Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I commend the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for what they do in appealing unduly lenient sentences, which they carry out with great skill—I am very impressed by their work. However, the Attorney General said that he hopes that the scheme will be extended, and he also said that we have been promising this for quite some time, so can he give us a date for when we will extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme?

[The Attorney General]

As I said to the House a moment ago, the scheme has already been extended—a number of terrorism offences have been brought under the scheme—but my hon. Friend knows that I share his enthusiasm for further extension. It seems important to me that victims of crime, and members of the public more broadly, can access the scheme across a broader range of offences so that when mistakes are made, which he will recognise is a rare event in the criminal justice system—about 80,000 criminal cases are heard in the Crown court every year and, as I indicated, 137 sentences were increased last year—they can be remedied.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I find it surprising that Members of this House have so little faith in their own institution. This House is perfectly capable of protecting the rights of the citizens of this country, and routinely does so. We do not need the assistance of the European Union to do it, and after we no longer have the assistance of the European Union, I am confident that this Parliament will continue to do it effectively.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

For many years, many people in this House seemed to think that human rights in this country started only with the Human Rights Act 1998, and they now seem to think that they started only with our membership of the European Union. Will the Attorney General confirm that our rights and freedoms in this country go back way beyond either of those points in our history, and will continue long into the future after they have both been replaced?

[The Attorney General]

The rest of the world is rightly jealous of this country’s ability to protect human rights through a robust system of the rule of law, a fiercely independent judiciary, and an effective legal profession.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

What is important is that the court and in particular the jury can assess the evidence that a witness gives, so it is important that that witness is able to give evidence in a clear way, so that a jury can assess whether they think that witness is telling the truth or not. Anything that gets in the way of that, I am sure the court will wish to consider very carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. When he plans to extend the scope of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he is wrong to suggest that despots and tyrants around the world do not fully understand the British Government’s view of the protection of human rights. That is something on which I do not think we could have been any clearer: not only have we spoken about it, but we have acted domestically and internationally to support and protect human rights.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In the European Court of Human Rights there are pseudo-judges, many of them political appointees rather than proper judges, over-reaching their remit under the convention with ridiculous decisions such as votes for prisoners. Why should this House vote for something we do not believe in, which our constituents do not believe in, and which makes the Prime Minister physically sick, just because some ludicrous judges in Strasbourg went way beyond their remit to comply? If we are not prepared to accept such rulings, which I am not, is not the only sensible course of action for a country that believes in the rule of law to leave?

[The Attorney General]

As ever, I wish my hon. Friend would simply say what he really thinks. He is right to say that the status quo, which he has described, is unacceptable to quite a lot of the people we all represent in this country. The case for reform is unanswerable, and that is what this Government are going to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In the Witney Gazette, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying about the European arrest warrant:

“Some other countries in Europe do not have our rights and safeguards. People can languish in jail for weeks without even being charged. I am not sure that the British people realise what is being done in their name. Are we really happy that with one telephone call from the Greek, Spanish or German authorities alleging that we did something wrong on holiday, we can be swept off to a continental prison? Rights and safeguards that we have enjoyed for centuries are being stripped away.”

Does the Attorney General agree with the Prime Minister?

[The Attorney General]

I do not know when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote that. As my hon. Friend may recall, the Prime Minister and other members of the Government successfully negotiated changes to the European arrest warrant precisely to deal with the problems that my hon. Friend has just outlined. Now, UK citizens cannot be extradited unless the case is trial ready, and not unless the conduct in question would be a crime here and not unless it is proportionate to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that there were legal grounds for action in the absence of a Security Council resolution. Such a resolution is not necessary, in my view, to justify action of this kind. It is, of course, extremely useful that what the UN Security Council resolution clearly does is underline the logic for action in the way that we are setting out today. I agree with my hon. Friend.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The Attorney General may say it is not necessary, but does he think it would be better if a chapter 7 resolution explicitly endorsing military action against ISIS was passed at the United Nations? Have the Government made any attempts to achieve such a resolution, and which countries do the Government believe would block it?

