Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 General Committees

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a non-executive director of a law firm.

The Minister’s portfolio was my portfolio when I was a Minister for some two and a half years, and this type of SI is being used in exactly the right way. There have been extensive criticisms about using secondary legislation from Members of different parties over many years, but sometimes it is absolutely spot on to do so, and the draft order is an example of that. The shadow Minister is absolutely right to say there will be other loopholes and other things that need to be addressed, but at the end of the day, this is about the safety of those who come here for their protection and making sure that those who open their doors are the right people and that we have had the right checks on them.

I commend the Government for introducing the draft order, but there are still issues outstanding. We need to be agile, and SIs are exactly how we should do it.

Murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will address that matter later in my speech.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As the hon. Member—my friend—knows, I have been involved in this issue for many years; before that, Sir Teddy Taylor was trying to get justice for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher. The question I have to ask—I asked it when I was the police Minister and I have asked it in parliamentary questions—is: why was that man allowed to come in and out of the country? He was not just a suspect in the Yvonne Fletcher murder but accused of other criminal activities, and yet he walked in and out of this country. That is why an inquiry is vital.

[Allan Dorans]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree. Hopefully we will get answers to those questions.

In 2015, Mr Mabrouk was arrested by the Metropolitan police following an investigation of money laundering and in connection with the murder of Yvonne. Following a two-year investigation, it was announced by the Crown Prosecution Service in 2017 that no prosecution was possible due to evidence withheld by the Government on the grounds of national security not being available to it. Mr Mabrouk was therefore released without charge.

There is no suggestion that Saleh Mabrouk fired the weapons that killed Yvonne. He was in police custody—perhaps intentionally and conveniently—when the shots were fired. However, there is significant evidence that he, as a senior member of the revolutionary committee responsible for the control of the people’s bureau, was involved in the events that led to the shootings taking place. He is a clearly a major suspect in a criminal conspiracy that led to the death of Yvonne.

Following the failure of the Government to support a criminal prosecution, the only avenue available to bring Mr Mabrouk to justice of any kind was for John Murray to initiate a civil court action against him. Accordingly, in November 2018, while Mabrouk was still resident in this country, John Murray lodged a civil court action against him in the High Court for the nominal sum of £1. The civil court action was brought primarily to bring the evidence of Mabrouk’s involvement in the death of Yvonne into the public domain and to prove that he was involved in, and liable for, Yvonne’s death. Very shortly after the case was filed on 9 January 2019, the Home Secretary wrote to Mr Mabrouk at his address in Libya informing him that he was excluded from the UK on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to good public order due to his suspected involvement in war crimes against humanity in Libya.

On 1 July 2020, I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions in relation to reopening the criminal investigation into the murder of Yvonne. The Prime Minister, in response, said:

“The murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher was sickening and cowardly.”

He agreed to meet me to

“see what we can do to take the matter forward.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 327.]

We met in the Prime Minister’s office on 29 September 2020. My memory of that meeting is very clear. I asked the Prime Minister a series of questions, the most significant of which was: would he carry out a review of whether evidence, which had been withheld by the Government from the Crown Prosecution Service during the criminal investigation into Saleh Mabrouk on the grounds of national security in 2017, could now be released as Saleh Mabrouk had now left the country and had been excluded from returning by the Home Office. He replied that yes, he would do that and would reply to me.

On 10 November 2021, the civil court case brought by Mr Murray against Saleh Mabrouk took place at the Royal Courts of Justice and was presided over by an experienced senior judge, the honourable Justice Martin Spencer. Despite being properly served with notice of the court proceedings, Saleh Mabrouk failed to respond. He was also given the opportunity to appear by video link, but again no response was received. The trial judge’s conclusion was that Mr Mabrouk had chosen to play no part in the trial, and that the trial could fairly proceed in his absence. Mr Justice Spencer delivered his judgment on 16 November 2021, which runs to 25 printed pages.

These are just a few of the highlights from that judgment. Mr Justice Spencer said:

“I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there existed a common design to respond to the planned anti-Gaddafi protest by using violence, and specifically by firing shots at or in the direction of the protestors. Witness statements and statements made by Mr Mabrouk demonstrate not only his knowledge of the common design, but also his views of the inevitability of that response.”

He quoted Mr Mabrouk as saying: “We have guns here and there’s going to be fighting,” and said that:

“This is a statement confirming a plan to shoot protestors.”

The judge went on to say:

“Coupled with his position as one of the few leaders of the Revolutionary Committee controlling the People’s Bureau, it amounts to confirmation of the common design to fire upon the demonstrators, in which he was an active participant. On that basis, I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the defendant”—

Saleh Mabrouk—

“is jointly liable for the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher on the doctrine of common design.”

That was a hugely significant judgment delivered by a senior High Court judge, having heard evidence from witnesses over three days. It was clear that Saleh Mabrouk was involved in, and jointly responsible, for the death of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. It is without doubt a landmark victory secured as a direct result of John Murray’s determination, courage and commitment to seek justice for his murdered friend and colleague.

I ask the Minister to address the following questions. Given that the evidence presented and accepted at the High Court has been available for over 37 years, how can the Government justify that it was left to John Murray, himself a victim in this case, to bring Saleh Mabrouk to justice in a civil court, rather than see him prosecuted in a criminal court? Will the Government undertake to review whether the evidence withheld from the Crown Prosecution Service in 2017 can now be safely released, as requested by me and agreed by the Prime Minister at our meeting on 29 September 2020? Has Saleh Mabrouk ever been provided with a letter of comfort or letter of assurance by the British Government, which guarantees that he will never be prosecuted in a British criminal court?

Will the Government acknowledge that the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Spencer confirms Mr Mabrouk’s culpability in the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, and in the light of that, what action are the Government and the Metropolitan police now taking to bring Saleh Mabrouk to justice by requesting his extradition from Libya to face a criminal prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher? Will the Government now reconsider the need for a public inquiry into the events surrounding the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher and subsequently?

Before the Minister responds, I pay tribute to John Murray, who, for the past 37 years, has worked tirelessly and relentlessly to achieve justice for Yvonne and without whose efforts the callous murder of a young policewoman, for which no one has ever been charged, may have faded in people’s memories. I also thank the police officers who have served for their service—some of whom are present in the Public Gallery this evening—and those who have helped and supported John through these incredibly difficult years to keep the memory of Yvonne and the campaign for justice for Yvonne alive.

