Unauthorised Encampments

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 12th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for the tone of her contribution and particularly for starting by saying that we are talking about a very small minority of the Gypsy and Traveller population. I would probably disagree with the way she expressed the figure of 13%, because that relates to caravan dwellers and does not take account of the fact that three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in bricks-and-mortar dwellings. Also, I think that that figure includes encampments that are unauthorised in the sense of being on land that is owned by Gypsies and Travellers but without planning permission. As I said in the debate earlier this week, we are probably talking about no more than 1% of the Gypsy and Traveller population where there are conflicts in relation to stopping places and unauthorised encampments. For that reason, it is important to start with the statistics. It is important that people always address that matter, because it is easy to fall into error in talking about this issue as if it has something to do with a particular ethnic group rather than with a small minority of people who may be causing difficulties in local areas.

Just as the scale of the problem is often much smaller than indicated, so the scale of the solution is probably much smaller. A couple of years ago—I have no reason to think that the position has changed greatly—it was said that just 1 acre of land throughout England was needed to resolve the shortage of space; and once that is spread among local authority areas, it should not be beyond our wit to achieve. A combination of better and more permanent sites, transit sites, negotiated stopping and other things would become a virtuous circle: it would create more harmonious relations between the Gypsy and Traveller and settled communities, address the major inequalities that affect Gypsy and Traveller groups and save local authorities a great deal of money. We have heard about Leeds being able to save up to £250,000 a year by implementing such policies, through not having to go through enforcement action.

Of course, the history of Gypsies and Travellers and, indeed, their persecution, goes back to the 16th century, but the lesson of post-war history has been that where attempts are made—for example, through the Caravan Sites Act 1968 or through regional spatial strategies under the last Labour Government—to encourage local authorities, whether by placing a requirement on them or by providing funding for them, to provide sites, one gets better results than if, as occurred in 1994 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act or, as is happening now by removing the requirement on local authorities under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, one creates a problem whereby local authorities drag their feet and do not step up to the plate. We all know that, so really we all know what the solution may be.

I am conscious of the fact—I am not conscious of how much time I have left—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

You haven’t any time left!

[Andy Slaughter]

I know that you will be absolutely judicious and fair in this debate, Mr Davies, but let me say just two things very quickly. First, between the two debates this week, we have had publication of the racial disparity audit and the indication in it that Gypsies and Travellers are some of the most discriminated against and deprived communities in the country; that is their status. Secondly, also between the two debates, I met a Jewish human rights organisation called René Cassin, which works closely with Gypsies and Travellers and settled communities to resolve disputes. I would finally say to hon. Members that, if they are having difficulties, they should go and meet the Gypsy and Traveller communities and engage people such as the Traveller Movement to intercede in those matters. These things are often soluble and often resolved.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a bit of latitude, because the clock is not working properly. People should look at their start time, because it does say when they started speaking; people should keep an eye on the clock. I will be a bit harsher in future, but I had to give some latitude.

Gypsies and Travellers (Local Communities)

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is customary to compliment the Member who secured the debate on his speech, but I do so as a formality on this occasion. I honestly thought that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was better than the speech he made. I did not intervene because I wanted to hear his argument, but there is a central contradiction at the heart of it. He identified Gypsies and Travellers as “other”, and as being outside communities—the title of the debate makes that clear—but said that they should not be afforded any distinction because, for example, 75% of them live in bricks and mortar accommodation, as the census demonstrates. He is an intelligent and courteous Member of the House and I have a lot of respect for him, but he has done himself no service with that speech.

Let me explain what I mean by that. I objected to the original title of the debate—my objection was not to the hon. Gentleman, but to the way in which it appeared on the Order Paper—which was “Effect of Gypsies and Travellers on local communities”. Rather than trying to intellectualise that, I said that we should imagine replacing the words “Gypsies and Travellers” with the name of some other ethnic or racial group; I think that there would have been outcry in the House about that. I compliment the House authorities on the fact that when I raised that point, they took it very seriously. They spoke to the hon. Gentleman, and the title was modified to make it sound less offensive. I am not sure that it actually is less offensive, but it certainly sounds better than it did.

I do not excuse any individual example of bad behaviour—antisocial behaviour, littering or any of the examples that have been given—by a member of the Gypsy and Traveller community or by anybody else. I find it offensive, however, that an entire community or ethnic group should be tarred with the same brush. Let us try to get to the nub of the matter, because I believe that the hon. Gentleman is looking at symptoms and not causes. The problem is not new; Gypsies and Travellers as a community suffer the greatest social problems and social needs in the country. He seemed quite proud about the fact that we have a new Conservative Government, so let us look at how that Government are dealing with the problems. On almost any social indicator, such as long-term health problems or educational attainment, Gypsies and Travellers come lowest of all ethnic minority groups in the country. That is often because of how they are treated by society.

If we consider how Gypsies and Travellers fit into British society, according to the most recent census 66% identify themselves as English and 64% as Christian. Roughly three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in bricks and mortar accommodation. Often, they do so not through choice. Although many may be happy living in bricks and mortar accommodation, many others—whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not—would prefer to live a traditional lifestyle. The question is: is it reasonable for them to do so?

