instead, we appear to be failing to stand up for British jobs and skills by intending to reward a firm that specifically chose to turn its back on this country.

There is still hope, however. I ask the Minister to urge the police and crime commissioners to review the decision. He must urge them not to sign the contract with Peugeot—if there is still time—and to consider other British bidders. He must save the PCCs from shame and obloquy by preventing them from handing over huge quantities of taxpayers’ cash to a foreign corporation, when British firms would not have had the chance to do the same in other EU countries, which actually fight for their manufacturing base and as a result have a much more balanced economy.

I doubt whether, when the Minister took the Prime Minister’s call and accepted a position in the Home Office and the Department of Justice, he realised that striking a blow to Britain’s car industry would be at the top of his agenda within a matter of a couple of months. He has the power to call a pause to what I believe is a crazy, crackpot scheme. I urge him to use it and to fight for British jobs, British skills and the British working people, whom the Government claim to be so fond of championing. Now is the time to stand up for Britain. I ask the Minister to step up and meet the challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

Nevertheless, the hon. Member for City of Chester made some excellent points. Before I heard them, I intended to outline the procurement process in Scotland and the savings that the single police is making within it. However, given what the hon. Gentleman said, I am not sure the debate would be served by that analysis.

I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I will approach the Scottish Police Authority and ask it about this issue. I will ask whether it is aware of the contract potentially being given to Peugeot and get its view on the matter. I will also liaise with the Scottish Government and talk to the hon. Gentleman about the results of that, so we can take that forward. I do not have the information he has about whether the contract will go to Peugeot, but if it is going to, I share his concerns.

I cannot add a great deal to what the hon. Gentleman said, other than to agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I think the procurement process is best served by a consortium for procuring vehicles, so we can take advantages of economies of scale and get more bang for our buck. We could make demands on price, and we could make things cheaper and more cost-effective for the UK taxpayer.

I will leave it at that. I give the hon. Member for City of Chester my firm commitment that I will contact the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government, and liaise directly with him on this issue to see what we can come up with to take it forward.

[Keith Vaz]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. The Chairman of the Select Committee did not stand earlier, but given that he clearly would like to speak and that we have time, I call Mr Vaz.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I did not intend to speak in the debate. I saw the words “police” and “vehicles” on the Order Paper, so thought I would pop in to support my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). The debate is important. I will be brief because I have just three major points to raise and I know that the Minister and shadow Minister want to respond to what my hon. Friends said.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester on securing the debate. It opens up an area that we need to look at carefully. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has just been reformed and we are looking at our list of inquiries for the future. I checked today to see when we last considered procurement, and it was in our report on the “New Landscape of Policing” in 2011. We referred to vehicle purchase with reference to the new police and crime commissioners and the chief constables. The Committee felt that it was important for everyone to have a say in how procurement operated.

We have believed, in producing previous reports, that a system where individual police forces prosecute their own procurement policy is wrong. Collaboration, which the Government have done—and encouraged—extremely well in the past five years, is the right way forward, in our view. With collaboration there are economies of scale. There is a much larger purchaser, and a better deal can be obtained for those who end up paying—the taxpayers.

[Mike Penning]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for being so generous in giving way, as always; I hope I always do the same for him. I shall probably be appearing before his Committee quite soon, so I am going to be nice.

In Leicestershire there is a fantastic chief constable and the PCC is doing exemplary work. Sadly—it may be because of procurement issues and already being locked into a contract—Leicestershire is not part of the consortium. I hope that it will join, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will join me in the hope that it will come forward to do so; it is important to get as many as possible. I respect the fact that the force may already be in a contractual obligation, although hopefully that will come to an end quite soon. If the right hon. Gentleman will join me, perhaps we can bring Leicestershire to the party as well.

[Keith Vaz]

I am happy to do so. That is the second thing that I have learned this afternoon. I did not know that, and I think that Leicestershire should be part of a consortium or collaboration because that is the best way, working together among the various police forces, that we can get the best possible deal for taxpayers.

We have not yet reached the Scottish situation outlined by the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) in which there is one police force and one chief constable who can work with the national Government to procure the best deal. Who knows whether we may be looking in that direction? I have just been looking at the evidence that the permanent secretary at the Home Office gave on Monday to the Public Accounts Committee. He hinted at economies of scale with reference to mergers. I do not say that we are going to consider mergers, because that always causes a lot of concern among hon. Members, who are all keen to preserve their local police forces. However, value for money is an important criterion.

My second point, and I suppose a more important one for the present debate, is what kind of vehicles we would like our police officers to be in. Of course as British citizens we would like them to be in vehicles manufactured in our country. When we considered the issue of value for money, we found that cheapest is not always best. Of course we would want the best possible deal. I am not sure how the bidding process happens—whether by sealed bid or open negotiations; but I think that if there were a way for the consortium to put to a British manufacturer the deal that it had got with a foreign one, to see whether it could be matched in this country, that should be done.