Finally, in addition to seeking answers to those questions, my hope, in bringing this debate to the Chamber this evening, is that it will send a powerful message to the Government and to Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk that the murder of Yvonne has not been, and will never be, forgotten. The campaign for justice for Yvonne continues. It will never give up; it is not going away; and it will continue the fight, by any legal means possible, to finally achieve justice for Yvonne.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) on securing this debate and recognise his indefatigable efforts to secure justice for PC Fletcher and her colleagues, friends and family. I thank him for the advance indication of his questions, which I will come to in a moment, and join him in celebrating the dedication and perseverance of PC Fletcher’s friend and colleague, John Murray—most recently, for bringing the case to the civil court, as well as for his continuous efforts ever since PC Fletcher’s death. They are testament to the high regard in which PC Fletcher continues to be held to this day. I also pay tribute to the hard work and commitment that the Metropolitan police has shown over a prolonged period in its efforts to bring to justice those involved in the murder of PC Fletcher. Her death was an appalling tragedy and my thoughts remain with all who loved her.

The murder of PC Fletcher was one of the most notorious crimes of the past 40 years, representing an act of state-sponsored terrorism that resulted in the fatal wounding of a serving police officer on the streets of London. The hon. Member shared in great detail the findings of the civil case of 16 November 2021, which found that Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk was jointly liable for the killing of PC Yvonne Fletcher.

Following the conclusion of that case, many, including the hon. Member, have been lobbying for a criminal case to be brought against Mabrouk. In 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service made the decision not to pursue a prosecution in this case, and I understand that that decision was disappointing and frustrating for PC Fletcher’s family, friends and colleagues. It remains, however, an operational matter for the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service to consider any criminal prosecution.

It is important to note the differences in making a finding on liability in a civil court as opposed to in a criminal court. A civil court is required to make its findings on the balance of probabilities. That means that a court is satisfied, on the evidence available, that the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. A higher threshold is imposed in criminal cases, which requires an allegation to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That means that the jury must be sure that the person is guilty. It is therefore not by any means automatic that Mr Murray’s success in the High Court would or could translate into a successful criminal prosecution.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police can make such a decision only if they have the evidence that the Government have, which they have not handed over to the CPS. Will the Minister answer the question about whether or not the information that the Government have will be passed over to the CPS so that it can make that decision?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will come to that point in a moment, if I may.

Following the Prime Minister’s meeting with the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock in September 2020, the Home Office contacted the CPS in December of that year to ask whether it had received any more information on the case; it had not. The position remains the same as in 2017, which is that the CPS is not currently considering charges in the case. As with any case referred to the CPS by the police, a decision to prosecute is made in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors, and a case must meet the evidential and public interest stages of the code test. In accordance with the code, the CPS will consider any new information referred to it by the police in relation to the case.

On the hon. Member’s question about evidence being withheld, it has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on the existence or otherwise of intelligence material. I am therefore unable to confirm or deny the existence of any material that may or may not relate to the case.

The hon. Member asked for confirmation of whether the Government issued a comfort letter to Saleh Mabrouk. We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that any such letter ever existed or was ever issued.

In response to the hon. Member’s question regarding the extradition of Mr Mabrouk, the House should know that whether an extradition application is sought in any case is an operational decision for law enforcement and prosecution agencies. The UK Government, as a matter of long-standing policy and practice, will neither confirm nor deny that an extradition request has been made or received until such time as an arrest has been made in relation to the request.

On the question of a public inquiry, I am aware of the strong feeling in this case and of the early-day motion that the hon. Member tabled calling for such an inquiry. While of course we recognise the strength of feeling that the case evokes, the Government are not currently considering an inquiry into the death of PC Fletcher.

In closing, I would like to state once more that my thoughts are with PC Fletcher’s family, friends and colleagues. They continue to have my deepest sympathy. I, like many, have often stopped at the memorial stone in St James’s Square to consider a moment in our history that had a huge impact on many of us who were around at the time. I would also like to recognise and pay tribute again to the efforts of John Murray and the courage and resilience that he has shown in seeking justice for PC Fletcher. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. The murder of PC Fletcher was a heinous act that shocked our country to its core, and she will never be forgotten.

Criminal Justice System: Veterans

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for securing the debate and for her typically thoughtful speech on an important issue. I am sorry that we have so little time today for it.

I also pay tribute to all those who serve, or who have served, in Her Majesty’s armed forces, and to the families that support them. The British armed forces are the best in the world; it is those who serve in them who make them so. The armed forces covenant reflects the huge debt that, as a society, we owe to all who serve. It is a pledge to all who have served, or are currently serving, that they will be treated fairly, looked after and not disadvantaged due to their service. I am proud to work alongside colleagues from the Ministry of Justice, across Government and on both sides of the Chamber in this important area. I particularly highlight the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I will ensure that he is aware of the points the hon. Lady made for the Ministry of Defence.

Our criminal justice system is there to do a number of things: to punish and deter those who break the law; to provide redress for victims of crime; and to protect society—in many ways, the overriding aim. In that respect, we must focus on reducing reoffending through our system by providing effective rehabilitation. That applies to all those in our custody or in the criminal justice system, regardless of background. We are determined to ensure that those in custody are held in safe and decent conditions and receive the support they need to meet their rehabilitation and physical and mental health needs.

In that context, it is right to recognise the sometimes very specific needs that former armed forces personnel in custody may have. The Ministry of Justice was pleased to welcome in 2014 the Phillips review of veterans in the criminal justice system, which looked at that issue. It highlighted that ex-military offenders have similar profiles to non-military offenders, but with multiple mental health and socioeconomic risk factors, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. We must seek to address those factors. The latest Ministry of Justice offender management statistics show that, across our 85,000 prisoners, around 3% of new receptions declared themselves as having served in the armed forces. This figure has remained fairly stable for several years.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I commend the Minister on his very accurate speech. Self-declaration is a really serious issue. Care after Combat, which is in most prisons—frankly, the big charities were not in there doing the work the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) talked about—knows that the guys and girls who go to prison, for myriad reasons, will not self-declare, even though we know they have served, because their national insurance number has a marker. When I was a Minister and sat where the Minister is sitting, I called for that situation to be reversed so that, rather than people self-declaring, they have to declare that they do not want to be declared. We must address their safety in prison; it is not just pride—some of them are at risk. I commend Care after Combat, in particular, for going into prisons and not caring what people have done, just so that it can get people back out and not reoffending.

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I pay tribute to him for his work when he was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice; if I recall correctly, he initiated the Care after Combat pilots, and I pay tribute to the work of that charity too. If I may, I will come on to that and the point about self-declaration shortly, because the hon. Lady made a powerful point about it.

We have begun gathering data on the percentage of veterans among the population of offenders in the community, because, although they are not in custody, we have an obligation to them too. The data is being analysed and will be available in due course. The statistics are important because they highlight that, although some have suggested there is an over-representation of former armed forces personnel in the criminal justice system, that does not appear to be the case. However, as the hon. Lady and others have highlighted, the statistics are vital; if we wish to help former armed forces personnel in our criminal justice system, knowing who they are and understanding them is the only way we can do that.