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend will realise, of course, that that particular resolution was secured with the unanimous support of the Security Council. What it indicates is that all necessary measures should be taken in order to counter ISIL. As I have said, it is important to recognise that the legal basis for action here, which the Prime Minister will set out today, is not dependent on the presence of a Security Council resolution, but I think that what has been agreed in the Security Council underlines the case that we are making, which is that action should be taken and that there is a lawful basis for doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern and it is important to put on record that every case, regardless of the alleged crime, must be considered carefully by the CPS. The CPS must conduct the appropriate tests on evidence and on public interest, and these cases should be no different in that regard. We must certainly talk about resources, but we also need to talk about what also matters to victims, which includes being listened to in the first place, ensuring that the court process is as conducive as it can be to the giving of their evidence and ensuring that those who prosecute such cases are expert in what they do. All those things are important and we must ensure that the CPS is doing them. At the moment, the CPS is engaged in doing those things.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

In his answer, the Attorney-General made it clear that funding is an issue and that discussions are going on with the Chancellor. Given that, is it sensible for the Crown Prosecution Service to commit millions of pounds to a retrial of journalists from The Sun when there is clearly no realistic prospect of conviction? The money could be much better spent pursuing some of the historical sex abuse cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). Are the cost of a trial and the likelihood of conviction together part of a public interest test that the Crown Prosecution Service should go through, because it seems to many people that a retrial is not justified on that basis?

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend will understand that, as Attorney-General, I do not decide which cases should be prosecuted or commenced. He will also understand that whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction is already part of the test that the Crown Prosecution Service applies. Of course, it should also consider the public interest, which is what it has done in each and every case involving journalists—some have been convicted at the end of the process and some have been acquitted. However, I think that it is important to recognise two things. First, there should be no cases in which who a person is or what they do prevents the Crown Prosecution Service following the evidence where it leads—it should do so in every case. Secondly, some cases are complex and difficult and take time to prepare and to try, which increases their cost, but I do not think that we can say that we should not prosecute something because it is too expensive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I commend my hon. Friend not just for raising that case today, but for communicating with me about it more than once. He feels very strongly about it, and I understand why: it is clearly a very terrible case. At present, as he will know, the balance is struck between a manageable system that enables us to pass truly exceptional cases to the Court of Appeal and ensuring that people have an opportunity to raise their concerns. I can tell him, however, that I am looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme again to ensure that its scope is appropriate and that it is coherent and sustainable, and I will take careful note of what he and others have said as I do so.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

As the Attorney-General knows, I refer a number of cases to him for appeal against unduly lenient sentences, and I am very grateful to him and to the Solicitor-General for the way in which they consider them. The Solicitor-General has now begun to view the behaviour of offenders after their conviction to establish whether they have gone on to the straight and narrow as a factor in the decision on whether to appeal. On that basis, is it not time that we increased the period during which people can appeal against unduly lenient sentences from 28 days to perhaps double that, so that everyone has more of a clue about the path on which the offender has embarked after he has been sentenced?

[The Attorney-General]

That is certainly one of the criteria that are considered, but it is not the only one. Most consideration concerns whether the judge applied the information that was available to the sentencing judge appropriately in determining whether a sentence was unduly lenient.

The issue of the time limit for making a reference under the scheme is a vexed one, and I know that my hon. Friend has raised it before. I think it is important for there to be certainty and a fixed end point, and for defendants to understand clearly that after a fixed period they will know what sentences they will be serving. For that reason, I am not currently minded to extend the time limit, although, as I have said to my hon. Friend, I am considering other aspects of the scheme very carefully.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

We always try to provide the right number of prison officers at any given moment, and we are going through a process of what is called benchmarking to ensure that we have the right number to deliver the regime we need. It is true, of course, that there is a short-term problem following an increase in the prison population that nobody saw coming, including the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. We are dealing with that problem by seeking to recruit prison officers who have recently left the service. That is the responsible thing to do, and we will carry on doing the responsible thing.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Can the Minister tell us how many people are currently at large, having escaped or absconded from our prisons, and how many are currently sunbathing on the roofs of our prisons? On that point, will he give us an assurance that the next time prisoners escape on to the roofs, prison officers will not hand out sun lotion as they did last week?