The only way that can be done, of course, is if what has happened is properly examined. I promise my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Ellesmere Port and Neston that I will write to whoever is the lead in the consortium—as the Minister has made it clear that he will not be signing the contract, at the end—and ask the reason for the decision. Buying British is not always the best option. We are not the ones who sit at the negotiating table, in the end. However, both my hon. Friends have made a compelling case for the matter to be looked at carefully, and of course we want the police to use vehicles made in this country, if that is possible.

[Christian Matheson]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of buying British. Does he accept that there may be occasions when the model that would best meet the specifications is not made in the United Kingdom, but is made by a manufacturer that has made a commitment to the UK by manufacturing other models here? Perhaps that would not be ideal, but we might at least consider such manufacturers that have made a commitment to UK jobs, skills and prosperity.

[Keith Vaz]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I support it. I have not heard it before. As to whether we should have a system of contract compliance for public sector contracts, I am quite attracted to that. I think a commitment to this country would be a good idea. I do not have enough knowledge of the detail, unlike my hon. Friends, but we need to consider that carefully. Even at what sounds like the 11th hour, I hope that those concerned will pause and consider what is happening. In bringing the matter before the House my hon. Friends have brought to my attention, and that of the Select Committee, something we did not know about before.

My final point is about the nature of the private sector’s relationship with the public sector. We examined that in the context of Olympic delivery, when a large Government contract was outsourced to G4S and we found that it was at fault; what it was prepared to deliver was wanting. That was the eve of the Olympics and there was not much chance to do much; we had to accept what G4S said. However, very large companies such as G4S and Serco, which are not necessarily British but may be global, with headquarters here and paying taxes elsewhere, may try to get the Home Office and other Departments over a barrel because of their size. I am sure that the Select Committee will want to look at that in the future, especially when we examine Mark Sedwill and his role as permanent secretary.

Those things come to Ministers at the end, and there is a lot of pressure on them to settle for the best possible deal, which sometimes means the cheapest. However, we know that in the present case the decision will not be made by the Minister who is here today. We will have to look at the issue again, because the private sector is powerful and has enormous sway over Government decisions. I hope that in future the Select Committee will look at what this afternoon’s short debate has opened up—the way in which private sector organisations deal with the Home Office, in particular—because that is our remit. That might have wider implications for other Departments.

I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester and for Ellesmere Port and Neston will be successful in getting a short pause to allow people to think again before the deal is signed. As we know, once a contract is signed—as we found with e-Borders and the cost to the taxpayer of, in the end, £750 million—there is nothing we can do. It is better to stop and consider carefully before signing the deal, and I urge those involved to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished barrister and historian and is absolutely right, because the historical record shows that, overall as a country, we have been very poor at reducing the rate of recidivism. We need to ensure that, both in our prisons and afterwards, we have high-quality services provided by professionals who know how to change the behaviour of individuals who deserve a second chance.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his recent appointment. He looked very impressive in his new robes, if I may say so.

Thirty-five per cent. of prisoners have a drug addiction and 6% acquire that addiction while in prison. What specific help is being given to those with a drug addiction when they come out of prison?

[Michael Gove]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his re-election as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He did an exemplary job in the previous Parliament and I know he will do a very good job in this Parliament. May I also thank him for his kind words about my dress sense? When it comes to cutting a sartorial dash, there are few who can match him.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that drug addiction is one of the principal factors that lead individuals to commit crime. It is also the case that there is an unacceptable level of drug use, both of illegal drugs and so-called legal highs, in our prisons. We are determined to ensure that the psychological support currently available in prison, and the support rehabilitation companies can provide for individuals who are drug-addicted, is enhanced so that individuals can be weaned off a habit that brings misery to themselves and to their victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s virtue is not in doubt.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce drug scanners into prisons. As the Minister knows, 51% of prisoners report a drug dependency. Can he tell me how many have entered a rehabilitation scheme in the past year, and how many have been successfully rehabilitated in relation to their use of drugs?

[Simon Hughes]

I do not have all the details, but I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman has a detailed answer, which I will put in the Library. Yesterday, when I was visiting a women’s prison in Yorkshire, I was looking at how we might improve the way in which we detect drugs. It is difficult because they are often hidden in very private places. We are absolutely determined to stop drugs coming into prisons over the wall, but also to stop them coming in on the person, which is a serious issue. I will give him the detailed figures on what progress we are making.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The number of hours worked in prisons has increased dramatically in the past four years—the latest figures show 14 million hours—and we are seeking to increase that number all the time. Last week, I was at HMP Coldingley for the launch of a new partnership between the Ministry of Defence and the Prison Service, whereby prisoners will produce items such as sandbags for use by our armed forces. I hope that that work will continue, grow and develop. The more we can get prisoners in our prisons working, the more likely they are to get a job when they leave.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), drug addiction in the criminal justice system is a huge problem. There were 4,500 seizures of drugs in prisons last year. What further steps will be taken to deal with mandatory help in prisons and help for prisoners when they leave?