My strong belief is that we must emphasise that, for someone coming into the criminal justice system, their service connection is an asset, not a liability. As has been alluded to, the Ministry of Justice made changes in 2015 so that every individual coming into custody in England and Wales is asked if they have served in the armed forces. A mandated self-declaration form is also completed by the national probation service. The hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend made a powerful point about the deep pride many former armed forces personnel have in their service and in who they are, which can sometimes inhibit them from making that declaration. The hon. Lady asked if I will have another look at that issue, and I am happy to tell her that I will look into it in more detail following the points she and my right hon. Friend made. It is important to these people’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society that we know who they are, so that we can ensure that the services we provide meet their needs—for example, by addressing identified needs such as mental health issues or PTSD.

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons noted in 2014 that 26% of ex-service personnel—those we knew about, to go back to the point about self-declaration—reported having a current mental health or emotional wellbeing problem in its survey. That statistic was similar in the general prisoner population. What was distinct for veterans in custody, however, was that they were more likely to report feeling depressed or suicidal on arrival—the figure was 18%, compared with 14%—and more likely to have a higher incidence of physical health problems.

If we do not understand the nature and extent of the problem, how can we possibly hope to address it? For an individual who has served, being able to disclose that is a step towards helping themselves as well as allowing us to help them. It opens the array of support networks available, and it draws down the social capital that that group has earned and invested in from their time in service.

Many talk about letting the services down by ending up in prison, but what lets these people down is not understanding them. A key principle in desisting from crime is that people should be able to define themselves positively. To see oneself as ex-service, not ex-offender, gives people a chance to have a positive self-view.

I am conscious of time, but I would like briefly to touch on a few of the wider changes that we are anticipating as a Government with regard to veterans generally, and on the importance of partnership working with other organisations. I also want to say a few words about Parc, which was the focus of the hon. Lady’s speech.

The veterans population is changing, and the prison population is changing. The large cohorts of ex-servicemen and women who experienced the forces as part of their national service, or who served during the cold war years, are now giving way to a much younger group who have served in recent conflicts. A much younger veterans population has different expectations of how they want to be supported. They may be more open to asking for support—for mental health problems, for instance—and possibly less concerned about where it comes from. Across Government we will try to bond together and co-ordinate the support available, but we will rely on the first-hand knowledge of networks operating at grassroots level to look at trends, use data and keep us on top of how services should be shaped and designed in future.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight the hugely important and innovative work being done at Parc. I join her in paying tribute to the staff and the team there for what they are doing—I know her visit went down very well, and they were very pleased to see her. I hope to visit Parc soon as part of a tour of a number of prisons in Wales. Partnership working is key to what they do there, not just within Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—I hope lessons from Parc can be learned across the system—but with forces charities.

I stand behind all those working in this area, and particularly the wide range of military charities that work across the criminal justice system to provide for the specific needs of veterans, in parallel with the ongoing provision available for all offenders. Those charities include, for example, SSAFA, Forces in Mind, the Royal British Legion and, of course, Care after Combat, which my right hon. Friend mentioned. I encourage those groups to continue their networks and their work, and particularly those specific pieces of work that show us where we need to go in future. It is through the knowledge and sharing experiences of voluntary sector and service charities that we are able to continue improving services for veterans. My door is always open to them to talk to me about their work.

I will conclude, to give the hon. Lady a minute to speak if she is permitted, Mr Hollobone.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Mike Penning Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way to a Nottingham MP and then to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I really must make some progress, because I am conscious that other Members want to speak.

[Stella Creasy]

I desperately apologise to the people of Nottinghamshire for forgetting the “Shire”—I am not a fan of “The Lord of the Rings”. I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

[Sir Mike Penning]

As a former Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, I stress that just because the police were not willing to take the matter forward does not mean that an offence has not taken place. This will be driven forward by guidance to the police, particularly from the College of Policing, and by the evidence about what is happening in Nottinghamshire. The offence is there, whether or not we change the wording of the Bill today. Trying to force someone into a car is an offence, and the police should take it seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was right. In objecting, he has given Parliament the proper opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. If he had not objected, the Bill would have gone through on the nod and the amendments we are debating today would not have been possible. The failings of the private Members’ Bill procedures are not for discussion on Report. No one, least of all me, is denying the need to address swiftly the wrongdoing of upskirting, but that should not be at the expense of proper scrutiny. We have to wake up to the need to jettison antiquated, opaque procedures in this place, procedures that in this instance I believe have left a respected and longstanding hon. Member, my friend and fellow Wessex Member of Parliament, open to hostile attack for acting to ensure that this new law is subject to appropriate levels of scrutiny.

As we have just heard from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), the issues we are discussing today on upskirting are a part of far broader issues to do with image-based abuse and sexual harassment in public places. It is right that we address upskirting, but it is also right that we reject the piecemeal approach for dealing with these issues. The Women and Equalities Committee is looking at the issue of sexual harassment in public places. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) is in her place. We have taken copious amounts of evidence on this issue and we will be issuing a report in autumn dealing with many of the issues that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has raised today. The Government need a cohesive strategy in this area. I believe this piecemeal approach is not the right way forward. Indeed, if we had a cohesive strategy, we would not need this Bill.

In wanting to move so swiftly to change the law, the Government are right to use the existing Scottish legislation as its base. However, the Scottish Act was passed eight years ago, and in that time the Scottish Government have themselves recognised significant shortcomings in their own law and made changes, changes that are not reflected in the Bill before us today. The amendments tabled in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Members from across the Conservative party, the Liberal party, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and Labour seek to rectify those shortcomings and tackle the emerging problems that we are seeing with the Scottish legislation: very, very low levels of prosecutions and convictions, with legislation that has now been in place for eight years.

Amendment 3 makes all upskirting a crime. At the moment, the Bill is very narrowly defined. There should never be an instance when it is acceptable to take a photo up anyone’s skirt without their consent. The issue should be the lack of consent, not the motivation of the perpetrator. The perpetrator’s intentions can be difficult for the police to prove. Is it to humiliate? Is it to alarm? Is it to distress the victim? They may never know or care who the victim is. The picture may be shared for a laugh, or taken and sold and then sold on again. How do the police track the buyers and sellers of these photographs? The Bill explicitly does not outlaw upskirting per se; it outlaws it in certain circumstances.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend’s vitally important amendments. Looking at the evidence of what happened in Scotland, we see that the very low number of prosecutions—as low as three, I think—was partly because the intent of the upskirting could not be proved. Instead of the offence just being, “This is wrong, let’s prosecute”, the intent had to be proven. That was the problem with the Scottish legislation and why the number of prosecutions was so low. My right hon. Friend’s amendments will address that issue. If they are not accepted today, I hope this issue can be addressed in the other place once the Select Committee’s report comes out.

