Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Carry-over Extension

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to engage in the same badinage that I did with Madam Deputy Speaker last night.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Yes, you have not been to Washington with me.

[Mr Spellar]

We wait ages for a carry-over extension and then three of them come along at once. The questions we need to ask ourselves were asked last night by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and by me. However, I do not intend to detain the House for as long tonight because Members can read our contributions in yesterday’s Hansard.

I have been chided for being a little charitable to the Government Chief Whip in the litany of those who are responsible for this. Basically, there are two driving forces behind these carry-overs. One is that the Government will not accept the sensible, reasonable and just amendments made in the other place. We saw that last night when they sided with the ticket touts against the fans of sport and music. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) looks up. He will be accountable to the football and music fans in his constituency in May for siding with their exploiters rather then with them. The Government did not accept those amendments and that again seems to be the case tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, we hope that they finally see reason in the intervening period.

The second reason is that we have an almost unique collection of people who do not understand the business of this House and the other place. Therefore, we see a series of difficulties resulting from the failure to deal properly with procedure. For example, I understand that the next carry-over resolution that is due was passed some 10 months ago in the House, and one has to ask what the Government have been doing since then. It has been patently obvious during the last few months that there is very little serious Government business, but they do not seem to be able to pull it together. It may be the result of all the internal tensions and difficulties of this ill-starred coalition coming together as the election approaches, or perhaps they do not have much of a programme and do not know what to do about it. But it is clear to the House, and it will become increasingly clear to the public, that they do not have a clue, and these carry-over motions are part of that. They have not run the business properly up to now, but it is probably as well to let them through because at least we will have something to do during the next couple of months.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

I beg to move, That the House disagrees with Lords amendment 74.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 127 to 131.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Particularly bearing in mind where I think the former Solicitor-General is going in his speech, is it not the practice for someone who has made a speech to stay for at least the next two speeches to hear other people’s contributions?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Actually, it is in order normally to hear one. I do not know the circumstances, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has made his point. The Secretary of State waited fully until the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am not sure whether he wanted to hear Sir Edward Garnier’s speech—that is not for me to decide—but the point has been made.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it also not normally the case that members of a political party should come into the Chamber to listen to their Front-Bench spokesman address the House, and is it not the case that there is not one other MP here?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sir Greg, come on. Not only can you do better than that, but we are certainly not going to waste our time discussing it.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That was very interesting. I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to hear every word I am about to say, but he has other pressing public duties to attend to. No doubt, he will read the whole of this afternoon’s debate in the Official Report in due course.

One good reason for speaking in this debate is to give me an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) for his work as a Cabinet Office Minister, particularly on the voluntary sector. He worked extremely hard, with precious little thanks, and was content to do so, despite the fact that all he did achieved, sadly, very little public profile. At least on this occasion, we can thank him very much for all he did. I trust that it will not be long before he is back in government again.

As I said at the outset, I am not hugely enthusiastic about this particular piece of legislation. I am concerned that what the Secretary of State said does not reflect the long title, which states that it is a Bill:

“To make provision as to matters to which a court must have regard in determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty.”

Most of what he said had to do with sending out messages. We all need to send out messages from time to time—sometimes to ask for help, and sometimes to ask people to pay attention to what we are trying to do. In so far as it went, his speech was no doubt well intended, but it did not, if I may say so, condescend to deal with the Bill as a potential piece of law. If we are to pass or make laws, they must be coherent. Although I entirely agree with all the sentiments that he uttered this afternoon about reducing the so-called health and safety culture, reducing the easy acceptance of the only answer to a problem being to sue and dissuading ambulance-chasing solicitors from doing this, that or the other, I regret to say that I do not agree that this particular Bill will achieve that.

I do not know how many people who are intent on bringing an action, if they are not lawyers themselves, think about pieces of legislation. Let us hope that I am wrong and my right hon. Friend is right, and that when the Bill is enacted, copies of it will be plastered all over doctors’ waiting rooms and other public places, so that no citizen will be tempted to bring a spurious claim.

I would be interested to hear how many High Court or county court actions would have been decided differently had the Bill been in force. It is perfectly true to say that the Compensation Act 2006 covers many of the areas of conjecture that are covered by the Bill. I am not persuaded that the Bill covers any new territory.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Both hon. Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. If the hon. Lady gives way to the hon. Gentleman, she must let him make his point before jumping back up. Bob Neill, have you finished?

[Robert Neill]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have let “you” go a few times, but in fairness, I am not guilty of any of this and I certainly did not want to intervene in the Dale farm situation.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I got a bit carried away.

In a civilised society and a democratic country, access to law is very important, and that includes judicial review and those who have been charged with criminal offences. It is fundamental to a civilised society. The Government’s proposed restriction of judicial review is wrong and will cause problems. I ask them to reconsider, especially as immigration cases have now been taken out of the judicial review process. The number of judicial review cases is therefore similar to past levels, so the argument that there are too many such cases and money is being wasted is not credible.