[Chris Grayling]

There are two parts to that equation. Although there has been considerable success over the years in tackling the problem of conventional drugs in prisons, the problem now is the arrival of new psychoactive substances that are not detected through the normal means. That has posed an additional challenge to our prison system, and is a significant reason behind the increase in the amount of violence—serious violence—in prisons in the past 12 months. We are taking additional measures to try to tackle that, including tougher security measures and tougher penalties within prisons, and the training of dogs to sniff out that new generation of substances.

Of course, alongside that, proper work must be done to try to tackle addiction. With the through-the-gate system we have created and are creating, it is important that we see a flow-through from work done in our prisons to work done after prison. I remember being told by prison staff how frustrated they were that they had no guarantee that the rehab being done in prisons would continue when prisoners left. That will now change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman clearly wrote that question before I answered the previous ones. Let me be clear again: the difficult decision that we had to take about the write-off was taken about a project launched by the previous Labour Government. As I said a moment ago, my position on offshoring has not changed.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to return foreign national prisoners to their home countries to serve their sentences. 15. What steps he is taking to increase the number of convicted foreign prisoners returned to their home country.

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

We are working hard to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer arrangements with high-volume countries and have recently signed agreements with Albania and Nigeria and a memorandum of understanding with Somaliland.

Progress in transferring prisoners under the European Union prisoner transfer agreement is slower than I would like but we are starting to see the number of transfers increase as more countries implement the agreement. All foreign national offenders sentenced to custody are referred to the Home Office for it to consider deportation at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Keith Vaz]

Does the Minister share my concern that there are 10,695 foreign nationals in our prisoners, costing the taxpayer almost a third of a billion pounds a year? The top three countries are Poland, Jamaica and Ireland. Will he outline to the House what the difficulties are in convincing our allies to take back their own citizens? Would it help to speed up the process if nationality was declared at sentence?

[Jeremy Wright]

On the last point, we are in favour of all process improvements we can make, starting at sentence and working on through the system. The right hon. Gentleman is right that we face many difficulties. One of the most significant that we have discovered is that individual prisoners make legal challenges to deportation and transfer, many of which are based on human rights legislation. We therefore need to look again at that legislation to determine what we might be able to do to move things along more quickly.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Immigration Act 2014 gives us more opportunities to do that. It restricts the number of challenges individual foreign national offenders have and ensures that in some cases they can register their appeal and have it dealt with after being deported, not before. There are a number of measures that we can pursue.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Over a period of months, we have listened to concerns raised by the families of victims and hon. Members acting on their behalf about disqualified drivers. They have said that the current maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for causing death by driving when disqualified does not adequately reflect the tragic consequences of the offending. I am particularly grateful to, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for keeping the issue firmly on the agenda. In our view, disqualified drivers who flout court bans, continue to drive badly and cause death should be treated far more seriously by the courts than they are at present, and I am pleased to say that new clause 14 and new schedule 2 will effect that change.

We should also concern ourselves with disqualified drivers who cause serious injury. It is, after all, often a matter of chance whether the victim lives or dies. If there is no evidence that the offender was driving dangerously, the most with which he or she can be charged under the current law is driving while disqualified, which incurs a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. That is plainly inadequate. It does not reflect some of the horrific and life-changing injuries that can be suffered by road traffic victims, or the terrible toll that this can take on their families. That is why we are also introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, which will incur a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.

We thought carefully about whether these changes should apply to unlicensed and uninsured drivers as well. We decided to limit the changes to disqualified drivers, because we think that they have a higher level of culpability than other illegal drivers. A driving ban would only be imposed on an offender following the commission of a series of motoring offences or a single serious offence. If such an offender flouts a ban imposed by the court, continues to drive badly and causes a death or serious injury, it is right that he should feel the full force of our proposed new provisions.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

One of the areas that cause me concern is to do with drivers from other EU countries who may have been banned or disqualified in those countries but who come here and are allowed to drive in the United Kingdom. Is there anything in the Government proposals to stop them doing that?

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and I will come on to talk about the proposal we have for a wider review of sentencing in driving cases. He may well wish to make further submissions on the points he has made for inclusion in that review. A number of issues have already been raised which we think can sensibly be discussed in the course of that review, and I am sure there are some yet to be raised.

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council at which this issue was discussed, and I have to say that there was extensive disquiet among member states. If the Commission wishes to be credible, it cannot simply ignore the system that was put in place by the Lisbon treaty in the way that it did in that particular case.

Let me turn to the second item on the list, which is the proposal on child defendants. By any assessment, I consider the UK arrangements for dealing with and helping children who become engaged with the law enforcement agencies and with criminal proceedings to be very good. There is a raft of specific provisions in place in the UK to assist children in those situations, and we wholeheartedly support the principle that children in those circumstances need to be treated differently from adults in some respects, given their particular vulnerabilities.