[Mrs Miller]

We have to make the law work in practice, as well as on paper. Like my right hon. Friend, I believe that because these things have been made so complex, the police are finding them difficult to implement. I am not sure that we have an investigation into that. The Minister may want to talk to us further about what she has found out from her Scottish colleagues, because I think they are looking at it in a lot of detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is a pleasure of sorts to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). We have disagreed on things, but I am pleased to say that I agree with him that we want to make this Bill as good as possible and, in particular, to ensure that it acts as a good deterrent so that people do not consider this vile practice.

I am immensely grateful that the Government have taken the upskirting Bill through the House so quickly. Everyone involved can be very proud of what has been achieved so far. This Bill is testament to how we can all work together constructively. We all agree that upskirting is a vile practice and has to become a specific sexual offence. We all agree that either to gain sexual gratification from upskirting or to take an image for the purposes of distress, humiliation or alarm should not be tolerated and should now be prosecuted in law. We also agree, by and large, that the worst offenders should go on the sex offenders register.

This Bill is aimed at stopping a vile offence by either deterring upskirting in the first place or through the successful prosecution of offenders. We want to ensure that everybody is protected from this crime. We are not debating those common principles today; we are debating how to bring about effective prosecutions and not allow anyone to slip through the net. The wide-ranging discussion on this Bill over the summer has led me to put my name to amendments that explore how we make this upskirting Bill as watertight and effective as possible. I believe that we can strengthen it in two ways.

First, the Bill, as drafted, makes upskirting a sexual offence only if it is done for sexual gratification or if photos are taken to humiliate, distress or alarm the victim. That means that those taking upskirting images for other purposes, for example financial gain, non-sexual enjoyment or “having a bit of a laugh”, would not be committing an offence. However, I believe that whether an offence has taken place should be determined by whether the victim has consented and whether the images were taken intentionally. The harm caused to the victim is substantial, regardless of the motivation of the perpetrator. Upskirting should be an offence regardless of the motive.

Secondly, the Bill would make the taking of the image an offence, but not necessarily the distribution of the image. Amendment 5 would make it an offence to distribute an upskirting image without consent, to which two defences would be available—to prevent or detect crime, or that the person distributing the image did not know that it was an upskirting image.

The large increase in sexually offensive images online is a real problem. Only on Monday, the Home Secretary made a speech talking about his shock at the sexual exploitation of children online, and the responsibility of online platforms. I understand that the Government intend to conduct a wide-ranging review of this problem, but it will probably be years before we can successfully tackle the issue in law. I therefore see no harm in trying to prevent the distributing of upskirting images now, even if other legislation lags behind.

I want the Bill to stop the vile practice of upskirting. It should be a successful tool for prosecution, but it should also act as a deterrent—zero tolerance, no loopholes. Since I got involved in the upskirting campaign, I have understood how distressing upskirting is to victims. I want to make sure that anybody even considering taking an upskirting image should think twice. I would also like the Bill to have a wider purpose—to inform the wider discussion around consent, online distribution of sexual images, and outdated attitudes, especially towards women. We have heard about that subject today, and I very much welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Bill marks an important stepping stone, and I am grateful for the largely consensual debate on how we can stop upskirting for good.

[Sir Mike Penning]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and I congratulate her on the tireless work she has done. I also congratulate Gina Martin, who is a brilliant campaigner: I wish she was with me campaigning on issues in my constituency.

I was not here on the Friday when the private Member’s Bill was objected to, but I was conscious of it when the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said that not all noes are bad. There was a no, and it means that we are here today. The Bill before us is not perfect, and I shall say more about that, but the reason the Bill has been expedited and we have the amendments is because of what happened then. While my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was vilified and attacked in some parts of the press, I think that in his heart of hearts what he wanted—he has objected to many Bills over the years—is scrutiny and for the Government to come forward with their arguments for and against, rather than being squeezed by the technical procedures of Friday sittings.

As a former Minister, I know that the Minister will be under pressure not to accept amendments. I have sat on the Treasury Bench on many occasions and read the notes and briefings. I often got in trouble because I would say, “No, common sense needs to prevail here, because some of these amendments are right.” In my opinion, some of the amendments to the Bill are right, and if Ministers do not accept them—or give a very good explanation of how they will address the points made—the House should divide on them. The country is looking to us to give a lead on this important legislation.

One reason we do not have very many prosecutions for the offences that already cover upskirting—the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned some of them in her contribution—is that the police and the CPS do not have the confidence that that is what this place intended. I know that because I was a Justice Minister with responsibility for policing and victims, and I have had that put to me. The judges in the appeal courts say all the time, “What is the intent? If Parliament had intended that, it would have put it on the face of the Bill.” There are things missing from the face of the Bill that I will now address.

I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that new clause 1, to which she is the main signatory, further expands the provision, but the Law Commission is where this needs to be done. I hope that, when the Minister stands up, common sense will prevail, that we do not need to divide and that the Law Commission can look at the wider aspect of this hate crime, which is what this is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mike Penning]

It is an honour to speak in this Third Reading debate. I pay tribute to the new Secretary of State for Justice—my neighbour and my roommate for many years—who has been involved in this issue for many weeks. I also pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). We normally get a fair bit of notice when a Bill comes forward, and we argue our points in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Instead of that, this has been a fast one. It is a real privilege to have taken part in this debate as a man, a father and husband, and to try to understand and get the public to understand what has been going on out there with this voyeurism and upskirting. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and to the Minister and her colleagues for listening to the House, because the House is supposed to replicate what is going on out there in the country.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is absolutely thrilled about the review of the general legal area. It will be a real move forward. The amendments were tabled in good faith. I am not legally trained—even though I was a Justice Minister—and I am still confused about when upskirting would be legitimate. I do not understand that, but perhaps their lordships will understand it better than I do.

At the end of the day, however, this Bill started as a private Member’s Bill that would have really struggled, no matter who was backing it. It would not have received the amendments or the debates, and we certainly would not have a Law Commission review. All that would never have happened without the time here this evening to debate the legislation and take it through.