It has been said that people can simply go for judicial review without any challenge: that they can walk into the High Court and say, “I want a judicial review” and get one. Everybody knows that the first thing someone has to do is to seek leave to obtain judicial review. High Court judges are some of the best and most experienced legal brains in the country; they do not grant judicial review applications willy-nilly and then set a hearing date. Many people apply for leave—that is the important part—to seek judicial review, but those applications are sifted and a lot are rejected. Weak, frivolous and vexatious cases get thrown out, and only a very few go on to the next stage, at which leave is granted for judicial review to be considered and a date is set. The sifting stage takes out all the rubbish anyway, and only the good cases of substance and merit go forward. Then, a full hearing takes place and in some cases, people are successful and in others not.

So the suggestion that I can somehow walk in off the street and ask for a judicial review and the court will grant it and set a time for it is a load of rubbish. I am surprised that Members who should know better—who know that that is not the situation—are trying to suggest that that is happening in our courts. It is not. Very few cases reach judicial review, which is still only sparingly used, but it is very important and fundamental to our legal system.

I remind Members that although we now accept that we can challenge the decisions taken by the various local authority and Government Departments and institutions such as quangos, there was a time when we could not. It is only because people are able to challenge the decision-making process that, today, we have a much fairer, much more equal society in which ordinary people feel that they get justice. That was not the case 40 or 50 years ago, and if we compare the situation then with now, we see it has improved tremendously, and active judicial review has been the biggest source of that improvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—

“Possessing an offensive weapon or bladed article in public or on school premises: sentencing for second offences for those aged 18 or over—

‘(1) The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (Prohibition of the carrying of offensive weapons without lawful authority or reasonable excuse) after subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) committed after this subsection is commenced;

(b) at the time when the offence was committed, he was 18 or over and had one other conviction under—

(i) subsection (1)

(ii) section (1A);

(iii) section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;

(iv) section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; or

(v) section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;

(c) the offence was committed after he had been convicted of the other.

(2B) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—

(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and

(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.

(2C) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two days or more, it shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.

(2D) In relation to times before the coming into force of paragraph 180 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the reference in subsection (2B) to a sentence of imprisonment in relation to an offender aged under 21 at the time of conviction, is to be read as a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.”

(3) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(4) In section 139 (Offence of having article with blade or point in public place) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) Subsection (6b) applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) committed after this subsection is commenced;

(b) at the time when the offence was committed, he was 18 or over and had one other conviction under—

(i) subsection (1);

(ii) section 139A;

(iii) section 139AA; or

(iv) sections (1) or (1A) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953;

(c) the offence was committed after he had been convicted of the other.

(6B) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—

(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and

(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.

(6C) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.

(6D) In relation to times before the coming into force of paragraph 180 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the reference in subsection (6B) to a sentence of imprisonment, in relation to an offender aged under 21 at the time of conviction, is to be read as a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.”

(5) In section 139A (Offence of having article with blade or point (or offensive weapon)) on school premises after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Section (5B) applies where—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) committed after this subsection is commenced;

(b) at the time when the offence was committed, he was 18 or over and had one other conviction under—

(i) subsection (1);

(ii) section 139;

(iii) section 139AA; or

(iv) sections (1) or (1A) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953;

(c) the offence was committed after he had been convicted of the other.

(5B) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) the court must impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least 6 months unless the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which—

(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and

(b) would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances.

(5C) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of two or more days, or at some time during a period of two or more days, it shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.

(5D) In relation to times before the coming into force of paragraph 180 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the reference in subsection (5B) to a sentence of imprisonment, in relation to an offender aged under 21 at the time of conviction, is to be read as a reference to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.”.”

Government new clauses 44 to 50.

New clause 34—Criminalising commercial squatting and squatting on land—

‘(1) Section 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, after “in”, leave out “a residential building” and insert “buildings and on land”.

(3) In subsection (1)(a) after “a”, leave out “residential”, and after “building”, insert “or on land”.

(4) In subsection (1)(c) after “building”, insert “or on the land”.

(5) In subsection (2) after “building”, add “or land”.

(6) Leave out subsection (3)(b) and insert “Land has the meaning defined in section 205(1)(ix) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

(7) After “building”, insert “or land”.

(8) (a) after “squatting in” leave out “a residential building” and insert “buildings and on land”.”

New clause 35— New form of joint enterprise offence.

‘(1) The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In the italic cross-heading before section 5, leave out all the words after “a” and insert “person”.

(3) In subsection 1(a) leave out “child or vulnerable adult” and insert “person”.

(4) In subsection (1)(a) after “unlawful act of”, leave out to end of the subsection and insert “someone” (“P”), where D was with P at the time of the unlawful act”.

(5) Leave out subsection (1)(b).

(6) Leave out subsection (3).

(7) Leave out subsection (4).

(8) In subsection 6 leave out the definitions of “child” and “vulnerable adult”.”

New clause 36—

“Intentional harassment, alarm or distress—

‘(1) Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a) leave out “, abusive or insulting” and insert “or abusive”.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) leave out “, abusive or insulting” and insert “or abusive”.”

Government new schedule 2—Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: excluded health care.