Beyond the general principle behind the proposal, however, and given that the UK’s current arrangements provide a significant degree of protection as good as that available anywhere else, the proposal presents significant difficulties. First, the definition of a child in the proposal is set at those under 18 years of age. In England and Wales, the procedural protections provided to suspects and defendants based on their age are varied to reflect the specific circumstances of their case. Article 1 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—to which the UK is a signatory, and to which the coalition Government undertook to give due consideration when making new policies and legislation—contains the same definition. In the context of the courts, prisons and the probation service, those under 18 years of age are treated as children and young people. However, there is a different approach for when the police deal with 17-year-olds under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when, for practical reasons, 17-year-olds suspected of committing an offence are for some purposes treated as adults. Clearly, that would be an issue in regard to these proposals as well. The position in Scotland stands in even clearer contrast to the proposal, as it tends to treat younger people—that is, those aged 16 and above—as adults for these and other purposes.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Chris Grayling]

I give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said this evening. Does he know whether we have been able to persuade any of our EU partners to adopt the very sensible practices and procedures that we have adopted in respect of children?

[Chris Grayling]

At the moment, this is in the early stages. One reason that we agreed to participate in the negotiations—albeit expressing up front our intention not to opt in—was to allow precisely that kind of discussion to take place. I have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to the way we manage our affairs in this country, although I understand that improvements might be needed elsewhere. My sole concern is that our rules should not be subject to the jurisdiction of an international court over which we hold no sway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I will be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Liaison and Justice Committees. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and make a plea to the Government: I know it is difficult and complicated when dealing with the European Union, but it is essential to give this House and its Select Committees as much opportunity as possible to discuss European issues. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has sought to do that and that he will take that plea away with him for future debates and discussions.

I agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said today: it would be wrong for us to opt into any of the directives. I am particularly concerned about the third directive regarding legal aid and the European arrest warrant. As the House will know, the Home Affairs Committee is not a great fan of the European arrest warrant. We believe it is flawed and that it should be improved. There have been two judgments in the past week—I think the last one came from a court in Florence. The Government need to look again at the issue. I am sure it will be part of the Home Secretary’s discussions with her colleagues when they consider the entire justice and home affairs agenda and the question of opt-outs.

In a rare example of unity among departmental Select Committees, three of them—the European Scrutiny, Justice and Home Affairs Committees—will agree, word for word, a joint report. Given the personalities on those various Committees—indeed, given the personalities of their Chairs—it will be quite an achievement to get almost 30 Members of this House to agree, word for word, on one document, but I think that is what we are about to do.

I support what the Lord Chancellor has said. We need to be very cautious in dealing with jurisdictions, especially as far as the criminal law is concerned. In my view, our criminal law and procedures are different from what happens in the rest of the European Union. The Lord Chancellor is right to let his officials continue to be part of the ongoing discussions, not because we want to convince the 27 other countries to adopt what we do but because if anything comes out of the discussions that would benefit our system of justice we will certainly want to adopt it. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the shadow Justice Minister. It is important to allow the Government to proceed on the basis that they are, and we should not oppose the motion.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

On co-location, there are a number of places in our current system where men and women, or indeed different age groups, are located near each other without being mixed together. I expect the secure college to have a range of age groups, but for them to be separated so that 12-year-olds are not mixed with 17-year-olds. Living on the same site, using the same facilities at different times, and maximising the effectiveness of the resource we put into creating those facilities must be a sensible way forward. If the secure college model works, I do not rule out having women’s units on site as well, but that does not mean we mix them. At Peterborough prison, a women’s prison and a male prison adjoin and share many of the same facilities, although the two sides do not mix. It is about making the best use of our resources to deliver the highest quality educational skills outcomes to a group of young people who will not get on in life unless we help them develop those skills. That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do.

This is a different kind of institution. A few people are saying, “This is just the biggest children’s prison in Europe”, but that is complete nonsense. This is much more akin to a school or college with a fence around it on a site that can deliver quality education and a mix of skills development, in a way that will genuinely help take young people—while we have them under our control—through a period of skill building of the kind they desperately need. That will be a whole lot better than having young offenders institutions with big iron bars and 12 hours in the classroom. This is a new approach that I think can make a real difference.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Lord Chancellor for missing the first part of his speech. I welcome his approach and it is important to provide more education within a secure setting. I have raised with him in the past the concerns that I and the Home Affairs Committee have had about the number of young people who acquire the drug habit while in prison or at a young offenders institution. Does he intend to ensure that there will be lessons to get people off drugs when they attend the institutions he has described? That would be a positive step to stop reoffending.

[Chris Grayling]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we already make intense efforts across our detention estate—for young people and others alike—to try to get people off drugs and prevent them from coming into those facilities. He will also know that it is a constant battle because there are people out there making a determined effort to get those drugs in. This is not a problem that simply affects this country; it exists in most other major industrialised nations and elsewhere. We will continue to do everything we can to combat it, and in this institution I want to see treatment available for those who have a problem, but also a real effort to ensure a drug-free environment.