[Jeremy Wright]

I will deal with my hon. Friend’s second point first. The answer is yes; that will not happen again. We have looked very carefully at that incident to ensure that there are no so-called health and safety policies that encourage such behaviour. As he knows, I made my views about it quite clear last week. On his first point, every incident of absconding is troubling and we need to crack down on it. That is why we are increasing the penalties for those who abscond and ensuring that only the right people find themselves in open conditions in the first place. He might be reassured to know that the level of absconding is 80% lower than it was under the previous Labour Government.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s objectives. He may well have a very good point on the deficiencies in joint enterprise law. But the point I was trying to make to him earlier—perhaps in too Sir Humphrey-ish a way—was that what he would actually achieve with new clause 35 is almost the direct opposite of what he wants. The problem he will face, if this were to become the law, is that people who can be prosecuted now under the Act will not be able to be prosecuted because he is replacing a requirement that someone knew what was going on but did not need to be there with a requirement that they were there at the time. That is the problem.

[Philip Davies]

If the Minister had listened when I explained the case of Donald Banfield, he would know that it was pretty obvious that the mother and daughter were there. Everybody accepts that, yet those women are still walking free, and it seems that the Minister is not prepared to do anything about it.

Finally, new clause 36 would decriminalise insulting words and behaviour. Courtesy of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 was amended to remove the word “insulting”. As of 1 February this year, it has not been an offence to use insulting words or behaviour contained within a section 5 charge. The law change did not, however, affect sections 4 and 4A of the same Act. I was delighted that the word “insulting” was removed from section 5 of the 1986 Act, but I think it must follow that it should be removed from all sections of it. If we are to be consistent, why not? Section 4A is very similar to section 5, and I would like to see all references to “insulting” removed from the legislation. I have focused on this particular issue for the purpose of today’s debate on the amendments. The word “offensive” would remain; only the word “insulting” would be removed. As the Minister said, section 4 needs to be coupled with the threat of violence, whereas someone can be found guilty of an offence by intentionally insulting someone under section 4A and could be sent to prison for six months.

I am not alone in wanting this change. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its report of October 2011:

“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words and behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove the possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”

Peter Tatchell—an unlikely ally of mine, Madam Deputy Speaker—said:

“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to convey all the exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution (although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed for the afore-mentioned reasons).”

I believe that it is totally unacceptable in a supposedly free country with alleged free speech that we should have any reference to the term “insulting” in the laws of our land. I think most people are fed up with political correctness, so abolishing any further criminalisation of insults would be a great step to restoring faith in this place, showing that Britain is a country where free speech is cherished. A ComRes poll showed that 62% of people did not believe that the state should ever criminalise insults—a viewpoint supported by Liberty and the National Secular Society.

I think these are important matters, but I do not intend to press the new clauses to a vote. I am appalled and depressed, however, that the shadow Minister thinks all of these issues that affect people’s lives are not even worthy of consideration. He should be ashamed of himself; I look forward to his apology at some future point.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I have a nasty feeling that my hon. Friend is not going to welcome much in the Bill, but may I ask him at least to welcome one thing? He will have noticed, I am sure, that we propose to increase the penalties for those who fail to comply with their licence. Does he at least accept that that is a good idea?

[Philip Davies]

I absolutely accept that the current Lord Chancellor, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister, is doing his very best to try to undo lots of the mistakes made by his predecessors; I am the first to acknowledge that. My contention is that the Government are not going anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs and expectations of the general public. Yes, of course they are making small steps in the right direction, but they are far too small and I would like them to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

This has been a full debate, and I would like to respond to as much of it as I can, while still leaving my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) with a couple of minutes at the end if I possibly can—I know how he loves to have the last word.

Let me start with my hon. Friend’s new clause 29, which seeks to place statutory restrictions on certain categories of offender to prevent them being suitable for fixed- term recalls. I can assure him that it is already the case that no offender who is assessed as a risk to the public—assessed as being able to cause serious harm—can be given a fixed-term recall. Those serving a public protection sentence—the “extended sentence prisoners” referred to in the clause—are already excluded, so it is not necessary to amend the legislation in that respect.