Government amendments 2, 45, 47, 48, 46 and 49

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to new clauses 6 and 7, which set out that adults would face a minimum six-month jail sentence on their second conviction for carrying a knife and that 16 to 18-year-olds would face a mandatory minimum four-month detention and training order if convicted of the same offence.

The new clauses seek to build on the precedent and experience of other mandatory sentencing, including my own amendment introduced into the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in 2012, where we introduced a mandatory sentence for the new offence of using a knife in a threatening and endangering fashion. Other examples include mandatory sentencing in cases of possession of a firearm.

I pay tribute to my friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who brought tremendous skill and support, not least from his knowledge and understanding of criminal legal matters, to the discussions and in particular to the co-authoring of the new clause. I am grateful to him for his support.

Let us look at the background to knife crime in this country. For the first time, knife crime is down—by 4%. In London, including my constituency of Enfield North, fatal stabbings have halved since 2008. In respect of knife crime across the country, real but slow progress is being made. Such is the scale of the challenge, however, that it is important to note some other figures to help paint the picture. Last year there were more than 16,000 instances of someone being caught in possession of a knife and action being taken. Of those, one in four resulted in immediate custody, despite sentencing guidelines. The other three out of four were let off with what many offenders regard as softer options—and I agree—including 3,200 people simply being given a caution or a fine, and 4,500 receiving a community sentence for carrying a knife.

The House should require courts to send a clear and unequivocal message about carrying a knife. If we need more convincing that the message that people should not carry knives is currently weak, we need look no further than the thousands of children who do not regard it as a serious offence. More than 2,500 of those caught in possession of knives last year were aged 10 to 17. Nationally, 13% of offenders under 18 received a custodial sentence, but in London only 7% did, although 43% of all offences throughout England and Wales are committed here in London.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance. For the third time in recent weeks a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has been to my constituency without informing me—today it was the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband); I have told his office that I was going to raise this. Is there anything you can do, notwithstanding his intellectual self-confidence, to help him observe the niceties of behaviour in this House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What I can say is that this is obviously not a matter for the Chair as such, but it is on the record. It is the convention for all Members to inform another Member of a visit, and I hope that that takes place in the future.

Clause 19

Secure colleges and other places for detention of young offenders etc

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 18, page 19, line 4, leave out clause 19.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, page 19, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2A) A young woman may not be placed in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.

Amendment 15, page 19, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2A) No person who is aged under 15 shall be detained in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.

Amendment 12, page 20, line 30, at end insert—

‘(14) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure there is adequate specialist provision to cater for the health and wellbeing needs of all young persons detained in a secure college.’.

Amendment 13, page 20, line 30, at end insert—

‘(14) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that sufficient places are available in secure children’s homes to enable young persons, for whom detention in a secure children’s home is deemed more appropriate by the relevant authority than detention in a secure college or young offender institution, to be so detained.’.

Amendment 16, page 20, line 37 leave out clause 20.

Amendment 21, page 71, line 1 leave out schedule 3.

Government amendments 5 and 6.

Amendment 17, page 76, line 10, leave out schedule 4.

Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 74, line 17, at end insert—

‘Staff

4A (1) All staff employed as teachers, counsellors or nurses at a secure unit must hold qualifications as one of the following—

(a) qualified teachers;

(b) accredited member of the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists; and

(c) registered nurse (children).’.

Amendment 19, page 76, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3) The Principal shall—

(a) keep special educational provision in the secure college under review;

(b) keep SEN and disability training of secure college workforce under review;

(c) ensure persons detained who may have a special educational need are brought to the attention of their home local authority; and

(d) carry out (a), (b) and (c) with advice from the secure college SEN co-ordinator.’.

Amendment 11, page 77, line 20, leave out from ‘where’ until the end of line 21 and insert

‘a young person poses an imminent threat of injury to himself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted.’.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

[Dan Jarvis]

Amendments 10 to 19, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), relate to the Government’s proposed introduction of secure colleges. Let me set out some context. It is welcome that youth crime has come down substantially since the late 1990s, but it has led to new challenges in our youth justice system that need to be addressed. Reoffending rates are too high, and the cohort of young people in custody is a lot smaller now compared with a decade ago. These young people have complex needs and present very different challenges. We need a youth custody regime that can effectively meet those challenges, and effectively punish, rehabilitate and bring down reoffending. The question is whether creating secure colleges is the most effective solution.

More than a year has now passed since the Government consulted on these proposals, but in all that time, the key facts have remained the same. The Government have come to the House today with a set of proposals that they claim “will transform youth custody”, but there are no expert organisations expressing any enthusiasm for secure colleges. The Government claim that the colleges will put education at the heart of rehabilitation, but they cannot say how it will be delivered in practice. They claim the proposals will reduce the cost of youth custody, but it is not clear where the £85 million is coming from, and they have not produced any hard evidence to support this policy.

When we debated these changes in Committee, we said that we would listen to what the Government had to say and work with them constructively to improve the legislation. We also said that if Ministers wanted our support, they would need to present proper supporting evidence to justify going ahead with this experiment and address the serious concerns being raised by experts in the justice sector. Alas, no such evidence or improvements to the Bill have been forthcoming, which is why we cannot support these proposals, and why we have tabled amendments 16 to 18 to delete the secure college proposal from the Bill.