Part 3 introduces a suite of provisions to reduce the burden of court costs on taxpayers by making criminals pay towards the cost of their court cases, streamlining the way magistrates deal with low-level offences and modernising the law on the work of juries. As we work to bring down the costs of the justice system and deliver better value for money, I am clear that it is not fair to continue to ask UK taxpayers to fund a criminal court system, or to ask law-abiding members of the public to pay increased fees in the civil courts, without offenders being expected to make a greater contribution. The provisions will allow us to recover from offenders the cost of criminal courts and make a contribution to the day-to-day running of court services. This is not a novel concept: courts can already order offenders to make payments to victims and victim services, and to pay fines and prosecution costs. There is currently no power, however, to make offenders pay directly towards the cost of the court proceedings that convict them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady certainly did bring cases against the previous Government, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I discovered to our surprise when we went into that Department in 2010 that the practice of the previous Government was to guarantee to pay the costs of the pressure group from day one. We got a call from one pressure group saying, “We are going to bring a judicial review. Can we assume that the usual arrangements will apply and you will pay the costs?”, to which the answer was, “Well, actually, no.” It was a strange way for the previous Government to do business.

As I said, protective costs orders will still be available for cases of genuine public interest, but my fear is, and my experience has been all too often, that cases are brought for public relations and campaigning reasons in a way that leaves the taxpayer guaranteed to pick up the bill. I do not think that is fair on the taxpayer.

[Keith Vaz]

The Government have taken away the right of appeal in a number of immigration cases, and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is sitting by the Justice Secretary’s side, was very vocal in the campaign against the abolition of the right of appeal in immigration cases. There has been a huge increase in the number of judicial reviews in immigration cases. Is it fair that we should cut off every single judicial route, enabling people to have nowhere to go if they want to challenge decisions?

[Chris Grayling]

We assess carefully each immigration case that comes before the Border Agency and there is then the opportunity to challenge in the courts, but just how many times are we going to give people the right to appeal? There have been many cases, and indeed occasions when our judges have said, “This is not good enough”, where the case has simply been brought as a delaying tactic to stop people being asked to leave the UK—that is in nobody’s interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

If we did a cost-benefit analysis of the number of people who were saved the misery of being the victims of crime as crime went down by 43%, and of the additional cost of having extra police officers, which led to a record decrease in crime, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that there was value for money.

[Keith Vaz]

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a large number of foreign national prisoners in the prison estate, costing the taxpayer, as he says, an enormous amount of money. What we need is not legislation but a focus on trying to get them removed to their country of origin. Making sure that that is done would be a better use of the Government’s time than building more prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Having been a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I recognise that Ministers face the challenge of having an imperative to ensure public safety, and an imperative to drive value for money and ensure that contracts are written in such a way as to provide best value for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to decentralise and to be more open about the potential use of technology to innovate in the justice system.

The second lesson about the use of electronic tagging in criminal justice and the provision very sensibly set out in the Bill is that technology is not necessarily our enemy or the enemy of justice. In debates in this place and outside, technological advance is too often seen as some kind of enemy of justice and of the public. In fact, the advent of technology has been responsible for incredibly important strides in the delivery of a justice system that works for the public.

The same debates apply to electronic monitoring as apply to the use of CCTV, the development of the DNA database or other things raising civil liberties questions that must be addressed. For instance, how far is it appropriate to go in restricting the civil liberties of those to whom such sentences are handed down, even though they are convicted criminals? We must remember that they have been convicted, and that the alternative is a custodial sentence or, if they are not to be released, a continuing term in custody. Far from posing any kind of threat to civil liberties, such technology presents a real opportunity to protect the public. We should sometimes accept that the use of technology in the criminal justice system can be the public’s friend and can help to ensure that the interests of justice are served.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree about the use of technology, but, as the saga of G4S and Serco has demonstrated, in handing over contracts to private sector companies, sometimes we trust them too much. Those companies were overbilling the Government. We have to monitor such contracts, ensure that there are benchmarks and be very careful when we hand over public money.

[Nick Herbert]

As ever, I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is an issue of accountability. We must ensure that contracts are written properly. The behaviour of some companies has been appalling and they should be held to account. There were also problems with the earlier trials of satellite tracking technology and there have been problems with use of simpler electronic monitoring. However, the technology can be made to work effectively and those who deliver the contracts can be held properly to account.

The potential benefits to public safety and, as we have heard, to criminals, who may find that they are no longer constantly approached by the police as a suspect in other investigations because it can quickly be established that they were nowhere near the scene of the crime, are too great to dismiss. We have an opportunity to introduce curfewing and semi-custodial sentences into our criminal justice system in a way that was not possible before. We can make the effective supervision of offenders outside a custodial environment a reality and we should embrace that.