Levels of owner-occupation among the Gypsy and Traveller community are about the same as they are among the settled population. On economic indicators such as self-employment and employment, the position is not very different. However, some Members—I believe that they fall into error here—cannot move beyond such statistical analysis to consider ethnography and how Gypsies and Travellers live their lives, so they are unable to think of Gypsies and Travellers as a separate ethnic and racial group. I found some of the things that the hon. Gentleman said offensive in that regard.

The previous coalition Government took a number of steps that have simply exacerbated the problem. The previous Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), went through a phase of calling in and dealing with applications. That was deemed to be unlawful by the High Court in the case of Moore and Coates v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, because the Secretary of State was clearly calling in applications simply to turn them down. The Government have proposed redefining the terms Gypsy and Traveller, so that only if someone actually travels can they be called a Gypsy or Traveller. That would undermine ethnicity.

The coalition Government also removed regional spatial strategies and allowed local authorities to make decisions on this matter. As far back as the Caravan Sites Act 1968, history shows us that because of inflammatory rhetoric and local pressure, if we leave such decisions to local authorities, those decisions tend not to be made. It is reckoned that dealing with the shortage of sites will take at least 27 years at local authorities’ current rate of progress. I often refer to this statistic: it would take about an acre of land across the UK to provide the required number of fixed pitches. At the heart of the matter is the fact that there are simply not enough authorised sites. Most Gypsies and Travellers who do not live in bricks and mortar accommodation—whether they want to or not—live on authorised sites. A minority, who are effectively characterised as homeless, live on unauthorised sites. We no longer have authorised stopping places, as we had even before the 1968 Act, and we certainly have an inadequacy of authorised sites.

The problem is not difficult to solve. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the local authorities and central Government to come up with sufficient authorised sites to put an end to the terrible conflicts between settled communities and Gypsies and Travellers who stop. The Traveller community may behave in an unreasonable way, and the settled community may do likewise, but conflicts arise as a consequence of the lack of authorised sites and the lack of stopping places.

From the comments of the hon. Member for Kettering, I imagine that he will think that this is all hokum, and that nobody has a right to travel. He probably thinks that if they do, they are on their own and can sort things out, buy land and get planning permission in the ordinary way—they can do what they want. It would be a huge loss to the culture of this country if we lost the travelling tradition of many centuries of Roma, Irish Travellers and Gypsies. This country is big enough, rich enough and generous enough to accommodate those communities, as many other countries do.

It is a parsimonious and reductive view of the world that says we must always look for the worst in people and make things difficult for them. There is a response to the constant refrain I hear, particularly but not only from Conservative Members, that we must make life more difficult for Gypsies and Travellers, which is that that would be a downward spiral. We were beginning to get somewhere when the noble Lord Avebury’s Caravan Sites Act 1968 became law. That Act greatly relieved the pressure and conflict in the 1970s, and the last Labour Government were beginning to undo the problems created by Michael Howard. If we had continued with that, we would be in a much more harmonious situation. Again, we are now in a situation of conflict in which nobody is winning: local communities are not winning and Gypsies and Travellers are not winning. Some MPs might be winning because they can put out press releases and stories in their local newspapers, but I genuinely believe that the hon. Member for Kettering and other Members present are bigger than that and can look for better solutions than the one he proposes today.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I repeat that I intend to call the Front Benchers at 5.25 pm, so I will do the maths if other people cannot. There are seven minutes each for the remaining two speakers if my maths is right.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed. The Minister must be picking up, if not from this debate, but from the Bill’s previous stages, that at best there is weariness with more soundbite legislation and littering the statute books—[Interruption.] I believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has the brief within the Justice team to stop unnecessary legislation across government. He has taken his eye off the ball, because he cannot stop unnecessary legislation in his own Department.

The Under-Secretary must appreciate that criticisms are not coming just from Opposition Members. Although I do not expect him at this stage to abandon the Bill in its entirety, although he might as well put it out of its misery, he could at least take on board some of these sensible and constructive points. I appreciate that they are coming from me and so he might not want to do that, but other Members on both sides of the House have made the point about the wording of

“person’s own safety or other interests”

and about the poor drafting of clause 3.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman on amendment 6, and I would happily vote with him if he put that to a Division. There is support from Government Members, although I fear that as it is coming from me it may fall on the same deaf ears.

[Mr Slaughter]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listen carefully to everything he says and give it exactly the due weight it should be given. I am very tempted by the thought that we might push our numbers up by one, but I hope that the Minister may give way on this measure and by the time it emerges from the other place the Bill will be improved at least to that extent.

Clause 3 is quite a dangerous provision. We have not voted against the Bill as a whole, because the Bill on the whole does nothing. Clause 3 will be ineffective if it is passed, but its intention is malevolent. It is harmful to good industrial relations and harmful to health and safety in the workplace, and it is a piece of prejudice that this Government and this Minister should know better than to pursue.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and commend him on his new clause, which I will be supporting enthusiastically.

I will concentrate my remarks on the three new clauses that I have tabled in this group, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for adding his name to them. I was disappointed that the shadow Minister, who usually has plenty to say about lots of things, had nothing to say about any of my new clauses. The Labour party having nothing to say on the economy appears to have transferred to justice, as they have nothing to say on these matters either.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he now has something to say.

[Mr Slaughter]

It was not that I forgot; it is simply that I did not think the new clauses were worth commenting on.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We have commented on whether people take notice of what Members say, but when I come to discuss the three new clauses, I think he may regret that he thought they were not worthy of any debate. Lots of people up and down the country, such as victims’ groups and owners of commercial properties, will be very interested to know that.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

It is no good the hon. Gentleman coming back; he does not care about any of these issues, and lots of people will be grateful to him for letting that cat out of the bag.