We all know the value of education, and how it can and should play an important role in rehabilitating young offenders. I am sure that everyone across the House agrees with that. The issue is that there are four areas where Ministers have plainly failed to make the case for secure colleges. Let me take each in turn. First, there has been a chronic lack of evidence to justify the creation of secure colleges. It is true that levels of educational attainment and purposeful activity are not good enough in many young offender institutions, and that education provision in the youth estate can and should be improved. We are agreed on that, but it seems the Justice Secretary is the only person who believes that the only way these problems can be solved is to plough tens of millions of pounds of public money into creating an entirely new type of institution.

Members of the Bill Committee took evidence for two full days, yet not one witness had a single word of support to offer for the Government’s plans for secure colleges. The deputy children’s commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said that

“a 300-bed secure college will result in a large impersonal environment that does not adequately meet the emotional and mental health needs of children in custody.”

Similar concerns have been echoed by experts across the sector, including the Prison Reform Trust, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Even the Government’s own impact assessment states:

“The Secure College model has never previously been tested.”

It confirms that these plans are untried, untested and that the results would be unpredictable. There is no quantifiable evidence that the secure colleges would reduce reoffending rates. Such little detail has been provided that it is hard to see how the reduction will be achieved in practice. So what alternatives to secure colleges has the Minister’s Department considered? He will recall that I asked him in Committee what assessment his Department had made of how the £85 million budget for the secure college could be alternatively spent. For example, instead of building the secure college, that money could be invested in improving educational provision in the existing youth estate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that option has been considered, and if not, why not.

The second failure relates to education and welfare provision and goes to the heart of this debate. The Government’s objective is for secure colleges to transform the rehabilitation of young offenders through better education and training. That is a laudable ambition, but it needs to be placed in the context of the existing cohort of young people in custody. We know that the lives of the majority of those young people are characterised by multiple layers of complex disadvantages that include mental health issues, learning disabilities, self-harm issues, and problems with drugs, alcohol and family breakdown. That raises two fundamental points. First, those are not challenges that can be overcome through education alone—significant specialist health and welfare provision would also be required. Secondly, if secure colleges are to deliver educational outcomes over and above what has been achieved in the youth estate before, one of several things would need to happen: secure colleges would need to offer more hours of education and purposeful activity than existing institutions; they would need to have a higher calibre of teaching staff and a higher student-staff ratio; or they would need to offer some new model of transformative teaching that we have not seen before.

Secure colleges would also need to overcome a particular challenge identified by the Justice Committee in its youth justice report last year. It pointed out that the average time spent in custody is only 79 days.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1 to 68, 138 and 168.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The House is agreeing with Lords amendment 1 only, with which we will consider Lords amendments 2 to 111.

[Norman Baker]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am so keen to agree that I got carried away.

The amendments deal with the new antisocial behaviour powers in parts 1 to 6 of the Bill, and I will deal briefly with each one in turn. Members will, I am sure, have watched with interest the proceedings in the House of Lords on the test for issuing an injunction in part 1 of the Bill. Because of the clear vote in the Lords, where there seems to be a majority, and in the light of that debate, the Government has accepted that the test for an injunction should be amended. Lords amendments 1 and 5 will provide for a two-tier test, and the nuisance or annoyance test will continue to be used to deal with housing-related antisocial behaviour. In all other circumstances, the test of harassment, alarm or distress will apply.

The Government believes that the fears raised in the Lords and by campaign groups were unfounded, and our view is shared by the Law Society and housing providers who have been using the nuisance or annoyance test responsibly and proportionately for more than a decade. The suggestion was made that we somehow wanted to curtail the activities of carol singers. It is slightly difficult to believe that any Government would want to do that, and that we would mis-write legislation to enable that to occur. We are then expected to believe that a local council or police officer would want to use the legislation to ban carol singers. We are then expected to believe that any court in the land would deem it proportionate, just and convenient to ban carol singers. Of course, by the time a court had so decided, several weeks on, the carol singers would have left the place where they were singing and it would not be possible to capture them. I think that that example shows some of the exaggeration and scaremongering that have occurred on this proposal. The Lords have spoken, however, and we have listened carefully. It is a democratic Parliament and we have therefore accepted, largely, the substance of Lord Dear’s amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It would be a club of one.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we go through the Chair.

[Dr Huppert]

I was somewhat surprised by the original amendment passed in the other place, which was backed by many, including Labour peers, because it wrote into law discrimination that I would not be happy with. We have rules about behaviour that is unfair—behaviour that is too harsh—but I was really surprised to see an amendment that said there should be one set of rules for people in social housing and a completely different set of rules for people in private housing. If someone’s behaviour is causing problems that are sufficiently serious to be dealt with under the Bill, the form of tenure should not matter. I was very disappointed by that amendment and very pleased that the Government corrected it. What we now have corrects that problem and I am happy to support it, because I would not have been able to support the previous version from the Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 113.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 114 to 180.