In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, we are taking measures in clause 7 to introduce a new test for release following recall, which will mean that prolific offenders or those who are persistently non-compliant with their licence could also be deemed unsuitable for a fixed-term recall. I share my hon. Friend’s concern and, indeed, that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), about those who cock a snook at the legal system by persistently failing to comply with their licence. In clause 7, we seek to do something about that.

We already have measures, either in place or pending, to prevent high-risk and prolific offenders from being subject to fixed-term recalls in cases in which it would not be appropriate for them to be automatically released after 28 days. The proposals in the new clause are either unnecessary—because they are already provided for elsewhere—or would go too far in placing a blanket statutory ban on certain categories of offender. We believe that decisions about the type of recall that is appropriate should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.

New clause 31 would abolish section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which, as my hon. Friend explained, provides that when a defendant on bail is subject to an electronically monitored curfew, half the period spent on “tagged bail” may be credited as time served towards his sentence. Incidentally, my hon. Friend said that the same applied to time spent on remand, but in that instance the entire period may be credited, rather than half of it.

We want to ensure that only defendants who need to be detained are remanded in custody while awaiting trial. Tagging on bail helps to ensure that bail periods are completed successfully, and that remand prison places are taken up only by those who really need to be there. Tagging defendants and requiring them to comply with a curfew of at least nine hours each day is a useful tool that we want to continue to use. We consider that when people have had to comply with a daily curfew which restricts their liberty, that time should be taken into account.

[Philip Davies]

Can the Minister explain why he voted against that proposal when the last Labour Government introduced it?

[Jeremy Wright]

That was six years ago. Since then, the criminal justice system has become used to using the provision. Also since then, we have had the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I do not know how my hon. Friend voted on that, but I voted in favour of it.

[Philip Davies]

I voted against it.

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend surprises me. As he knows, the courts had been using the provision for some time, and we thought it important to regularise it by means of the Act.

My hon. Friend also referred to what he described as dishonesty in sentencing. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and I have considerable sympathy with the move towards ensuring that automatic release is minimised. He knows that our ambitions extend well beyond what we have managed to achieve so far, but I trust he will be encouraged by the fact that we have already reduced the application of automatic early release. We have removed it from those serving extended determinate sentences, and the Bill will remove it from child rapists and terrorists.

New clauses 37 to 42 deal with the use of open prisons and release on temporary licence. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Michael Wheatley. It is an extremely concerning case, and, as my hon. Friend and other Members would expect, we are looking very carefully at what occurred. When we have completed our investigations, we will consider what further action needs to be taken.

New clauses 39 and 41 seek to prevent offenders serving sentences for murder or for an indictable-only offence from being moved to a category D or open prison. Open prisons provide an opportunity to assess prisoners in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community, which is vital in protecting the public. To release life-sentence prisoners directly from closed prisons without the resettlement benefits of the open estate might, in certain cases, lead to higher levels of post-release reoffending, and thereby create more victims. That is something that both my hon. Friend and I would wish to avoid.

A period in open conditions for the purposes of ongoing risk assessment and support for resettlement can be particularly important for lifers—a category that includes all murderers—many of whom will have spent many years in prison, and will therefore often not be prepared for release. While those serving sentences for indictable-only offences include some of the most serious offenders, some of those who have been convicted of common-law indictable-only offences will not be dangerous. An example is those who have been convicted of cheating the Revenue—the sort of people, one might think, whom my hon. Friend might expect to find in open prisons. I suggest to him that what he proposes in new clause 41 is not a useful means of determining in which category of prison an offender should be held. That must be determined on the basis of the risk posed by the individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right, but it is important to note that in every case a proper risk assessment must be made to ensure that only the right people find themselves in open prisons.