Before I come to the three new clauses, in fairness I should also refer to the Minister. On new clause 34 he trotted out the normal sort of Sir Humphrey guff about how it is an important area and we will keep it under review and all that kind of jazz, but I am not entirely sure—I shall have to look through the Sir Humphrey handbook later to find a translation. It may be that the Minister agrees with what I am saying but cannot be seen to be agreeing with that troublemaker Davies on the Back Benches, or perhaps he does not agree, but knows it is popular and does not want to be seen to disagree. Whichever way it is, we deserve a bit more clarity. He says that he will start to look at the issue: he is the Minister, for goodness’ sake. What has he been doing? He should be looking at these things. I know that he must spend a lot of time arranging for murderers and other dangerous criminals to walk out of our prisons, but in the time that he is not doing that perhaps he might want to look at some of the issues that I am talking about.

I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), on these matters. If the current Minister wants to go even more left wing than his predecessor, we are in big trouble on this side of the House on criminal justice matters.

New clause 34, to which the Minister gave his Sir Humphrey blurb, is actually about squatting. This activity was criminalised in residential buildings in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—it was one of the rare triumphs of that Act—and my new clause would extend the criminalisation from residential buildings to non-residential buildings and land. I was delighted to support the criminalisation of squatting, but because it applies only to residential properties, the problem has simply moved on to commercial property, by which I mean any property that is non-residential, including pubs, shops, restaurants and even schools—although the shadow Minister thinks that that is not important.

The now established principle that it is a criminal act to break into someone’s property and take it over without permission should apply whatever the property. It should make no difference whether it is a flat or a community centre. No one should have the right to enter someone else’s property without permission and stay there until evicted. At the time of the criminalisation of squatting in residential property, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said:

“For too long squatters have had the justice system on the run and have caused homeowners untold misery in eviction, repair and clean-up costs. Not any more. Hard working homeowners need and deserve a justice system where their rights come first— this new offence will ensure the police and other agencies can take quick and decisive action to deal with the misery of squatting.”

I believe that should apply to everyone, not just home owners.

Squatters are using the fact that the law does not apply to commercial premises to take over pubs, for example. The door may have been slammed shut for squatters in residential properties, but it is wide open for non-residential premises and land. One example was the Duchy Arms in Kennington. Squatters realised that it had not been trading for a while and swooped in. They took over last summer and that small, friendly local pub was turned into the London Queer Social Centre overnight. It was overrun by those who cared nothing for what they damaged or how much upset and inconvenience they caused to others. They locked all the doors and put a sign on the front, delighting in the fact that the new law did not apply to them or the pub. It also said that if anyone entered the pub without their permission, they would be the ones guilty of a criminal offence. You really could not make it up. As they had not committed the offence of squatting in a residential building, they were not arrested by the police immediately and the pub was occupied for some time by people who had no regard for anyone or anything around them. When they were eventually evicted, the police had to go in and the premises were guarded for months by dogs to ensure there was no invasion by squatters. The clean-up costs for the owners will have been considerable and could have been avoided had the police been able to arrest the squatters on day one.

Another example that has come to my attention involves an office building owned by Kewal Investments Ltd. Having forced their way into the property, the squatters initially invited the director to agree to them staying there, saying that they would provide free security. The squatters were there from before Christmas until their eventual eviction, with bailiffs and police in attendance, months later. During their occupation, the squatters sought to try to gain entry to adjacent buildings owned by the same firm and the business had to spend money to protect its other properties as well as to seek an order of eviction through the courts.

When the business owners eventually gained entry, the property was in a state with waste everywhere. The squatters had used the back window as a rubbish chute and toilet, left graffiti all over the walls, put paint in a fire extinguisher and blocked the toilet. Those entering could barely get into the basement because of the smell. The director, who often used to give money to the homeless, has now been totally put off the idea. He feels let down by the system and has incurred substantial costs to gain access to his own building. On top of the considerable legal costs, he faces the cost and waste of time of simply restoring the building to its original state and ensuring that the squatters do not take it over again. I would have hoped that the Government—a party that should believe in people who own property—would want to do something about this instead of the Sir Humphrey words of the Minister. I suppose that that is better than the shadow Minister saying that he does not even care about the issue at all.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, but the Lord Chancellor has at least managed to make both of them happy, and he should be praised for that, if for nothing else.

I want to make specific mention of the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who made robust defences of judicial review and of open justice. They correctly echoed the view expressed in the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s briefing that judicial review is

“used rarely by community groups in relation to planning decisions because it is costly and a significant and daunting undertaking.”

No one would imagine that, from what the Government have said today.

I shall take my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in dealing first with the most contentious and objectionable part of the Bill—part 4, which covers judicial review. What is it about this Lord Chancellor and judicial review that the mention of it makes him behave in an irrational and unreasonable way? He has taken to the columns of the Daily Mail to denounce one of our most important constitutional safeguards as

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

It is unclear whether those left-wing campaigners include the Countryside Alliance, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, UKIP’s Stuart Wheeler and numerous Conservative councils, all of whom have initiated judicial reviews in recent times. However, the senior judiciary’s response to the Lord Chancellor’s consultation shot that particular fox when it stated that it had seen no

“evidence of inappropriate use of judicial review as a campaigning tool, and it is not the experience of the senior judiciary that this is a common problem.”