[Norman Baker]

I will not repeat the numbers, in case I get that wrong, but these are the main amendments to the policing provisions in the Bill. The first relates to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which we have already touched on and which is a part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy. Lords amendments were made in line with our ongoing commitment to ensure respect for individual freedoms and the need to balance that against reducing the threat of terrorism to the public in the UK and to British interests overseas. Other amendments clarify how the right to consult a solicitor as soon as is reasonably practicable and privately at any time may be exercised under schedule 7.

The amendments make it clear that a detained person who exercises the right to consult a solicitor may not be questioned until they have consulted a solicitor or no longer wish to do so unless the examining officer reasonably believes that postponing the questioning would prejudice the determination of whether the detained person appears to be a person who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. I would expect that exception to be used very sparingly.

The amendments also clarify that a detained person is entitled to consult a solicitor in person, where it is practicable to do so, without prejudice to the purpose of the examination. Other amendments respond to a commitment given in Committee in the Lords to consider building on one of the key changes we are already making in the Bill: namely, the introduction of statutory provision for the review of detention under schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. On reflection, we agree that the maximum periods between reviews should be specified in primary legislation, rather than in a code of practice. The amendments provide for a first review of detention by a review officer no later than one hour after the start of detention, and for subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than two hours.

I ought also to refer to marital coercion. I will deal briefly with a final substantive amendment, Lords amendment 113, tabled by Lord Pannick, which would abolish the defence of marital coercion. It is currently a defence for all criminal offences, other than treason and murder, for a wife to show that she committed the offence in the presence of, and under the coercion of, her husband. The defence is an historical one and reflects the particular dynamics of marriage at the time when it was introduced, which was by section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which in turn abolished the previously existing presumption that a wife who committed any offence, except treason or murder, in the presence of her husband did so under his coercion and should therefore be acquitted. For those historical reasons, the defence applies only for the benefit of a woman married to a man. I am happy to say that time has moved on, as indeed will I in a moment. That one-sided defence is now clearly an anachronism, and we accordingly agree that it can be consigned to history. Lords amendment 113 achieves just that.

These amendments, and the one in the previous string, reaffirm the value of effective scrutiny and demonstrate, yet again, that the Government is receptive to sensible proposals from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from noble Lords to help address the many issues of public policy we face on a daily basis.

Lords amendment 113 agreed to.

Lords amendments 114 to 180 agreed to.

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5 February, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Claire Perry.)

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Veterans’ rehabilitation requirement—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by order establish a pilot scheme enabling courts to include a veterans’ rehabilitation requirement in a community order.

(2) A veterans’ rehabilitation requirement may only be used where an offender was previously a member of HM Armed Forces.

(3) A veterans’ rehabilitation requirement must provide for the offender to be referred to a veterans’ rehabilitation panel at the start of a community order, which will put in place a rehabilitation plan for the offender.

(4) An order under subsection (1) must make provision—

(a) about the membership of veterans’ rehabilitation panels; and

(b) to allow for the requirement to be reviewed periodically by the veterans’ rehabilitation panel at intervals of not less than one month.

(5) An order under this section—

(a) shall be made by Statutory Instrument; and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’.

New clause 12—Building better relationships programmes—

‘It shall be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide all Building better relationships rehabilitation programmes for male perpetrators of domestic violence where a court makes an order for participation. It shall also be the responsibility of the National Probation Service to provide any programmes that are deemed necessary for short-term prisoners who have been involved in domestic violence.’.

Amendment 7, page 9, line 41, leave out clause 10.

Government amendment 5.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lorely Burt]

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s visionary understanding, because I have no knowledge of the reduction to less than 10%. I put the example of the 3% straw man to the Justice Secretary and his colleagues. That percentage was described to me as “noise in the system”. In other words, 3% either way would not be indicative of strong work. Should the targets not only not be met, but go backwards, my understanding is that there would be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be very short. The hon. Lady has made a speech already, and I am bothered about the time.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady referred to “noise in the system” and I was beginning to understand what she meant. She has already made her speech.

I was suggesting that rather than being motivated by the wonderful new system of being paid only by results, the companies, will find a way to operate in which so-called results are unimportant in determining how much profit they make. That might be difficult for the hon. Lady to accept, but we ought to consider the kind of companies that the Government are talking to and that will be central to the new way of organising the probation service.

Many attempts have been made to downplay that point. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, among others, said that we cannot make judgments about G4S on the basis of minor indiscretions because it has 74,000 employees. Companies that engage in Government contracts and then defraud the Government, that make claims for transporting prisoners who are dead or for providing services to people who have long since left the system, and that are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office are not the kind of companies that the Government should consider offering further contracts to. Although the Minister was offered the opportunity earlier to tell the House that the two companies that are under serious investigation will be debarred until cleared, he has failed, yet again, to give that assurance. Apparently, companies that behave in that disreputable and dishonest fashion will be considered perfectly acceptable to play a part in the new system. I find that completely unacceptable.

As recently as today, we have heard more evidence of the performance of G4S. Three of its members falsified documents and were guilty, as far as I can see, of perjury. Judge Mostyn said:

“The three officials behaved disgracefully”.