Currently, in most cases, the decision whether to move a prisoner to open conditions is made after advice has been sought from the Parole Board. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) referred to the burden on the board that the Bill will create. We must indeed ensure that the board has the necessary resources, and we will do that. Public protection is the priority, as all Members would expect it to be, and the Parole Board takes account of a range of factors when assessing whether the risk posed by an offender has been reduced enough for that offender to be managed in open conditions, or on licence in the community. Those factors might include the completion of offence-related courses, a sustained period of good custodial behaviour, access to appropriate and stable accommodation, access to education, training and employment—as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) —and support from professionals, as well as from family and friends. Offenders are returned to closed conditions if their behaviour in open conditions, or updated risk assessments completed in open conditions, indicates an unacceptable risk to the public.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was also rightly concerned about absconding. Prisons can and do take a variety of actions to try to reduce its incidence. Open prisons operate intelligence systems with the aim of spotting those who might be planning to abscond. Prisoners are screened, and those who are at significant risk of absconding are sent back to closed conditions. Absconders can be criminally charged, and prisons, police and the Crown Prosecution Service are increasingly working together to secure their successful prosecution, which can act as a deterrent to others—as can the increased penalties for which the Bill provides.

New clause 42 seeks to ensure that no prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered. Here I hope that I can offer my hon. Friend some reassurance. We have recently taken steps to enhance the rights to which victims are entitled under the statutory probation victim contact scheme, which covers all victims of serious sexual and violent offences when the offender has received a prison sentence of 12 months or more. Under the scheme, victims already have the right to submit a victim personal statement to the Parole Board when the board is considering whether to direct the release or a move to open conditions of a life sentence prisoner. That allows victims to explain the impact that the offence has had on them, and what the impact of a move to open conditions, or release, would be. Victims have a right to make representations about release conditions attached to an offender's licence, and that includes temporary release from open prison. When there are any concerns about the vulnerability of the victim, the victim can feed into the licence conditions by, for instance, requesting an exclusion zone in the area where they live or work.

New clauses 37 and 38 seek to prevent prisoners liable for deportation from being moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence. When a prisoner is being removed from the United Kingdom directly from prison, a move to open conditions or a temporary release will not serve its key resettlement purposes. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. However, in cases in which the prisoner, although liable to deportation, is not actually deported but is resettled here on release from the sentence, the positive benefits of open conditions and temporary release would, if the new clauses were passed, be lost.

Our current policy seeks as far as possible to ensure that those who will be removed from the UK stay in closed conditions, and that those who will not can be considered for transfer to open conditions and temporary release. In such cases, as my hon. Friend would expect, particular care is taken to ensure that the risk assessment takes into account the potential of removal.

When decisions are made about transfer to open conditions or temporary release, Home Office staff will be consulted so that any information relevant to the risk assessment process can be obtained. That includes the likelihood of removal action, history of failure to comply with immigration conditions, previous absconds, any history of deception with the aim of entering or remaining in the UK or evading removal, and any failure to comply with the directions of the Home Office. We are actively reviewing our policy to ensure that it can meet those aims, but we are satisfied that a statutory ban on the transfer to open conditions or temporary release for every prisoner liable to deportation would not be in the interests of reducing reoffending.

My hon. Friend expressed concern about the use of temporary release. New clause 40 would prevent any prisoner serving a sentence for murder from being released on temporary licence. Temporary release contributes to public protection and reducing reoffending by helping those who are due to be released to prepare for life outside prison. For prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence, it also provides evidence for the Parole Board of how an offender complies when in the community. Making this change would lead to offenders who had rightly been away from ordinary society for years being suddenly removed from a strictly regulated regime where most decisions are made for them into the community where they will make most decisions for themselves. Temporary release allows this transition to take place gradually, using short releases, over many months, for the impact of each temporary release to be assessed over this time, and for the risk management plan to be tailored accordingly, while the offender is still in custody.

We have already acted to ensure that public protection is placed at the heart of the temporary release scheme. Changes were made to risk assessment requirements last year following three serious incidents involving temporary release, and on 10 March we announced a package of measures to further improve decision making, monitoring and enforcement of the thankfully rare temporary release failures. To reassure my hon. Friend, I should put this into context for him. There are about half a million releases on temporary licence every year: roughly 0.1% of them result in a failure of any kind and a much smaller proportion of that small proportion involve the suspicion of further offences. None the less, we take all those failures very seriously and we intend to do something about them.