The Lord Chancellor has already taken bites out of judicial review by imposing additional fees and limiting the time for bringing a claim, in some cases to six weeks. He is also going to restrict the use of legal aid by statutory instrument, rather than through primary legislation. He would wish to hobble applicants more by restricting the recovery of costs until beyond the permission stage and allowing defendants to intervene at that stage with the prospect of recovering their costs. The Bill contains a variety of additional ways to discourage judicial review by increasing applicants’ costs or putting them at risk of paying defendants’ costs. Protective costs orders will not be abolished, but they will be available only in narrow circumstances and once permission is granted.

The worst aspects are in clauses 50 and 53, attacking both the raison d’être of judicial review to correct Executive error in decision making and the ability of third parties to intervene in the public interest and to assist the court. Already heavily criticised, the new test in clause 50 refuses permission where it is “highly likely” the outcome for the applicant

“would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”.

This confuses unlawfulness with remedy. It will encourage bad decision making and it is likely to lead to a full trial of the issues at permission stage. Lord Pannick, in an article that has already been quoted today, has said that the clause will give the Government a

“get out of jail free card”,

and allow public bodies to

“avoid a hearing and judgment on the legality of their conduct.”

Under clause 53, third parties—often non-governmental organisations, charities and human rights organisations—that intervene in judicial reviews to clarify issues that often assist the court will now be severely discouraged from doing so by cost penalties. Yet Lady Justice Hale of the Supreme Court has said that

“interventions are enormously helpful…The most frequent are NGOs such as Liberty and Justice, whose commitment is usually to a principle rather than a person. They usually supply arguments and authorities, rather than factual information, which the parties may not have supplied.”

In aggregate, these proposals mean that only applicants of substantial means will be able to bring a claim or risk the costs of losing it. In a country without a written constitution, judicial review is one important way of holding the Executive to account. This Government want to insulate their bad decision making from legal challenge and place themselves outside the rule of law. They are strengthening Executive power and weakening a critical check on the power of the state. This Lord Chancellor, for misguided party political motives and as part of a sustained attack on access to justice, is undermining our civil liberties, and these changes should be against everything the Liberal Democrats stand for. Under this Government, seeking justice is getting harder and these proposals show them on the side of their corporate friends, not of individual citizens and communities. Politicians in power might find judicial review an awkward irritant, but that is precisely what it is intended to be. Combined with the cuts to legal aid, limitations on no win, no fee cases, and threats to the Human Rights Act and European convention, this proposal amounts to a sustained attack on the rights of individual citizens to hold those in power to account. As the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger puts it,

“one must be very careful about any proposals whose aim is to cut down the right to judicial review”.

He has also said:

“The courts have no more important function than that of protecting citizens from the abuses and excesses of the executive.”

We have serious concerns about other parts of the Bill. As they stand, the plans for secure colleges may prove damaging to thousands of young offenders in our criminal justice system. The Bill leaves a question mark over the future of secure children’s homes, which cater for the most vulnerable young people. Such homes typically house small numbers of children, provide intensive support and are staffed by highly qualified specialists in social care. The homes have good educational outcomes and are recognised as the preferred model of youth custody, but they look set to lose out to the Lord Chancellor’s new and untested pet project. It is untested according to the Government’s own impact assessment, but still £85 million is needed to build just one secure college.

The Justice Committee pointed out in its report last March that the average time in youth custody is only 79 days, so most young offenders would not be in a college long enough to improve their basic skills. What levels of training or qualification would the college staff have? Why will college custody officers be empowered to use “reasonable force” for the maintenance of “good order and discipline”? That may well be unlawful under the European convention on human rights, according to a Court of Appeal 2008 ruling and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which stated in 2007:

“Restraint or force can be used only when the child poses an imminent threat of injury to him or herself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted. The use of restraint or force, including physical, mechanical and medical restraints, should be under close and direct control of a medical and/or psychological professional. It must never be used as a means of punishment.”

As regards part 3 of the Bill, we support the use of single justices, given that their jurisdiction will apply only to summary, non-imprisonable offences where an adult defendant pleads guilty. However, we object strongly to taking these cases out of the courtroom and into offices away from public view. Such an approach damages the principle of British justice that cases are heard and the results made known in public. This Government are too fond of secret courts, and even in minor cases the principle of open justice should be rarely departed from. We agree in principle that convicted criminals could contribute to the costs of trial, but the substantial amount of uncollected fines from criminals already totals more than £1 billion and it is likely that this proposal will just add to the total of uncollected moneys from criminals. We have no objection in principle to leapfrog appeals, for example, on issues of national importance, though they are most likely to be used by government trying to hurry the process up. The danger is that this simply overloads the Supreme Court and that the issues it has to deal with are insufficiently refined by earlier hearings.

It is a good idea to update the jury room process and the rules on reporting cases to accommodate the social media age. The Attorney-General is to be commended for taking a personal interest in the limitations on reporting and in discouraging jurors from using social media to research or publicise details of trials. However, the Government fail to provide any support to juries in explaining their roles and remit as part of any new offences, and it is not clear whether they have considered the full implications of the numbers of people using social media and the variety of methods available. We have no objection to raising the age of jury service to 75.