He added:

“When agents of the state falsify documents it undermines, if not fatally then certainly very seriously, the trust of the people in the operation of the rule of law. It makes no difference if, as here, the agents are private contractors to whom the secretary of state has outsourced her powers. Corruption by state officials is insidious and corrosive.”

That was this week’s horror story; last week’s was about the torturing of prisoners.

[Mike Wood]

Absolutely. We are talking about people who collude in torture, and allegations that people are torturing prisoners in their care. Apparently, however, those people are perfectly acceptable and might play a part in privatising our probation service out of existence. We could, of course, also look at Serco, which is one of the other main contenders.

In spite of what the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson)—who is no longer in his place—said earlier, the experience of Serco in managing the London unpaid work scheme is instructive. Reports from that scheme and other parties working, or hoping to work, in partnership with Serco—partnership is crucial in this area of our service—state that they have huge difficulties getting through to Serco’s helpline when they need to speak to it about any issue relating to an individual offender. They also said that Serco has failed to provide adequate information to offenders and probation staff, leading to unnecessary costs to the taxpayer through breach orders and subsequent court costs, and that previous good relations in partnerships have been destroyed by the actions of that private company. In spite of attempts to downplay such issues, those are the kinds of company that will win these contracts should they be let in the way that we are told they will be. We will have G4S responsible for probation, and Eddie Stobart responsible for legal aid.

The hon. Member for Solihull again used the R-word when she assured the House that both parts of the coalition are up for this revolutionary change. We need not revolutionary change, however, but testing, piloting and evaluation, and we need a far more cautious approach for two reasons, the first of which is the danger to the public, which has been mentioned extensively during the debate. I am in the Chamber representing 120,000 people —men, women and children—in my constituency, just as every other Member is doing. I have a responsibility to look to their safety, and these proposals will lessen that safety. My constituents will be more likely to become victims of crime as a result of dangerous, volatile, difficult-to-predict, sometimes professional criminals and offenders being supervised by untrained, unqualified, poorly paid, temporary, unmotivated, so-called probation staff. There is an enormous danger to the public inherent in and right at the heart of these proposals.

Secondly, I think that so far in the debate—I have been here since the beginning—no one has mentioned the danger to the criminal justice system. There is the idea that we can take on work with at least another 60,000 offenders a year and that the whole system will not become swamped, even though we are cutting resources at the same time—well, we are told that it will be within the same cost envelope, but that is 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 extra offenders a year to be dealt with within that same cost envelope. I am trying not to say that this does not add up, but it does not add up, does it?

We need a much more cautious approach because the Bill is being introduced with the lie that it is about high-minded aspirations to provide a service for petty offenders, those on short-term sentences and the like. We know, however, that the proposals are a blatant attempt to take public money and transpose it into the coffers of private companies. We also know what happens if we introduce legislation on that basis. Think of the Child Support Agency. How many years has it taken to get the CSA—which was introduced by the previous Tory Government, on a lie—back to something fit for purpose? How many lives have been ruined? How many injustices caused? Yet that is exactly what is being proposed in the Bill.

I have considerable concerns about the Bill, and to conclude I would like to place on record a few of the issues that cause me particular concern. First, the Government’s own impact assessment is one of the most vacuous documents that I have read for a long time. There is no costing anywhere in it: “We don’t have to cost it; we know what the cost will be, but we are not going to tell you. If we told you, the private companies involved might know.” There are estimates and guesstimates about the implications for the number of offenders, including those in breach of an order or going back to prison—the spectrum is so wide that it is rather like the weather report: “Tomorrow, there’s going to be weather.”

We are told that 600 extra prison places will be needed —we are talking about a new prison. We were told as recently as last month that in a prison estate of 85,000 places, there were 800 vacancies on the day in question. In fact, earlier in the debate, we were told that the figure is now down to 600. Is every one of those places to be filled by someone in breach of an order under the proposals? Surely not, yet that is the logic of 13,000 to 17,000 extra breaches leading to 600 extra prison places being needed. Any suggestion that that will be achieved by the expenditure of £15 million of extra public funds is, as again we all know, nonsense.

The proposals on drugs and drug testing deserve a debate of their own. We have heard an enormous amount of nonsense about what will be achieved by drug testing, and by the requirement to appear and private organisations that can drug test if they choose to. They will, of course, have to bear the cost, so we can be fairly sure that they will not choose to test very often. A Government Member has said that extending testing to class B drugs was to catch people who are on cannabis. That might be a laudable aim in all kinds of ways, but to what effect in terms of reoffending? The Blenheim project in London—a drug and alcohol project—has said that the measure seems

“to be based on a misplaced belief that comparatively widespread use of cannabis amongst prisoners indicates a strong link to offending behaviour”,

yet the UK Drug Policy Commission—no less—reports that

“users of other drugs have much lower rates of offending than those who use heroin and crack and are less likely to have committed a crime to get drugs or when under the influence of drugs”.

If we are not careful, petty offenders who have been released from prison on licence and who have amended, or who are coming to grips with, their offending behaviour, will be caught out by testing for cannabis. It will be found in their system and they will go back to prison. How does that save money? How does that improve the situation for that offender or for society?