Everybody has quite rightly paid tribute to individuals—those who have tabled amendments, served on Committees and so on—but we should be paying tribute to this House, because without the various roles in this pluralistic House the democratic process would not happen. It does not happen every day, and it is rare that we are in complete agreement. I agree with the Opposition spokeswoman on many things, but it is good that she is as happy as we are for this legislation to go to the other House. It is not yet finished and there will be quite rightly be a lot of scrutiny in the other House, which is there to scrutinise and improve, not to block, and I hope that the Bill receives Royal Assent soon. We can look at the reviews that come forward, and everyone is certainly looking forward to the Law Commission review. This is a good day for democracy and a good day for this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He highlights an example—a sad example, but not, I accept, the only one—where people, too quickly, go out of prison and commit a crime and are then set in a cycle of offending and reoffending. The system is not working for them or for society. The purpose of the education and employment strategy, which is implicit in his question, is an important point, and we must ensure that we implement it successfully. The purpose of that is to address this very issue.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

Some of the people who are disproportionately represented inside the prison system are ex-servicemen. What plans does the Secretary of State have to bring charities such as Care after Combat into the prisons to help to ensure that reoffending does not take place and that these people who are heroes one day are not villains the next?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. It is important for all offenders that we address this issue, but there is a particular point about ex-service people. He is right to highlight the very strong charitable sector in this area. I am determined to ensure that we continue to engage with those charities to provide people with the support they need, making sure in particular, in the context of his question, that those who have served this country are not disadvantaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the family drug and alcohol courts do great work. The fact that the Tavistock and Portman Trust is not going forward with the programme will not affect any of the existing courts. It is disappointing that the trust has chosen not to continue with the programme, and we will continue to look at the provision of this important service.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

On behalf of the Government, I stood at the Dispatch Box beside the Treasury Bench and promised the country that we would have a victims law. May I ask the Minister where that victims law is?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question, and I know that the House is grateful to him for his work and his tireless campaigning in this area. We have made it clear that we are committed to bringing forward a victim strategy this summer, which will look at both legislative and non-legislative options for delivering what he mentions. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point. There is clearly the potential to change the rules for forthcoming cases, but she particularly asks whether such a change could apply to cases that occurred before the change in the rules. I do not want to make any guarantees to the House at this point, because there are clearly complex legal implications and one would want to look at them, but if I may take that as a representation of what she thinks should happen, I very much take that on board.

On notification of victims, as I said, there will be cases where people do not want to be informed; there will be cases where people will want to receive a great deal of detail. We need a system that is sensitive to what victims want. The right hon. Lady raises the point about where Worboys will be and whether victims could be close by. The conditions of the licence are for the Parole Board, but I suspect I speak for the House as a whole when I say that we would expect the Parole Board to be sensitive to the concerns that victims might have about their safety, and indeed to the trauma of perhaps finding themselves accidentally in the presence of someone who has committed such terrible crimes.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

As the new Lord Chancellor, my good friend, knows—I welcome him to his post—I was the victims and the police Minister in the previous Administration. One reason for that was the justice side cannot really be taken away from the police and the Crown Prosecution side. In the files on his desk will be a draft Bill for a victims law, which has cross-party support, which I believe was in both Conservative and Labour manifestos, but one of the biggest issues is what is a victim. It is obvious to us what a victim is, but in law that is often very different; so where there has not been a prosecution, victims very often will not be informed in the same way as someone whose case has been before the courts. Why the Crown Prosecution Service did not prosecute as many cases as we all know about now must be investigated as part of the review, but we must put the victim first, and a victims law would be a very good way to start.

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my right hon.—and very good—Friend for his comments. He is right; I believe that I do have advice on that very matter in my inbox, and I will want to look very closely at it.. He is absolutely right to say that it is important that the position of victims is properly respected. One of the first people I spoke to on taking office was Baroness Newlove, who has done some excellent work on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Penning Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

Unfortunately, I am not a Minister at the Home Office, so I cannot really respond in detail to that question. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to write to the relevant Minister.

[Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

When will we see the draft of the victims’ Bill, which was committed to by the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition?

Detention under Mental Health Act

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

Far be it for me to ever contradict you, Mr Speaker, but I lost crime some time ago and now have fire. The title you gave me is correct, except that I now have no crime, but lots of fire.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) that it is a pleasure to respond to this debate. We have met to discuss his concerns before. I have received delegations on the subject and it was discussed extensively during the Committee stage of the Policing and Crime Bill.

To be fair, my hon. Friend does highlight an issue, and I am not going to run away from that. He is absolutely right to say that there are concerns about extending powers into a place of safety that is deemed to be someone’s abode. I have been on patrol with the police when they have encountered very similar situations to the first case that he mentioned. I have also heard people say, long before I got this position, “If only we could get this person outside their home, we could help them under the existing legislation.”

I am sure that all custody sergeants, who do a fantastic job, are as diligent as the one who my hon. Friend has met. I once heard a custody sergeant say that section 136 would not be appropriate when a person was in a public place. I do not think that that is right, either, but police officers are not mental health experts. One of the problems with section 136 is that it is specifically designed as a last resort when all other measures to help an individual have been exhausted. I will touch on other matters relating to the expertise that police officers do not always have, including the street triage initiative and resources for custody suites, and, importantly, the situation outwith officers.

Before we consider changing section 136, we need to ask whether it is being used correctly. We are concerned about the number of section 136 orders that are being used, and the data that I asked for show that forces in some parts of the country almost never use section 136, while others use it extensively.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

It would be interesting to compare and contrast those statistics with the suicide statistics. By law, anyone arrested under section 136 must be seen within 72 hours by a psychiatrist or a medical practitioner with psychiatric training, which represents an enormous safeguard.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will break down the analysis for information not just on suicides, but on criminal assaults, which are often carried out on loved ones. When I was out on patrol with the Metropolitan police in Camden, we went to what the neighbours described as a “domestic situation”; in other words, someone had allegedly been assaulted. When we arrived at and eventually got into the flat, the one thing that the person who had been assaulted desperately did not want was for their loved one to be arrested and taken to a prison cell, because they were ill. They were ill in a similar way to someone who had broken their leg or who had a medical illness. They were ill and they needed to go to a suitable place of safety.

All too often over the years, that person would have been arrested and ended up in a police cell. If they were not subject to section 136, they would not necessarily have the safeguard of being seen by a medical or psychiatric specialist. That is one of the reasons why the amount of time that someone with a mental illness can be kept in a police cell is massively restricted by legislation.

I would argue that this is a matter not just for the police, but for social services and the NHS in particular. It is not for a police officer to diagnose instantly whether someone having a mental health episode is drunk, has taken illegal drugs, or has had their medication go wrong. I may not be the Minister with responsibility for the police as the reshuffle goes on, but at the moment they are my police officers in England and Wales, and very often they have to make split-second decisions. However, I am desperate to make sure that they are not put in the difficult position of being the first port of stoppage rather than being, as they should be, the last resort for those in desperate need.

When I was fireman, I regularly attended incidents with the local police force. At about a quarter to five on a Friday, social services would phone the police and fire stations to say that they were going home for the weekend, but they had not seen Mary or Jonny—vulnerable people—during the week, so could we make sure that they were okay. Sometimes we had to break into the premises. I argued then and I argue now that that is not the role of the emergency services, and it is certainly not the role of the police. However, that has become the norm in all our constituencies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley will be pleased to know that an inter-ministerial group is looking at this. When I was disabilities Minister, I sat on the group and argued my point about not just people with mental illnesses, but people with learning difficulties. The two are often confused in this area, because people with learning difficulties can also become very confused as we desperately try to look after them.