Specifically, from the autumn we will have a new scheme of restricted release on temporary licence for serious offenders. In those cases, there will be more stringent risk assessment procedures, with greater involvement of psychology and probation professionals and more restrictive licence conditions involving probation professionals. As soon as suitable equipment is available, we will be able to tag offenders on temporary release, and we intend to do so. Improving risk assessment and management in individual cases is the right response to concerns about temporary release; a blanket ban on all offenders serving a sentence for murder would be counter-productive. As other Members have said in this debate, this is about a balance of risks. For all those who are released from custody—the vast majority of those serving sentences—it is important to reduce the risk of reoffending as much as we can, and many of the things we have talked about in this debate help to do that.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister for the work he has done in trying to toughen up on some of these issues and on the rights of the victim. On that basis, I am inclined not to press new clauses 29 and 42 to a Division as I understand that some progress is being made. However, on new clause 38 about people liable for deportation being eligible for a resettlement licence, this should not even be negotiable or needed, and on the basis of the Minister’s answer on that, which I have to say was wholly inadequate, I intend to press new clause 38 to a Division, as there is no excuse for allowing those people out of prison at all.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am naturally disappointed to hear that, but let me have one more go. The point I am making in relation to new clause 38 is that there is a distinction between those who are liable for deportation and those who are actually going to be deported. For those who are going to be deported, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no justification whatever for release on temporary licence or transfer to open conditions. For those who are not going to be deported or where there is a reasonable chance they will not be, however, we have to think about the same balance of risks I described to him earlier. That is the logic for making the distinction I sought to make, and explains why I cannot accept the blanket way in which his new clause is phrased.

Let me now deal with new clause 2. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has again tabled her amendment to reform the “grooming” offence at section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As she said, the amendment would reduce the number of times the defendant needed to meet or communicate with the child in order to satisfy that element of the section 15 offence from two to just one. As she knows, I have much sympathy with this proposal, as I know many other Members do. I am grateful for the work she has carried out with Barnardo’s, and I join in the tributes that have already been paid to her not just for highlighting this particular issue, but for the part she has played in the wider fight to tackle the sexual abuse and trafficking of children.

Our laws in this area are robust and strong. We can be proud that we are among the world leaders in the fight to protect children from sexual abuse. However, as the hon. Lady knows, I remain open to suggestions for improvement in this aspect of the criminal law, and in Committee I promised to look carefully at the issues this amendment raises. I do, however, believe it is vital that before we proceed with such a reform, we ensure that we have first considered all the issues and evidence fully. With that in mind, my officials recently met Barnardo’s to ascertain the full extent of the problem. Barnardo’s has now reported to my officials with some supportive evidence and we are expecting further material from them shortly.

As well as examining this evidence, we are considering how such an amended offence would interact with the existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We will then be in a better position to consider how this reform can be taken forward. I can assure the House that this Government remain committed to the protection of our children from sexual abuse, and we are looking seriously at the proposed amendment and will report our position as soon as possible.

On new clause 3, as the hon. Lady knows, section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 makes it an offence for someone other than a certain person such as parents or guardians to take or detain a child under the age of 16 so as to remove or keep him or her from a person’s lawful control. The point here is that the offence can be committed irrespective of the consent of the child concerned. I understand the hon. Lady’s intention is to bring the section 2 offence in the Child Abduction Act into line with the abduction offence in section 49 of the Children Act 1989. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made the same point and I understand it entirely, but, as I explained in Committee, such a change would lead to difficulties. Young people of 16 or 17 are lawfully able to be married, are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents, and are otherwise able to make decisions affecting their way of life, not least in sexual matters. The amendment would make it a general offence with a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment to take a person of that age who is capable of exercising his or her own free will in that regard away from his or her parents. I therefore hope the hon. Lady will understand that the position on new clause 3 is different from the position on new clause 2.

I will now turn to new clause 15. As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central knows, we debated this amendment in Committee so I hope he will not be too surprised to find that not much has changed since then. He did make some additional points that I want to pick up on, however.