I welcome the changes that the Justice Secretary is proposing to out-of-court disposals in the Bill. Many Government Members and observers of the criminal justice system have long been concerned that the growth of out-of-court disposals has led to problems. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary produced an important report on this matter a number of years ago, in which it identified the repeated use of certain out-of-court disposals and their inappropriate use for serious offences as a cause for concern. I commend the Justice Secretary for acting on that and making sensible changes to simple cautions in the Bill to ensure that they are not used inappropriately. Again, we can debate the nature of the proposals, but the direction of travel is exactly right.

The growth of administrative justice—for that is what it is—has a place. The previous Government described it as a programme of summary justice, but it is a programme of administrative justice whereby, without recourse to any kind of court, disposals are handed out on the spot. Although it has a place, we must ensure that it does not get out of hand.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) mentioned, the use of administrative disposals peaked in 2007, driven by the unwise target to bring offences to justice. There was a famous case close to my constituency in which a police officer found a corpse hanging from a tree. In the pocket of the corpse was a penknife. The police officer attempted to record the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. It was very unlikely that the corpse would have used the knife in a dangerous manner. That was due to the target culture that drove the growth of administrative disposals. That culture has fallen away, but the proportion of disposals that are out-of-court disposals is still twice as high as it was a decade ago. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important that such disposals are used appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) who served as a distinguished Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It is still a puzzle to me why he is not in the Government, because I know they could use his considerable skills. He obviously enjoys being on the Back Benches more, even though we miss his appearances before the Home Affairs Committee.

I was fascinated by the exchange between the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), but the House did not get to know what happened at the end of those discussions, and whether Hexham magistrates court is still open. Did the hon. Member for Hexham win his battle? He is my next-door neighbour in Norman Shaw North, and I need to know whether he wins such battles with the Government.

[Guy Opperman]

Despite 20 years of advocacy and despite what I felt was a very strong case, my youthful appearance in this House, and a vigorous campaign, the fact that the magistracy was not able to survive in the rural town of Hexham for the first time in 500 years was sadly a fact in the end. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the system is working relatively well with an urban core, but the Ministry of Justice—which is, of course, not at all a bureaucratic or difficult organisation to get control of—should be aware that although it is working, we do need a rural element in the magistracy going forward.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that long explanation. I am surprised that he lost the battle, but I know he will continue with it.

When I was the sole Justice Minister in the Ministry of Justice—then the Lord Chancellor’s Department—I felt that the work load was quite high. We now have four Commons Ministers representing the Ministry of Justice, and of course it has taken on new responsibilities. I congratulate the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on his appointment. I think this is his first Second Reading debate; I do not know whether he will be winding up—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

indicated dissent.

[Keith Vaz]

Then I admire his patience in sitting through the entire debate and I wish him well in his ministerial career. I am not sure whether, had he got to the Ministry of Justice before the Bill was signed off, he might have opposed some of these points.

I will start by raising a few concerns. I agree with the shadow Lord Chancellor that there are some good parts of the Bill, and I hope that we can make it better between now and it becoming law, should the House decide to support it. I have about five points to make, the first of which concerns judicial review. The previous Labour Government were embarrassed on a number of occasions when they lost judicial review challenges, and I believe it is extremely important that that remains an avenue of choice for those who feel that the justice system does not provide them with the kinds of solutions they need to their problems.

In particular, I am thinking about those who face difficult immigration cases, who have seen the right of appeal taken from them—not by the Ministry of Justice but by the Home Office—and who now face only the prospect of applications for judicial review to bring their cases to the attention of those who make such decisions. I agree that there are many frivolous cases, and many people go forward and make judicial review applications, sometimes for the sheer hell of it. It is right that citizens should use this power carefully, but once we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, we leave people with no choice other than to apply for judicial review. That is why we have seen an increase in judicial review over the past few years.

[David T. C. Davies]

Have the Government had to consider this matter because with the encouragement of various—dare I say it?—left-wing non-governmental organisations, people who clearly had no right whatsoever to be in this country were able to put in one appeal after another and be legally funded all the way through? Is it not about time the taxpayer had a bit of representation as well?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman served on the Home Affairs Committee and therefore knows how the Home Office deals with such cases. If we were satisfied that decision making was robust and that entry clearance officers and those who reviewed their decisions always made the right decision, we would not need a right of appeal. As he knows, however, having sat through the Committee’s deliberations, 50% of appeals on immigration cases are won by the applicant. That does not mean that judges are cleverer than entry clearance officers, but it does mean that decisions have not been looked at carefully enough. If we take away that right of appeal, all people will have is the ability to challenge in the courts. Of course I do not believe it right for people to play the system and have multiple appeals, but if we take away the last vestige by which they can challenge decisions, we will leave them with absolutely no choice.