There are two glaring problems with part 1 of the Bill. It does not do what it says on the tin, which is to protect the public adequately from violent and dangerous offenders, but it does incur costs and prison resources that the Government do not have in place. I fear that the hon. Member for Shipley may have been slightly taken in by the rhetoric rather the actuality of what is in part 1. The changes to sentences for the most serious and violent criminals are a poor substitute for indeterminate sentences for public protection, which this Government abolished in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—[Interruption.] I do like to mention that, because it is the one thing that we both agree on.

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am afraid that the Government have been playing catch-up ever since IPPs were abolished, but none of what is proposed offers the same level of public protection. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the sentencing changes will require 1,050 additional prison places, but there are fewer than half that currently available. It also states that the costs of additional custody are not quantified. We noted with concern the Lord Chancellor’s inability to answer any of the questions about his Department’s budgets. Proposals in part 1 will also see a greater work load for the Parole Board, with an additional 1,100 Parole Board hearings a year, according to the Government’s impact assessment. However, no additional resources are being made available, at a time when Parole Board staff numbers have already been cut by nearly one in five.

We support the ban on the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting rape and other non-consensual sexual penetration. That is a welcome victory for campaign groups such as Rape Crisis South London and the End Violence Against Women Coalition. We support the restrictions on the use of simple cautions.

Criminal justice Bills have a reputation for being Christmas tree Bills, and this one is no different. It is a mixture of the minor and non-contentious with some major, damaging and poorly thought-out measures, such as those in part 4, which, if they survive here, will be butchered in the other place.

This is also quite a mean little Bill, reflecting the character of its author. It further limits the rights of the citizen against the state, and it scratches around to find some more savings because the Treasury has been overpromised. Desperate to impress the Prime Minister, this is the best that the Secretary of State could come up with. Much of it is unexceptional or unobjectionable. It is legislation for legislation’s sake, and is designed to fill an intellectual and actual void in the Government’s programme. It is irrelevant to the big issues being played out in our justice system. It reinforces the growing view in the country that it is time for this failing Lord Chancellor and this Government to move on.

Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Friday 25th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very open about his own dealings. Does not the fact that he, by accident, has ended up as a private landlord constitute good evidence of the need for regulation?

[Philip Davies]

It does not surprise me that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that conclusion, but I, as a Conservative, have drawn the opposite conclusion, and I hope to explain why at some point in my speech.

I must apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), and to the Minister, the shadow Minister, and all other Members who will participate in the debate. I am afraid that I may have to leave early. I have no idea how long the debate will last, and I may well be here for its entirety, but it is equally possible that I shall not. I am hosting a lunch in one of the Dining Rooms. If I do have to leave before the end of the debate, no discourtesy is intended.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield on presenting the Bill. As he knows, I am a great admirer of his: in fact, I might even be so bold as to consider him a friend of mine. He may not see it in those terms, but I certainly do. He is a good man, and he has a long track record of bringing important issues to the House and representing his constituents in Mansfield to great effect. I have absolutely no doubt about the sincerity of his case, and I commend him for that. We tend to agree on matters relating to horse racing, and perhaps we would have been better off sticking to that subject today—we could have secured cross-party agreement—but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when we leave the subject of horse racing our views tend to diverge, quite widely on occasion, and this, I am afraid, is one of those occasions. He will also know, however, that my opposition to the Bill is not directed at him personally, and that my admiration for him has not been diminished by the fact that I happen to disagree with him on this issue.

One problem has, I think, affected us all. I know that the Procedure Committee is considering making changes to the private Member’s Bill system—most of which are not desirable in my book—but, as far as I am aware, this Bill was printed only yesterday. It has been very difficult for some of us to understand all its complexities, given that we have been allowed such a short period before being invited to analyse and scrutinise it, although I am sure that if I have misunderstood any aspects of it, the hon. Member for Mansfield will pull me up. Moreover, I am not aware of the existence of any explanatory notes. The hon. Gentleman may say that none are needed because the Bill is self-explanatory, but I feel that some explanation of the Estate Agents Act 1979, and other related legislation covered by the Bill, might have helped. It might be handy in future for Bills to be accompanied by some form of briefing for Members to read beforehand. That would enable us to know exactly where we stood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister where the Government stand on all this—which side of the fence they are on, and whether they merely wish to maintain the status quo.

I should say that I welcome the Minister to his position—it was a terrible oversight that I did not do so at the start of my speech. We congratulate him and we all have extremely high hopes for him. He might not be on my particular wing of the coalition but he is a good man and we have not given up hope in him yet. We hope he is going to prove his mettle today with a robust libertarian speech—we can but hope. [Interruption.] He says “liberal” but in my experience the Liberal Democrats is one of the most illiberal parties in Parliament. We have high hopes that he will prove us wrong today, however. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is right, and I hope the Minister will be able to offer him some comfort.

Professor Ball also made the point that much simplification could be achieved without legislation through the encouragement of common and overlapping positive practices among local authorities and through the setting up of websites dedicated to simplifying the burden of compliance, and that improving the performance of regulatory agents in achieving commonly agreed goals is as important as less bureaucracy.

As Professor Ball makes clear, therefore, an awful lot can be done to improve what we have in place at the moment. When regulation that is in place fails, the conclusion that many draw, particularly on the other side of the House, is that more regulation is needed. Actually, when regulation has been introduced and it has failed, that is an argument against more regulation, and it offers up the possibility that we should be doing something different.