If the Minister had read any one of the three volumes of prison diaries of his erstwhile colleague, Lord Archer, he would know that what happened in the prison system when it introduced mandatory drugs testing will happen outside the prison system. If a prisoner has a drug in his or her system that can be discovered for four weeks, they will move to a drug that cannot be discovered in that time. That is what has happened in our prison system where, as was reported recently, it is easier to get crack cocaine than a bar of soap. Prisoners have opted to move from cannabis to heroin. That is what will happen outside. What on earth is that about?

DrugScope, which has been referred to and which is probably the leading independent centre for drug expertise, has expressed enormous misgivings, as has just about every other organisation involved with drug addicts. They work daily to achieve results. The Government will not listen to probation trusts or probation officers, but those organisations are another group of experts doing the job that the Government believe they know better than.

We are told that a national probation service will be formed. We should remember that it will be responsible for the most serious 30% of offenders—the murders and rapists and the like to which the hon. Member for Solihull has referred. It will be responsible for multi-agency public protection arrangements and for breaching, yet it will be based regionally. We are going to tear the heart out of the relationship between officers and the serious offenders. The larger geographic area will make a difference.

I have been a probation officer and can tell hon. Members that getting a probationer to appear in my office was the first part of the job. What if I move the office 50 miles or 100 miles further away? Does anyone believe that that would improve the chances of the probationer appearing? Does anyone consider that it will lead to less offending? It will not. Let us not forget that such offenders are not petty offenders, but dangerous people. I therefore have grave doubts. Are we setting up the so-called national probation service—the public part that picks up the bits that the private sector does not want, cannot handle, has failed with and so on—to fail?

The Ministry of Justice has said that the Bill encapsulates

“a complex, large-scale change programme to be”

introduced and

“completed within an aggressive timetable.”

The situation is that what works will be replaced by what will not work, on the basis of an ideological hunch from the Secretary of State. Here in the House on 9 January—do hon. Members remember?—he said:

“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

The Secretary of State himself told us that that was the basis and justification for doing away with the two pilots that would have given him an evidence base. Even though he was new to his job, he knew in the first week that they would not have given him an evidential basis for anything of the kind.

In last week’s debate, several Members recited the number of incidents of reoffending in any one year, and one of them said, “Something has to be done.” That is the cry of the impotent and the powerless the world over. It has now apparently become the watchword of the Government with regard to the criminal justice system. That just will not do. We deserve much better, and the public need and deserve much better. The Government have to rethink this proposed legislation radically.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are six speakers left and an hour and a bit to go, so I will have to introduce a limit of 11 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I now drop the time-limit to 10 minutes, and I hope we do not lose too much more time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Drax]

I should be as upset as the hon. Gentleman or any other Member would be if such circumstances were to arise, but I do not believe that threats should be made to individual Ministers. I have made my point and I shall continue.

I praise the Dorset probation service, which is outstanding. I agree with many of the points that have been raised. I spoke in the Opposition day debate and I agree with many points made by the Opposition and by one or two Members on the Government Benches. The probation service has made comments to me about privatisation and the 70% that has been suggested in the House tonight, and there are concerns about this. Will people fall through the gaps? What about careers, as has been asked? There are serious concerns about whether this proposal from the coalition Government will work. All I would say is that something is better than nothing, as we have heard from several good speakers on the Government Benches. We must do something because the reoffending rate is unacceptable.

Perhaps the situation has become so serious that we should be even more radical than the Government now are. At the young offenders institution on Portland, Sir James Spicer, who was the MP for West Dorset—I am sure some in the House will remember him—has introduced an initiative called the Airborne Initiative. The young men from that young offenders institution are taken out to Dartmoor and for five or six days they are taken day and night across the moors to navigate and learn about team spirit, camaraderie, friendship, discipline—all the things that these reoffenders and many young men and, dare I say, young ladies need.

Will the private sector and all these good intentions solve the problem? Has it got to such a point that the state needs to be even more radical? Perhaps I could lodge an idea in the minds of those on the Front Bench. How about a third force? I am not talking about making people join the armed forces, because as an ex-soldier myself I know that that clearly would not work, but I have trained young soldiers for two years, and some of them—not all—have arrived at the barracks in a similar state of mind to many young men who are in jail today. But six months later, after the training and the discipline they have received, and the friendship and camaraderie that have been engendered, these are young men one would be proud to die with. The system works.

So why do we not have a third force in this country? Why do we not put the Border Force and Customs and Excise all under one cap badge, run it on a militaristic basis and into that organisation put young men and women who, on a third warning in the magistrates court—call it what you will—rather than being sent to the young offenders institution in Portland, are given a chance? They can spend two years in the third force or go to jail. If they go to the third force and make a mistake, they end up in jail. Those who are coming to the end of a sentence of, say, six or seven years, are told in year five that they have a choice: two more years in jail or two more years with the third force.