As I said, the previous Government suffered because they tried to stop citizens marrying foreign citizens in our courts. They were taken to court and judicially reviewed, and the court said, “You cannot do this”. Spouses had to go back and make applications, but the previous Government—as successive Governments have done—lost a number of such applications. I think we should look carefully at this issue. On its own it may not seem like a bad idea, but if we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, as section 11 of the Immigration Bill does, that will create a number of problems. After all, 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. We must look carefully at the issue.

[Guy Opperman]

I served on the Immigration Public Bill Committee and the overwhelming view was that, yes, the Home Office needs to get better—with respect, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is getting better at reviewing under the appellant procedures—but the fundamental point is that it cannot be right for there to be in excess of a dozen, and potentially up to 15 or 16, separate rights of appeal. The state, in the form of the Home Office and the Government, is right to review the number of times an appellant can go through the appellant process.

[Keith Vaz]

I have no objection to that. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that we do not want multiple applications, but we should at least give people the chance of one application. It is not the case that they get legal aid right the way through. Many of my constituents come to me wanting to go to judicial review. I tell them that their best course of action is to leave the country and make an application from abroad. They will go through a better system and obtain a quicker result than they would by constantly staying here and going through the courts again and again.

[Guy Opperman]

With great respect, the implication of the last comment is that there is no right of appeal whatever in an immigration case. I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say.

[Keith Vaz]

The right of appeal will be taken away by clause 11 of the Immigration Bill. An application can, of course, be made in certain circumstances, but my understanding is that that Bill will reduce dramatically the occasions on which the Government can be judicially reviewed. We heard that from the Lord Chancellor earlier. He was quite delighted and thought it was a very good idea. I prefer that these decisions are taken by judges rather than by civil servants.

The hon. Gentleman has been a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past four years, so of course he welcomes the improvements made by the Government. That period is too long and he too should be serving in the Government and I hope I have not damned his career by saying that. He has spent enough time dealing with civil servants. If he thought they were the most perfect creatures on this earth, we might as well hand over everything to them, let the officials decide and not give people the right to go to court. All I say is this: let us be cautious. The Government should look at this in the round and be sure that people have some avenues left to challenge decisions.

On new technology, I agree with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, the former Home Office Minister. When he was in the Home Office, he led the campaign for new technology. He is a Twitter person. On one occasion, he tweeted to ask me to go to the airport to meet him, as I had done with other members of the Select Committee—I agreed to do so, but he would not tell me his flight number—so I know that he likes new technology. The fact is that we need to be careful about allowing Ministers and officials to make decisions on new technology that they do not understand. He will remember the e-Borders project, which has so far cost the taxpayer £750 million. It was agreed without benchmarks and the litigation is still going on—it is still costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money. We should have new technology and we should pursue this programme, but we need to be very careful and very cautious not to hand everything over to those who come to us and say that they know everything. That is what happened under the previous Government in relation to G4S and Serco, and that has continued under this Government. As we now know, G4S overcharged the Government by £24.1 million. We will need a more extensive use of tagging, but if the tagging companies are not monitored, the contracts will not be properly dealt with and properly monitored. I hope that, in making better use of technology, we ensure that we have the accountability that the right hon. Gentleman and I have been talking about.

On the creation of a secure college, my worry is that we need to be very clear on what powers those who run the college will have. It sounds like a very good idea and we want to make sure that people spend more time in training. However, of the 16 deaths of children in custody since 2000, all occurred in youth offenders institutions and secure training centres. We need to learn the lessons of the deaths of those young people before we set up new institutions that are not capable of proper scrutiny. The Bill will allow a secure college custody officer to use reasonable force to ensure good order and discipline. It is important that we look at training and do not have any unfortunate incidents that result in the death or injury to young people in custody.

Drugs are a big problem, as we have discovered in Home Affairs Committee inquiries. Many young offenders acquire a drug habit when they are in institutions. I will give another plug to the book, which I have on my desk, by the hon. Member for Hexham. I am sure that all Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have read it. I am sure that the new Minister will have had in his briefing a copy of the book on rehabilitation written by the hon. Member for Hexham. If he has not read it, I will make sure that he gets a copy, because the hon. Gentleman is my next-door neighbour. There is very sensible stuff in the book, including the fact that people pick up the habit of taking drugs when they are in prison. That is why we believe there should be mandatory testing.

[Guy Opperman]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is going to tell us which bookshops his book is available in.

[Guy Opperman]

The book, “Doing Time” is actually still available. Amazingly, there are a few copies left. I hasten to add, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all proceeds go to charity.

The serious point is this: the right hon. Gentleman, who served in the previous Government with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), will recall that in 2008, when he was the police and justice Minister, he was asked a specific question. I cannot, off the top of my head, quote Hansard, but he indicated that evidence from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice showed that 20% of all people who took drugs in prison acquired the habit for the first time in prison.

[Keith Vaz]

That is a stunning figure, one that has probably remained the same, or even increased, in the past few years. That is why we suggest there should be mandatory testing in prison and after people leave prison. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) does not like that idea. Whenever I raise it at Justice questions, he is never enthusiastic about it and thinks his system is better, but such testing would be a good thing.