The Select Committee report also states:

“The first step towards promoting awareness and understanding”

of the rights and responsibilities of parties in the private rented sector

“must be to have in place a clear and easy-to-understand regulatory framework…Professor Martin Partington, a former Law Commissioner, stated that housing law was ‘but one example of many policies being developed over decades, being implemented through myriad legislative enactments, leaving a mass of often unnecessary, certainly over complex legislation that does not work efficiently’.

The complexity of the regulation led some of those providing evidence to call for a simplification of the law.”

That evidence from a variety of sources is pretty striking, yet this Bill seeks to go in exactly the opposite direction. It proposes more laws and regulation, which will only make the problems that the Select Committee identified even worse.

I do not know about the hon. Member for Mansfield—or you, Mr Speaker—but the people with housing concerns who come to my surgery rarely complain about the private rented sector. Almost everybody who comes to my advice surgery to complain about housing is complaining —time after time—about social housing providers. In terms of the experience of tenants, that is where the biggest problem lies.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think the hon. Gentleman should get out more in his constituency. I am sure it has a private rented sector, although it may not be as big as in some London constituencies, and the conditions in that sector are far worse than in the social housing sector. I suspect that if he does not get complaints, it is because people think they can get redress through him if not directly through their social landlords, whereas those with private landlords are often banging on a closed door.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s advice, but I am not entirely sure when he became such an expert on the Shipley constituency. Perhaps he is spending more time there than in his own constituency because he seems to know what the issues are in my constituency better than I do, and I will have a chat with him in the Tea Room later to seek his advice about what the people of Shipley, Bingley, Baildon and other nearby villages have been telling him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right; I do not disagree with anything that he said. The point I was making is that the hon. Member for Mansfield is on to something, and there is a potential issue here. I say that only because the issue has arisen, and been raised with me, in my constituency; that is why I am aware that this can be a problem.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am with the hon. Gentleman on this; it is a very common problem. It occurs where, for example, local authority properties have been sold and are then rented out regularly for maximum income. Often there is nuisance; it could be leaks, noise—anything. However, the rent is paid, perhaps by housing benefit. Severe nuisance is caused, and that is because the landlord is a bad landlord—a landlord who is not living up to his obligations. That is exactly the type of landlord the Bill is designed to address.

[Philip Davies]

What the hon. Gentleman says may be right. The issue that flows from that is: what should be done? My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is very wise, as ever, in guarding against introducing knee-jerk legislation to deal with what may be a minor issue. I am not suggesting that I know the answer to the problem; I am merely highlighting the fact that I have found this to be an issue in my constituency, so I believe that the hon. Member for Mansfield is on to something. As to whether his Bill is the right vehicle for dealing with it, I have grave doubts about that. It is not a Bill that I could support. I am merely acknowledging, in the spirit of consensus that I hate so much, that on this particular point, his suggestion has something to recommend it.

Regulating is clearly something that Opposition Members are itching to get on with, as we might expect. Only last week, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill

“to provide for the regulation of letting agents; to protect tenants’ deposits; to require the enforcement of environmental and energy-efficiency standards in private-sector rented accommodation; to amend the law on secure tenancies; to provide for fair rent to be applicable to all rented accommodation; to require landlords not to discriminate against people in receipt of state benefits; to require local authorities to establish a private rented sector office; and for connected purposes.”

The Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Mansfield is not quite as bad as the one proposed by the hon. Member for Islington North, as we all might expect. Still, we can see the general direction in which Opposition Members are trying to go.

Then there is the Letting Agents (Competition, Choice and Standards) Bill, which was introduced as a ten-minute rule Bill on 2 July this year by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). I think that we should all acknowledge that he is an expert in this field; he was a Housing Minister in the last Government, and he is also the director of my local social housing provider, Incommunities. His Bill was

“to establish a national mandatory licensing scheme for letting and managing agents, with established standards and redress for landlords, tenants and leaseholders, and prohibition of letting and management agent fees; to enable local authorities to administer and enforce the scheme; to require that tenants, landlords and leaseholders have written agreements; and to empower local authorities, either alone or in partnership, to trade as letting and managing agents.”

That is three Bills not just in this Parliament but this year, covering pretty much the same ground, with nuances here and there. They have their differences, but they have one thing in common: they all involve more regulation for the sector.

[Mr Slaughter]

What is wrong with written tenancy agreements? They give certainty; they mean less litigation; they mean that landlords’ and tenants’ rights are clear; and they mean less money for lawyers—and I say that as a housing lawyer. Why would that be an increase in regulation, rather than a way of cutting through bureaucracy and the wasting of money?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has shown the true face of the Labour party. He cannot understand that a requirement on somebody is more legislation and more regulation. He seems to think that requiring someone to do something that they are not currently required to do does not mean more regulation and legislation. Of course it does. I am not aware that anybody has said they think that written agreements are a bad thing. The hon. Gentleman falls into the typical socialist trap of thinking that just because he believes that something is a good idea, we must impose it on everybody, regardless of whether they think that it a good idea and want it. In effect, he thinks that he knows best what everybody should do, and that he should impose his view of the world on absolutely everybody. He is clearly a socialist, so of course he believes that. I am not a socialist, so I do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I have already done so. The point I was making is that tenancy agreements would mean less work for lawyers. Lawyers make money where there is uncertainty. The example of friends who think they can make an oral agreement is exactly the sort of case that often leads to the worst type of litigation because there is no clarity and it is all a matter of interpretation, implied terms and what was said and done at any particular time. A written agreement is a way to clarity and simplicity in these matters. It means less money spent and less time in court. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman cannot see that.