The third force would be manned by volunteers who made a career on the sea, in the air and on the land—manned to a large extent by ex-service personnel. Rather than give second or third-hand ships to countries like India, those ships can be kept in this country and used for that purpose. Aircraft that may have outlived their usefulness on the front line can be used in the air. Those who have served in the Army can join the third force and represent the third force on the land. I know, because I have seen it work, that when young men and women are given a structure, discipline and hope, they can be turned around. Will all the good intentions of the private sector and the probation service, which, as I said, in Dorset is exceptional, work? The problem we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) costs £7 billion to £10 billion a year. If we can grab just 30% or 40% of these young people and turn them around, which I believe we could do, when they leave the third force they can go on to contribute to society. They learn what it is like to be selfless, to give, to work together with other people, and to contribute to their country.

I very much hope that all these good intentions work, and I welcome something being done to cut the reoffending rate, but we could go much further and be far more radical with the future of our young people, many of whom have no structure at all in their lives. As a Conservative, I do not like the state to get involved, but perhaps the problem is so big that the state must get involved to cut the bill further. The state has the power and the money to provide something that these young people can be put into and given a chance. If the light is turned on, it is so simple. I have seen it happen. People with no hope are given a simple task to do, the structure and discipline within which to do it, and their lives are changed.

The police, ambulance and fire services ran an experiment with 12 young people aged 14 to 16 years old, out on one of the moors. They had four baddies, let us call them, four who were pretty okay, and four goodies, and they put them all together to spend the night out on the moor. The first task was run by a huge barrel-chested ex-Royal Marine. He said to them, “Right, your first task is to put up your tent.” None of these people had ever seen a tent. It was one of those old ones, with lots of bits and bobs, made of canvas. They stood there looking at it with hands in pockets and phones ringing. Their whole attitude was, “What the hell am I doing here?” Then one of them said, “Staff, could you come and help me?” The sergeant-major said, “Gentlemen, and ladies, gather around. What is the first lesson in life?” They looked at him perplexed. He said, “You’ve just done it: if you don’t understand, you ask.” Within an hour the tent was up.

The next day I watched all three groups go round quite a challenging assault course. They put the two bad boys with the two ladies and sent them around. The two young men who were the worst offenders—they clearly came across as the worst—were the best at it, and when they finished they went back, without being asked, to help the ladies, who were struggling. They finished the assault course and stood with their shoulders back, inspired. They had been gripped, disciplined and they had achieved something. I am utterly convinced that if that small glimmer of light was pursued they would have a chance in life.

It is nothing new. It is not reinventing the wheel. I believe that the Government’s intentions are honourable and good, as are the Opposition’s, but will it work, because the problem is so serious? I am afraid that my answer, from my experience of life and from looking around—I have been around a few years—is that it will not, and certainly not to the degree that it should and could.

Someone said from a sedentary position, “Put them in the Army.” I am not saying that we should put them in the Army; I am saying that many of those young people need what the Army and those sorts of careers engender. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, is a distinguished former officer of the Parachute Regiment. He knows exactly where I am coming from, and I suspect that in his heart he knows I am right. We can reach lots of young people if we are more radical and daring and go back to the old-fashioned way of helping people who are in trouble and need our help. I leave that thought with Members on the Front Bench.

I will support the Bill tonight and hope that it works but, on behalf of the probation service in Dorset, I have some doubts about whether it will be sufficient. As many Members across the House have said tonight, there are genuine concerns that people will fall through the net. That is what worries me. That is the risk element. We have to accept that there is an element of risk, but there is risk in whatever we do. Have we balanced the whole argument to ensure that the risk is as minimal as possible? In this case—I do not like using this expression—only time will tell. I hope for all our sakes that it works.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The winding-up speeches will start at 20 minutes to 10.

Probation Service

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I am confused—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Those on the Opposition Front Bench should listen to the answer to the question that was asked in an intervention after the Minister gave way. We will do things in an orderly manner.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will not impose a time limit, but we must finish by 4.30 pm and we need 10 minutes for the Minister. I will try to get everybody in, but can we try to stick to five minutes wherever possible?

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

I rise to address amendment 133 tabled in my name, which looks specifically at extending the Bill to include protected animals. I tabled a similar amendment—slightly differently worded—in Committee, and it has been redrafted by animal welfare charities for consideration today. The amendment is intended to be limited in scope, and would not capture a genuine, accidental attack by a dog on a protected animal—that was one concern raised in Committee. For example, some dogs chase cats or other small animals, and that would not be caught by the amendment, which refers specifically to attacks.

From previous discussions in Committee we know there has been an increase in attacks on protected animals. Charities, law enforcement agencies and the general public are concerned about the increase, yet we do not have a public record of the number of attacks and must rely on press reports. We know that there have been 66 reports of attacks—mostly fatal—on cats, including one last week, when the death of Caspar, which was devastating for the family involved, was reported in the Bolton News.

The problem is genuine for people who love their pets—it is incredibly important to them. My proposal is designed to deal not only with dog-chasing-cat events; attacks are often aggravated. The argument in Committee was that the current legislation deals with the problem, but some animal welfare charities beg to differ. For example, it is true that the RSPCA has used section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on occasion to prosecute following dog attacks on other animals, but there is often incitement by the animal’s keeper or a history of other attacks. It can therefore be difficult to obtain information or prove a case, which means that section 4 is not a straightforward mechanism for prosecution.