If someone has a mental illness, the place of safety that we take them to is not a police cell. We do exactly what it says on the tin and take them to a place of safety, which means a medical setting provided by the NHS or social services.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) in everything that he is trying to do. Does the Minister agree that the time limit in the safeguards in section 136, which require an examination by a registered medical practitioner or an interview by an approved medical health professional within 72 hours, could be reduced to perhaps 12 hours? That would mean that the person in question would get more immediate help.

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what will happen under the Policing and Crime Bill. The police will not be able to hold a person in a police cell for the length of time that they previously could while waiting for that medical examination to take place. However, to be honest, I think we can all agree that 12 hours is too long. Would we find it acceptable if someone with a broken leg had to wait in A&E for 72 hours? My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is a qualified dentist. Would someone wait 72 hours if they had a huge abscess in their mouth that needed urgent treatment? Why is mental health treated so differently from other illnesses? That is something that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has been working on extensively, although sadly he has decided to return to the Back Benches. When the coalition was in power, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) accepted that the NHS was letting these people down, and that the men and women in our police forces were having to pick up the mess by dealing with those in desperate situations. That really is not the role of a police force.

Unless the Government come together to deal with this, my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is right to be concerned about sections 136 and 135. I hope that he will take up my offer of our working together. I am sorry that I did not manage to be with him to meet the professor, although we did bump into him. If the concerns cannot be dealt with in the way that my officials and the three Departments that handle this suggest that they can, we will absolutely need to amend section 136, but let us first try to get to the right place. This will sound critical of other Departments, but I do not want the police to be seen, yet again, to be picking up something that another Department needs to address. That is what has happened over the years.

When I have said that we should restrict the length of time for which these very vulnerable people can be held in a police cell, one argument that has been put to me is: where will they go? How many specialist A&E facilities and places of safety are there, besides the cells in the local prison? The answer is that provision has to be made to ensure that the cells are not the first port of call.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(George Hollingbery.)

[Mike Penning]

To conclude, it is absolutely right that this issue has been brought to the House, although I am aware of it. I was aware of it before I took on my portfolio and, to be fair, even before I came into the House, because my mother was a mental health nurse for more than 40 years. We are in a much better position today than we have been in the past, and we have a better understanding of mental health and learning difficulties—[Interruption.] The phone in my pocket is buzzing; it may well be someone trying to get hold of me urgently.

It is important that we work together. I give my hon. Friend a commitment that if we cannot get this right using the measures that we are working on, an amendment to section 136 might be exactly what we need.

Question put and agreed to.

Cross-examination of Vulnerable Witnesses

Mike Penning Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this debate. What she says is no surprise to me, because in our meeting with Lord Judge the other day we discussed this issue in terms of what would be the right thing to do, and I praise her diligent work. She does not give up on these matters; she goes on and on. I also join her in praising Lord Judge—one could argue that he is brilliantly named because of his previous occupation.

Perhaps not many people are in the Chamber because on previous occasions other Ministers have not been able to say what I am about to say. As Minister with responsibility for the criminal justice system as well as for victims, this issue forms part of the package that I will announce in a moment. We seek to make more victims feel safe within the criminal justice system, and I have pledged to the House that we will publish a Green Paper on a victims law before the summer recess—I have worked on that extensively with Her Majesty’s Opposition and other parties in the House.

I have also considered the Scottish system, but our provisions will possibly go a little further, meaning that we can learn from each other. That is always a good thing when trying to protect the most vulnerable people in society. This is not just about children; there are people with mental illnesses and those in other situations—particularly those under pressure—who are vulnerable in other ways, although I know we have been talking particularly about children.

Measures have been introduced over the last few years, and the criminal justice system has moved on enormously. In particular, the attitude of judges and those who deal with criminal law has changed. There are now screens in some courts, but we are not there yet.

It is regrettable—a very polite term for a Minister to use in the House—that section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 was not rolled out sooner. I think everybody accepted that it had to be piloted. There was a degree of concern that there might be some cases where vulnerable people were recalled, but, as the hon. Lady said in her very articulate and factual speech, that has happened only once. All the other evidence shows that not only does it make a much better situation for the witness, but it is much better for the criminal justice system. It speeds up the criminal justice system, in particular in the courts, and there are a substantial number of guilty pleas.

There is no need to delay the House massively. As the hon. Lady knows—she met me only a couple of days ago—I agree with nearly everything she says. I have yet to receive full Government clearance. However, I intend to instruct my officials to work with the judges on a roll-out. The roll-out will start by the end of the year. It says in my notes it will start in January, but I think the end of the year would be better. I am sure we would all agree on that. We will start with the roll-out in the Crown courts for those under 18 and for witnesses with mental illness.

This needs to be rolled out. It is wrong to have a situation where my pilots are continuing as pilots when we know just how successful they are. The postcode lottery will end. I am not certain we will reach the full roll-out by March 2017. If I cannot do that, I will come back to the House to explain why that is the case. I have some technicalities within Government procedures to address in the meantime, but I cannot see any reason why we cannot start planning now to work with judges on how we are going to implement it. I spoke about this extensively with Lord Peter Gross, who has recently stepped down, and his replacement. I think we can go with this. The judges want it. It seems completely logical to me that if I have something new and the judges want it—as the hon. Lady said, that is quite strange—then let us get on and do it.

With that in mind, let us work together across the House to implement section 28 as soon as possible to protect vulnerable witnesses and victims, which we all came to this place to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Homicide Law Reform

Mike Penning Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Justice, on his prescience in calling for this debate. It is a very important subject and has been for many years now, and it seems to me that the time is right for change in this area.

As a constitutional lawyer, I do not always keep up with the intricacies of criminal statutes and sentencing. In preparing for today I was slightly surprised that the definitions of “murder” and “manslaughter” had not moved on substantially since I was a student many years ago. We were taught that the law was outdated and not really fit for purpose; very little has changed. The Law Commission in 2005 declared that:

“The law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations. Some of its rules have remained unaltered since the seventeenth century, even though it has long been acknowledged that they are in dire need of reform.”

Sadly, that is even more the case today than it was then.

I next came across the effects of the law on murder in my work for the Government Legal Service, when the Prison Service was a major client throughout my career. At the start of my time there, the concept of whole-life tariffs was being tested in the Myra Hindley case. I became fascinated by psychopathy—though clearly not a practitioner. I learned that, though truly psychopathic murderers crossed my desk often, those cases, while newsworthy, were happily extremely rare and made up only a tiny proportion of those in our criminal justice system.

Just over 80 whole-life tariffs have been given since 1983 when they were introduced. Those guidelines are clear, judges seem to apply them sensibly, and there is also the right of political appeal where necessary. That system seems, to me and to the European Court of Human Rights, to work reasonably well, and is a good example of judicial discretion in action.