[Philip Davies]

I have the disadvantage in this debate of not being a lawyer. Some people might say that it was an advantage not to be a lawyer in this place, but on this narrow point it may well be a disadvantage. I certainly concede the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this field, but as a layman, I am not aware that written agreements are always clear or that there is no need for solicitors or lawyers to be involved in anything covered by a written agreement. Virtually every written agreement at some point leads to some kind of confusion and dispute, and the lawyers are there, as ever, to pick up the pieces. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that just because we have a written agreement, we do not need any lawyers to be involved. It is quite the reverse, I often find.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. People who are itching to get on with such regulation ought to bear it in mind that that may have unintended consequences which end up leaving those they are trying to help in a worse position than they would otherwise be in. We should all bear that in mind.

My hon. Friend also hits on a more general point. When regulations and legislation are imposed on landlords, it is the good ones who tend to be penalised. Good landlords seek to do everything that is expected of them and go out of their way to meet all their obligations, no matter how onerous. They are not the ones causing a problem, whereas landlords who do not have the same moral scruples are encouraged to operate outside the law. They have already shown that they are not keen on doing the right thing. Why would they all of a sudden be keen on doing something because the Labour party has insisted that they do it? The world does not work like that. We could end up with tenants being in a far worse position.

[Mr Slaughter]

I want to be sure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman. He is saying that the reason for not imposing terms on landlords is that they might then invent contracts which give less power than statute would give, which would be void in any event because landlords would not be able to derogate in that way. If that is the hon. Gentleman’s best argument, it would probably be better for him to give up now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s intention; I just do not see how the Bill would work like that. The problem with the Labour party generally is that it thinks people live their lives in a particular way and that no matter what it throws at them, they will continue to live in exactly the same way and just pay the levies and taxes and burdens that it imposes on them. The real world does not work like that. There is no doubt that if the renting out of property becomes too onerous and too expensive, a considerable number of people will leave the market. They just will not bother being involved in the private rented sector. I can say with some considerable certainty that that will lead not to a reduction in rents in places such as London, but to an increase in rents, because there will be fewer rental properties to go round. That is the great flaw in this socialist ideal of imposing extra regulation and charges on people. People will not stand there and take them. They will change their circumstances so as not to be bogged down by them all. There is absolutely no doubt that if the scenario envisaged by the hon. Gentleman in his Bill were to be put in place, it would lead only to a reduction in the number of private sector landlords. That can only drive up rents, and will probably drive up property prices as well, as those who are involved feel that they can get a better return on their investment. That would be not only what I would call an unintended consequence of what the hon. Gentleman seeks to achieve, but a certainty.

Another point to bear in mind is that landlords come in many guises. Often they own only one property or a small number of them. Sometimes they are accidental landlords, as I am, who either inherited properties or were trying to do something worth while by investing in property for future pension provision. They are not all big commercial landlords making vast amounts of money from renting out their properties.

If we look at efforts to keep the private housing market under control from an historical point of view, we find measures such as the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (War Restrictions) Act 1915, which introduced rent controls that restricted rents to their August 1914 levels to prevent landlords from profiteering during the war years, when demand for housing exceeded supply. Although that was intended as a temporary measure, rent control in general continued to be applied to rental agreements until 1989.

The private rented sector made up nine tenths of the housing stock in 1915, but it had declined to one tenth by 1991. It is important to reflect on the reasons for that decline in the intervening years. I suggest that rent control was one of the factors, because it reduced possible rent returns. My point is that if we introduce a system that delivers a worse return for landlords, they will just not bother letting out their properties and we will end up with less housing provision.

[Mr Slaughter]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the growth in owner-occupation, which was a result of rising living standards, the growth in social housing, which guaranteed decent-quality accommodation at affordable rents, and indeed the low standards in parts of the private rented sector might be reasons why the sector became less desirable and declined? I wish I could see the world through his glasses, but I do not think that many people do so.

[Philip Davies]

As it happens, the hon. Gentleman is right. I was going to say that obviously other factors were involved in the decline of the private rented sector. I am not so blind, in my intellectual dogma, that I do not see that other factors were involved, because clearly they were. Rising prosperity and the right to buy, for example, made it easier for people to buy their own homes. My point is that one of those factors was rent control. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman cannot see past his ideological dogma and realise that rent control was also a factor, he is the one with the problem, not me.

Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Debate between Philip Davies and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

With leave of the House, I shall make a few comments about the debate. It was a good, intelligent debate—even enjoyable. That may say something about what lawyers find enjoyable, but it cannot often be said about five hours on a Thursday afternoon.

We began with contributions from not one, but two Select Committee Chairs. One may simply hear the bits one wants to hear in speeches and filter out the rest, but in the words of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who sadly has had to leave for another engagement, I heard echoes of what I thought I was saying in my opening speech about the importance of evidence-based and explicable sentencing decisions. As he said, sentencers should see the effects of their sentences—what does and does not work. He also mentioned the importance of early intervention and the work of the youth offending teams.