I hope the new secure college will run sufficient courses. We will not write the curriculum right now, but let us ensure that as well as providing the basic education for young people that they so desperately need—another theme in the book by the hon. Member for Hexham—we teach them the dangers of drugs and try to get them off drugs.

I am a little concerned about the punitive elements in paragraph 2 of schedule 15, amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The figures show that 72% of male and 70% female sentenced prisoners suffer from two or more related mental health disorders. It may not be appropriate for them to be punished in a similar way to others. We must try to identify those who have a mental illness and end up in the criminal justice system and remain in it for years. In September, the Select Committee will undertake an inquiry into how the police deal—I say to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), that we are not treading on his toes—with offenders with mental health disorders and see how that feeds into the rest of the criminal justice system. The figures are very worrying. We want to be tough and to punish people, but we need to remember that there are reasons why we perhaps should not send people to prison.

The Director of Public Prosecutions announced this morning that she would deploy six specialist lawyers abroad—in Dubai and in one or two other places—in an attempt to seize more assets from criminals linked to British cases. I welcome that announcement, because I think that we need to strengthen the way in which we investigate and then charge those who move their assets abroad. According to the National Audit Office, 80% of the £920 million owed by convicted millionaire criminals is yet to be repaid. My mathematics is not perfect, but I think that 80% of £920 million is nearly £850 million. Is that right, Madam Deputy Speaker? You seem to think that it is about right; you have probably been helping your son with his maths. Anyway, it is a huge amount of money.

We try to challenge the Mr Bigs, and the Mrs Bigs. They go through the criminal justice system, we fine them huge amounts of money, and then we find that about £150 million less than £1 billion has still not been collected. The Bill does not deal with that situation. I hope that, if it believes in joined-up government, the Ministry of Justice will look carefully at the DPP’s statement, and that amendments will be tabled in Committee to ensure that when judges fine billionaires and multi-millionaires, those people pay up. At present they simply go through the system, come out of prison and then disappear, and we suffer because our justice system has allowed them to get away with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). As a former member of his Committee, I know that he always speaks with great knowledge and is very considered in his views. I agree with much of what he has said today.

The Bill is a wasted opportunity. It makes no mention of victims, of probation, of legal aid, of women in the justice system or of ethnic minorities. The Government have missed an opportunity, especially in relation to important issues like the huge changes to criminal legal aid that the Lord Chancellor is about to announce. We await that announcement with bated breath; he has been promising the legal profession that he would make it, but we are still waiting. The Bill could have considered those huge changes to legal aid. The entire legal profession is completely against the Lord Chancellor’s views and the Government’s proposals. On 7 March, criminal solicitors and barristers will be taking a day of industrial action. I think that the solicitors are describing it as a training day, in order to get round certain issues. The Government could have used the Bill to debate those important changes properly.

I do not disagree with everything in the Bill. In fact, I agree with a lot of it—including, for example, the restrictions on the use of cautions. I have expressed my concerns and complained about the use of cautions, along with other Members on both sides of the House.

[Keith Vaz]

I should like to praise my hon. Friend. He served briefly on the Home Affairs Committee after he served on the Justice Committee—has he served on every Committee in the House?—and he asked for an inquiry into this matter and we were going to have one. I congratulate him on his long campaign to make this a subject worthy of discussion.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making those remarks. He rightly said that I raised the issue when I was briefly a member of his Committee, and I wrote to him formally after I had left the Committee to ask for an inquiry, which he kindly agreed to have. This issue has been a problem for a relatively long time. Government Members said that it has become a particular problem since 2007, and that is probably right, but in my experience, from my constituency, it has increased dramatically since 2010. That is a point of debate and hon. Members may wish to disagree with me on it, but I am glad that the Government have finally accepted that this is a definite issue and that they are going to deal with cautions for indictable-only offences and for repeat offenders.

I have some concerns about single magistrates sitting for summary only, non-imprisonable offences. If someone pleads guilty by post for a road traffic offence, I have no problem with their being dealt with by a single magistrate. However, the Bill does not state that this approach will be confined just to road traffic offences, and I have concerns about that. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, and this approach also completely undermines the notion of collective decision making.

Let me now deal with the sentencing provisions. I was a criminal law practitioner before I was elected to this House, and I am on record as saying that I was never a fan of indeterminate sentences for public protection. However, the provisions in the Bill are undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction by this Lord Chancellor to the fact that his extended sentences in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 simply have not worked—the Government are reacting to that.

I do not wish to speak for too long on my next issue, as other Members have made the point well, but part 4 of the Bill is of particular concern to me because it seems to undermine the possibility of challenging Executive decisions in a judicial review. The Lord Chancellor is on the record, commenting to his favourite newspaper, the Daily Mail, describing judicial review as

“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.

With respect, that type of comment could be made only by this Lord Chancellor, who simply does not appreciate the importance of the rule of law.