Later on in my career I was often called on to act for the Parole Board in cases of judicial review. There were frequent challenges to the legality of decisions of the Parole Board to refuse to release life-sentenced prisoners, who had often been accused of murder, either because they had not fully admitted their guilt or because they had not been able to do courses that would demonstrate that they had overcome their offending behaviour. Many of the young men imprisoned for murder were boys who had got tanked up in the pub and used a broken glass to inflict serious damage on somebody they did not like the look of.

Glassings in those days usually attracted sentences of around 10 to 12 years, but the variations in the availability of offender behaviour work meant that it was difficult to predict the length of time that anybody would serve. That has not got any easier with the pressures on the Prison Service currently, but we now know that the average length of a sentence for murder has risen from 13 years, which I think was measured in 2004, to about 17 years, which was measured recently. In those circumstances, it is more important than ever that we sort the law out.

I am in no way belittling the crushing effect of murder on the families of the victims. However, those sort of crimes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham so clearly explained, are very different from the pre-meditated, sadistic murders carried out by psychopaths which passed my desk. It is important that the law recognises that. Many years ago, the Law Commission published a report in which it proposed changes to homicide sentencing. Its most radical suggestion was explained very clearly by my hon. Friend—in brief, it was to split the offence of murder into first and second degree murder, which itself can be categorised as voluntary or involuntary. After that, partial defences to murder of “diminished responsibility” and “loss of self-control” could be taken into account.

What is important is that those proposed changes would allow sufficient discretion for judges to choose from a far wider range of sentences. Yes, it would be more difficult for the public to understand at first, but with a concerted effort—possibly in a fictional context—our fascination for murder and serious crime would soon mean that the situation was clearer than it is now. After all, many of us have learned a great deal about coercive control recently, though happily not in a fatal context, through the goings on in Ambridge. Am I the only fan of “The Archers” in the room?

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

Yes.

[Victoria Prentis]

Sorry. I, too, have real concerns about the law of parasitic accessory liability, or joint enterprise. We have heard much about the joint enterprise law in recent months following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Jogee case that

“foresight is simply evidence (albeit sometimes strong evidence) of intent to assist or encourage”.

The ramifications are far-reaching. In the Supreme Court’s words, the law has taken a “wrong turn” for more than 30 years. No longer must young adults out to rob or perhaps to drive a getaway car, but with no thought of killing, end up with life sentences through the actions of their colleagues. We must confront the problem of the breadth of behaviour and culpability encompassed by the offence of murder.

Progress has been virtually non-existent since 2006, despite further consultation undertaken by both the last Labour Government and the coalition Government. So much is changing in the areas of prison reform and rehabilitation of offenders at the moment; both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are filled with reforming zeal. I can see that the Minister is smiling at me—surely this is the moment to make long-overdue changes to the law of homicide as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am pleased to respond to the debate, which I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for securing. I very much enjoyed serving with him and other hon. Members who are here today in my brief time on the Justice Committee. So much has changed for all of us in the Conservative party and the Labour party since those straightforward and timid days.

The hon. Gentleman brings the expertise of someone who sits on the Justice Committee, whose work I will refer to later, and the experience of a distinguished legal career. His former legal practice described him as “a first-class practitioner” and a “persuasive and forceful advocate”. As he has persuaded the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to keep an open mind on this matter, I can certainly say that I agree with his former legal practice.

The hon. Member for Shipley, a fellow Yorkshireman, said that people would not want hear from him in the debate. On that, as on many other things, I fundamentally disagree with him. I was pleased to hear from him, as we all are, because one thing we do respect him for is that he always says what he thinks, which is very important. It was a pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Hendon (Dr Offord), both of whom made interesting points about this most serious of matters. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot for the debate and ensuring that such important topics are debated in the House.

As hon. Members know, this is my first debate as shadow Secretary of State for Justice and shadow Lord Chancellor. I am pleased to follow in the footsteps of Lord Falconer and my other predecessor, Sadiq Khan, who is now the Mayor of London. Not only have I had the pleasure of briefly serving on the Justice Committee, but for 10 years I was a lawyer in my home city of Leeds, and for eight of those years I practised employment tribunal work. I am yet to meet my opposite number, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, but I understand that he is rather busy at the moment. I am sure that he will be agreeable to meeting me at some point and I look forward to that.

There have not been many speeches in this debate, but they have all been excellent, and I feel with confidence that we can move the debate forward. I want to give the Minister the maximum time to respond—he may get a full hour to respond, who knows?

[Mike Penning]

Don’t hold your breath.

[Richard Burgon]

Some people would like me to hold my breath, maybe for a long, long time but, on this occasion, I will not. I will limit my remarks to briefly addressing joint enterprise, an issue that has been raised in this debate and that the hon. Member for Cheltenham mentioned in his submission to the Backbench Business Committee.

Any change to the law of homicide, no matter how small, is of the utmost importance to the public and the House. That is because homicide offences are some of the most serious criminal offences that any individual can commit against any other individual or individuals. The state, as a signatory to the European convention on human rights, must undertake a positive obligation under article 2—the protection of the right to life—to take all appropriate steps to safeguard life, and to put in place a legislative and administrative framework to provide effective deterrents against threats to the right to life. That is what we are debating and why, in my new role, I am keen to listen carefully and engage with as many key stakeholders as possible. I am keen to hear more from the Minister about the Government’s next steps.

On joint enterprise, it is important to refer to Lord Neuberger’s judgment, in which he said that the Supreme Court ruling did not automatically mean that all previous joint enterprise convictions were unsafe, and that

“a person who joins in a crime which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death results, is guilty at least of manslaughter”,

the maximum sentence for which is life imprisonment. He also said that the rule that

“a person who intentionally encourages or assists the commission of a crime is as guilty as the person who physically commits it”

was not affected, and that it remained open to a jury to decide whether a person had intentionally encouraged or assisted a crime—for example, through knowledge that weapons were being carried. As the Prime Minister has said, we are dealing with a narrow change to the law, but one that could have massive implications for many people.

[Mike Penning]

I am probably the only non-learned Member present in the room, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but I understood that the ruling was quite specific. I thought that the Supreme Court had said that the interpretation of the law had been wrong but that there was no need to change the law. The judgment was quite specific about that.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for making that important point, and I look forward to hearing about that in more detail in his response.

The lawyer Simon Natas, who has worked with the impressive campaign group Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association, said that the “historic” ruling would make the law “fairer for everybody”. He is right, but it is important to make it clear that if someone goes out as part of a gang carrying guns or knives, and their actions encourage or assist in a murder, they should face the consequences. I am sure that is broadly the view of reasonable people, and that the public would support that. After listening to the views of my friends, neighbours and constituents, I know that, by and large, that is people’s view.