I repeat that the Government are firmly committed to the protection of members of the armed forces, veterans and their families who, as the hon. Gentleman and others have said, make a valuable contribution to our society. They deserve the full protection of the law, but I am not convinced that his proposal is necessary to achieve that. His amendment would attach a statutory aggravating factor to assaults and other offences committed against members of the armed forces. I will not repeat everything I said in Committee about personal characteristics, and he has highlighted that that is a different matter. He added two further points to what he said in Committee, however. He mentioned the fact that special provision is made for police constables and prison officers. The reason for that is the nature of their work—we talked about that a littler earlier—and the likelihood that they will be assaulted in the course of their work. That does not apply to many other professions, including, I would suggest, the armed forces. He is right of course that someone’s profession, particularly if they are in the armed forces, can be a large part of their identity, and he has already highlighted the fact that there are sentencing guidelines in place, which the courts are required by law to follow, which make it clear that it should be considered an aggravating factor if the victim is serving the public.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what happens when someone is off duty. It is probably worth looking back to the case of Lee Rigby. This was a soldier who was not on duty at the time. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have seen the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge for the killers of Lee Rigby; it is clear from them that the fact that this was an off duty soldier was taken into account by the court. In the light of that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see fit not to pursue his amendment.

Amendment 20 would replace the Government’s proposed targeted extension to the extreme pornography offence with a much broader provision. It would capture any sexual activity that involved real or apparent lack of consent, or some form of restraint which prevented a person from indicating withdrawal of his or her consent—for example, a gag. I absolutely understand the good intent here of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I know what she is trying to achieve, but I have to say to her that this would be far too broad an extension to a tightly drawn and deliberately targeted offence. It will always be a matter of judgment as to whether we have gone far enough, and I quite understand that she will want to return to these arguments. However, I hope she will accept our argument—she may want to look again at the Hansard record of our proceedings in Committee, because I am about to run out of time—as to why the provision should be drafted this tightly. I therefore hope that, on that basis, she will not press the amendment to a vote, but I quite understand that she will want to return to the subject another day.

[Philip Davies]

This has been a rather disappointing debate, as we might have predicted. Although I would have liked to have a vote on all my amendments, which are all worthy of a vote, in order to test the will of the House, on the basis of the Minister’s response I will withdraw new clause 29 and instead press new clause 38 to a vote.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that most of the public think that open prisons are for people such as Lester Piggott rather than people serving 13 life sentences? Given that in a recent parliamentary answer that I received it emerged that 643 people are serving life sentences in open prisons, will he go back and assess each and every one of those cases to ensure that the open prison is the appropriate place for those prisoners, because I do not believe it is?

[Jeremy Wright]

I assure my hon. Friend that proper reviews of each of those people are carried out, not just by us but, on a great many occasions, by the Parole Board too, to ensure that people are suited for open prisons. For those offenders who will be released one day, we have a choice to release them either straight from the closed estate or from the open estate. The objective here, which he and I will both agree on, is to ensure that when someone is released from custody the risk to the public is as low as it can possibly be. In each and every case, that is what we seek to do. In the particular case that has been raised already this afternoon, as he knows we will look very carefully at the circumstances of this temporary release.

Prisoner Escapes

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Philip Davies]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice whether any prisoners serving a sentence for murder are still unlawfully at large following an escape or abscond since 1 April 2004.

[Official Report, 10 March 2014, Vol. 577, c. 116W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on 10 March 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Jeremy Wright]

Escapes have been falling for over a decade with the current low levels having been sustained for some years now. This is despite considerable increases in population over the same period. Despite a slight increase in 2012-13, absconds have been falling for nearly two decades.

The following table shows the number of absconders still unlawfully at large who have an index offence of murder. There are currently no prisoners unlawfully at large with an index offence of murder who have escaped from prison or prison escort. This information was correct as of 3 March 2014.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on this issue. Every one of those cases is a very real personal tragedy and a worrying sign for the system, but that does not mean that we should react in the wrong way. I think it is appropriate that we think very carefully about what level of investigation is necessary. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, as he may already know, that, in relation to each death, a variety of different investigations take place both internally within the prison system and from the coroner, and, in many cases, from others too. That does not mean, however, that there is not perhaps a case for looking more broadly at what wider lessons can be learned. That is exactly what we are considering at the moment. It is what I am applying my mind to now. I will let him know as soon as I can what we think the right conclusions should be.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with judges on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life tariffs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

According to Ministry of Justice figures, for every single category of offence, men are more likely than women to be sent to prison. Does the Secretary of State accept his own Department’s figures, or does he think they are wrong?