The right hon. Gentleman’s words were reflected in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee. His was a reasoned voice for early intervention and for rehabilitation.

Then we moved on to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I worry that I may find myself agreeing with him too often. I am not sure that I should lock up all the people he would lock up; in that case, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, quite a few people on the Opposition Benches and even one or two on the Government side might find themselves locked up at some stage. However, when the hon. Member for Shipley talks about the release of violent offenders who are still a danger to the public, about taking away the discretionary powers of magistrates and judges to remand or about the now abandoned policy of 50% discounts for guilty pleas, I think the Opposition are with him.

[Philip Davies]

As getting the hon. Gentleman to agree with me is already a red-letter day for me, I shall push my luck. In the last Parliament, his Government introduced a system whereby people who were tagged could have that time knocked off their prison sentence, in the same way as remand in prison would be. Will he repent of that measure and agree that the time people are on a tag should not count towards time knocked off a prison sentence?

[Mr Slaughter]

For this afternoon, it would be above my pay grade to start making policy on the hoof. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am always keen to keep him happy, as is the Lord Chancellor.

We heard a measured contribution from the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). He talked about local discretion and variation, but also about consistency. I am not sure whether in the end he came to a different view from that expressed by other Members—that the Sentencing Council regime is to balance clear guidelines for consistency with judicial discretion.

I am always glad to hear from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) because she brings much experience to bear. I am always grateful when I hear her defending legal aid lawyers and legal aid, and I hope we may see her vote accordingly when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill comes back from the Lords, hopefully in a substantially amended form. She gave a vote of confidence in the judiciary—all credit to her—and talked about the great advances in dealing with domestic violence offences. Perhaps she will also join the Opposition in condemning changes to domestic violence courts where they are being closed as a result of the court closure programme. I hope they will be replaced and the regime expanded. I note that she said that IPP sentences were a good idea in theory. If so, surely we should work towards making them more effective in practice, rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said about the judiciary, which as a practitioner he has much experience of, and about the Supreme Court—I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber. I agreed with him less when he was scoring points about the previous Government’s regime. It is convenient on these occasions for Government Members to forget the 43% fall in crime that occurred under the previous Government, and it is convenient for him to criticise us for the early release schemes but not address the IPP sentences or the 15% discounts when he says that he agrees fully with the Government.

I heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) the voice of the victim, not the voice on behalf of the victim. His points were well made, particularly the fact that the victims of burglary and many other crimes are predominantly on low incomes and come from poorer parts of society. That is why the Opposition will do everything we can to see that punishment is appropriate and reoffending is prevented, and detection and sentencing are absolutely vital for that.

The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who is now in his place, made a clear case, and one that should be heard in this House, for the reduction in prison numbers. I praise him for that, even if I did not always agree with him. I agreed absolutely when he talked about the need for effective community punishments and the previous Government’s record on reducing youth custody by 30%. He raised the subject of young adults and 18 to 24-year-olds in prison, which I know the Prison Reform Trust is currently looking at. It is a neglected area. However it is to be dealt with, whether it is through NOMS—the National Offender Management Service—or whether it is through the Youth Justice Board, it is an area to which we urgently need to turn our attention. I agree with him about cuts in magistrate training, but it is also about the sentences and orders that magistrates can commit to. The magistrates in my constituency, both those on the lay benches and the district judges, know their powers very well, but sometimes they find that they are simply not available to them, as is the case with drug treatment orders, which is a source of great frustration to them.

All I can say about the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is that I enjoyed his speech very much—I will leave it at that. He talked about the constitution and fettering discretion, but he should also look at the increase in mandatory sentencing and the restrictions on the rights of sentencers in bail matters, because we regard those as worrying trends.

I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), which was on behalf of victims and reminded us that the protection of the public is crucial to the criminal justice system. I also enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), particularly when he talked about restorative justice, on which I think there is much cross-party consensus, with the caveat that it is not a soft option but must be properly resourced. His comments, and those of the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), offered the insider’s view on the Sentencing Council. It was interesting to note the points of difference, but they gave a fairly strong endorsement of many of the things that that body does, such as the research and work on consistency.

I thought that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) gave a liberal—he almost used the word himself—speech, and there is no shame in that sometimes. [Interruption.] Well, we will see. He spoke as a non-lawyer with sympathy for lawyers and for courts, even saving a court himself, which is a rare thing to hear from those who are not lawyers, so I pay tribute to him for that.

We heard a warning at the end of the debate from the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that interference in the sentencing process, which we sometimes hear from the tabloid press, is not a good idea. Against that, the influence on sentencing policy and trends that the general public, and even the press, bring from time to time, is welcome.

Just as with criminal justice more generally, all sides of the House need to state clearly that we should have no reservations about putting people in custody when that is necessary for public protection. Equally, however, we should look at alternatives that will provide punishment but might also provide better options for rehabilitation. When looking at sentencing policy, we should combine those two essential aims.

This debate is about transparency and consistency. I believe that the Sentencing Council is delivering that, together with the common sense and expertise of citizens and juries, and of the judiciary, who have been praised on all sides of the House today. If we have that balance—we have gone a long way towards achieving it—it will be an area in which there can be consensus, and we can feel assured that at least in that area of the criminal justice system, we are achieving a system that the public want. The public can then feel confident that we will deliver solutions to crime that are just, fair and, when they need to be, punitive.