The judgment was right to acknowledge the growing call for change following the concern that quite peripheral members of a gang involved in a killing, who had no real clue what they had been caught up in, were being prosecuted. That is why I welcome the judgment. I press the Government to commit to conduct a review of the effects of the change after two to three years.

I am concerned by evidence that the Cambridge Institute of Criminology provided to the Justice Committee revealing that the proportion of black and mixed-heritage young men serving very long sentences for joint enterprise offences is much higher than their representation in both the general population and the overall prison population. Will the Government commit to reviewing that, alongside the wider review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)?

We have heard today about so-called one-punch killers. The hon. Member for Cheltenham provided examples, hypothetical and otherwise, showing the difficulty of the issue and the serious consideration it requires. I am concerned about the public perception that attackers who kill with a single punch seem to receive jail sentences that could be seen as lenient, despite the December 2009 Court of Appeal ruling on single-punch killings led by the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge. The ruling’s conclusion stated that acts of violence resulting in death should be given “greater weight” in sentencing, even if the conviction is for manslaughter rather than murder. Will the Minister confirm whether he is reviewing that ruling?

I will close my remarks to give the Minister as much time as possible, although I suspect he will not take the maximum time available. The Labour party is clear that the criminal justice system relies on the fundamental principle that the public must have confidence in it, and it is our duty to ensure that victims and witnesses who come forward have confidence that their case will be dealt with thoroughly and fairly, and that people who break the law of the land and who are found guilty of some of the worst offences—homicide devastates families across the country—are punished accordingly.

I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, and I thank you, Mr Evans. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans—I really mean that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) on securing this debate. It is honestly a real shame that more colleagues are not here for such an important debate—a debate that should continue beyond this afternoon. Far be it from me, in my lowly position, to suggest that this debate should be on the Floor of the House or that a Select Committee should hold an inquiry, but if I were a member of the Justice Committee, I would probably look to hold an inquiry. Like my predecessors, I will keep an open mind on this subject for as long as I am in the job, and probably long after.

The Supreme Court judgment has been mentioned a couple of times, and the five judges who made that ruling specifically said that they were referring to a very narrow part of law, which they said had been interpreted incorrectly in the judgments handed down by different judges. The Supreme Court specifically said that its ruling required not a change of law but a change in how judges interpret the law. I say for the first time that the Government accept that ruling, and we accept that the law in this particular area does not need to be changed.

The Sentencing Council is currently looking at one-punch manslaughter cases, about which the public are understandably concerned. In the case mentioned earlier, such concern is only right and proper, but Parliament has rightly given the Sentencing Council responsibility for setting guidance—Parliament traditionally had that responsibility. I also fully accept that some parts of guidance are still set in statute, and there is an ongoing sentencing review.

I apologise for not welcoming the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to his new post. I wish him every success in his very important position and, as with his colleagues who preceded him, I will give him as much support as possible. I wish him longevity in his position as a shadow spokesman—[Laughter.] That can probably be taken in many different ways, but I mean to be nice.

We have heard about sentencing and for how long people are imprisoned. Of course, the changes made in 2003 are still coming through the system. As politicians, we all bandy around numbers for how long people serve, but people are, correctly, starting to serve longer sentences. As previous Justice Secretaries and Justice Ministers have said, we have no plan to abolish the mandatory life sentence. I cannot be a hypocrite: as a Back Bencher, I appealed against several unduly lenient sentences, and most people know that I have concerns about the restriction on appeals against undue leniency. People can appeal against basically any sentence they are given, but we are restricted in appealing against unduly lenient sentences. The Attorney General and the Justice Secretary are working on a review of that restriction.

At this interesting time in politics, in Westminster and in the country, it would not be right for me to indicate whether we agree or disagree with the proposals. I was asked whether the Department and I will keep an open mind, and we certainly will. Further debate on this issue is important. I am also conscious that the subject might drift if we are not careful. My notes say that in December 2010 the then Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), indicated that he was not minded to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations, but he qualified that by saying that he would keep an open mind about proceeding at a later date. We are now at a later date. Although I am probably shooting myself in the foot, especially if I stay in this position under the new Prime Minister—we will have one in the not-too-distant future—I think it has been too long. We now need to consider whether we accept the Law Commission’s 2005 report. Time has moved on. Although the report was important, and parts of it were accepted at the time, we must ensure that the report is still relevant, particularly in relation to subsequent changes to sentencing guidance. I cannot think of anything that can be done to another human being that is as bad as taking their life. There are myriad appalling things that people do to each other, but surely, in any society, taking a human life is the worst.

I will keep an open mind. I will ensure that whoever is Justice Secretary in the Government formed by the new Prime Minister sees my comments—the current Justice Secretary knows my views. We cannot let this matter drift for another five or 10 years. If something can be done, we must do it now. It sounds simple, but the lawyers in the room will know that it is not so simple in practice.

I congratulate everyone who has taken part in this debate, particularly the more learned Members. I look at the proposal from a simple point of view as a constituency MP—I think about what my constituents would think—so I agree with many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I probably have not answered all the direct questions asked by the shadow Minister, so I will write to him, and I will make those answers available to members of the Justice Committee, too.

[Alex Chalk]

This has been a helpful debate. I introduced the topic to see whether there was an appetite for discussing it, and it seems that there is. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some important points. He is absolutely right to say that in respect of this offence, perhaps beyond any other, there must be clarity, consistency and logicality. Members of the public must be satisfied that the law reflects common sense.

My hon. Friend’s point about the need for sentencing power to be transparent is also a good one. It is particularly relevant in the issue of homicide. If someone gets a life sentence and is told that they have a minimum term of 15 or 17 years to serve, that is the period that they must serve, yet if they are convicted of an offence of grievous bodily harm and the judge sets a determinate sentence of 15 years, they will in fact serve only half of that.

[Mike Penning]

Or less.

[Alex Chalk]

Yes; a maximum of half. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made an important point, and there is a further agenda to put forward.

To return to my central point, if we could divide the law of murder into first and second degree, those charged and convicted of first degree murder, which would be the most serious crime in the criminal calendar, would be convicted of something that would earn—if that is the right word—the opprobrium of society. People would understand that someone guilty of that offence intended to take life. I respectfully endorse the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need particular clarity on issues involving the taking of life.

What attracts me to the idea of second degree murder is that we could then lump in—if that is not too inelegant—all the other offences that deserve society’s condemnation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley indicated, because life has been taken through an unlawful act. If we grouped those offences under second degree murder, we would not need a mandatory life sentence, but if the judge thought—on the facts of the case—that that was required, that is precisely what could be imposed. Taking into account how the law has moved on in respect of Jogee and of our modern mores and understanding, it seems to me that this is a reform whose time has come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of reforming the law on homicide.