[Jeremy Wright]

I always try to accept my own Department’s figures, but I think my hon. Friend will accept that it is always in the minds of sentencers to try to avoid sentencing female offenders, in particular, to custody. As he will agree, however, that is sometimes unavoidable, which is why we need to provide the necessary places in the female custodial estate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on care leavers. He may be aware, if he has had a chance to look at the matter, that the Select Committee on Justice report contains a section on the criminalisation of those who are in care and on what is fairly described in many cases as an over-reaction to incidents that would not have resulted in the intervention of criminal justice agencies had they happened outside the care system. As I said, that is something that we will want to look at more carefully and respond to properly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

14. How many people convicted of robbery were not sent to prison in each of the last three years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Last month in Bradford, Qamar Malik was one of the last people to be locked up on an indeterminate sentence for public protection. Malik is a dangerous, predatory paedophile who was convicted of kidnapping and sexual assaulting a six-year-old girl and of twice attempting to abduct a 12-year-old girl. Under his IPP, he will not be released until he is considered safe to be released, but under the Government’s new regime people such as Malik will be released whether or not they are safe to be released. How does that make my constituents any safer?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend knows how I hate to disagree with him, but he needs to recognise that we are replacing IPP sentences with measures that are just as tough and a lot more effective. The truth is that if someone is convicted of offences of a very serious nature, the judge has the option of passing the ultimate indeterminate sentence—a life sentence—if that is merited. We are therefore taking measures to protect the public. We are replacing an ineffective sentencing regime with a much more effective one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

9. If he will take steps to ensure that prisoners serve full sentences as handed down by the courts.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, prisoners are released in accordance with the legislation laid down by Parliament, and Parliament has consistently taken the view that most custodial sentences should be served part in custody and part under supervision in the community. Sentencers are fully aware of this when determining the appropriate length of sentence in each case. However, the good news for my hon. Friend is that on 3 December the Government implemented changes which will mean that some of the most dangerous offenders may serve their custodial terms in full.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for small mercies. However, according to the Ministry of Justice, somebody sentenced to prison for six months can be released within six weeks, somebody sentenced to prison for a year can be released within three months, and somebody sentenced to prison for two years can be released after just seven months. Does my hon. Friend think that that carries the confidence of the public at large, and if not, what does he intend to do about it?

[Jeremy Wright]

The principle of some of a sentence being served in the community is, as we have discussed before, in my view a good one, because it enables us to have a hold over the individual when they come back out into the community. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that I am looking at ways in which early release in certain circumstances can be earned rather than automatically granted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philip Davies and Jeremy Wright

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

16. If he will take steps to ensure that time served in prison by a prisoner reflects the sentence handed down to that prisoner by the court.

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

Prisoners must be released in accordance with the legislation laid down by Parliament. Parliament has consistently maintained the view that custodial sentences should be served in part in custody and in part in the community. Sentencers take that into account when determining the appropriate sentence in each case.

[Philip Davies]

I warmly welcome the Minister and the Secretary of State to their roles, particularly given that I tried over the past couple of years to get their predecessors sacked. The Labour Government left us with a situation in which prisoners now have to be released halfway through their sentences, irrespective of how they behave in prison. Does the Minister think that is an acceptable state of affairs and, if not, what does he intend to do about it?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to be in line for the same kind of treatment as my predecessor. My hon. Friend will find that I agree with him on many things, but I do not entirely agree with him on this. I think that there is merit in having a period, after a custodial sentence has been served in custody, when we can supervise and monitor offenders and send them back if they misbehave, so I am not in favour, as I know he is, of an entire sentence being served in custody. However, I think that there is scope for reform in sentencing, and we shall certainly look at those opportunities carefully.