Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am reminded by my hon. Friend.

The facts of a case are given and the public are invited to give what they think is an appropriate sentence. Then they are told the sentence the judge gave. In fact, members of the public tend to give more lenient sentences than judges impose, because they have been led to believe—I shall not carry on, because it will only lead to reprisals in the morning. Some of our right-wing newspapers, which I started reading when I was a very small boy, have been telling the nation about soft judges letting off criminals for as long as I can remember, and in my opinion that will be the theme of some of our leading popular newspapers in 50 years’ time, if they survive that long. I shall move on.

This is where the Sentencing Council comes in—the independent body established in 2010 and ably led by its chairman, the right hon. Lord Justice Leveson, to whom I am grateful. Its role is precisely to promote a clear, fair and, above all, consistent approach to sentencing, backed up by supporting analysis and research. As hon. Members know, it does that by publishing guidelines—carefully crafted analyses that set out a clear decision-making process for courts and give guidance on aggravating and mitigating factors to help inform the sentence.

The guidelines include examples of the different levels of harm that a crime can cause, both to victims and the community. They set out varying levels of culpability that apply to offenders, such as whether the offence was committed on the spur of the moment or whether it was carefully planned in advance. They suggest common starting points and ranges for courts to use for different levels of offence. Importantly, they are guidelines, not tramlines or a rigid framework. They are flexible, and judges are always free to depart from them in exceptional circumstances. The most valuable quality for any judge in any court is judgment, which is what, in the end, they bring to bear.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

The point that guidelines should be guidelines was demonstrated after the riots, when in extraordinary circumstances judges used their discretion and gave firm sentences. Guidelines are for ordinary circumstances, but for those extraordinary events judges were spot-on in using their discretion.

[Mr Clarke]

As it happens, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s opinion. Judges rightly reflected the fact that the background was a sudden, alarming outburst of public disorder and that they needed quickly to give firm and severe sentences, in some cases above the average normally imposed for the offence. That was a correct response to public need.

In the two years it has been operating, the Sentencing Council has done much valuable work not only to promote consistency but in its more general role of seeking to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. However, it has on occasion been criticised for both its general role in developing guidance for the courts and the contents of particular guidelines. The case that I want to make today, before listening to the views of the House, is that the current system is the right one and that these criticisms are largely misdirected. Contrary to what one sometimes reads in the newspapers, sentencing guidelines take a proportionate and sensible approach to the punishment of offenders, and one in which the public should have great confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

rose—

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman talks of managed decline and the Thatcher and Major Governments, but will he explain why 80,000 people were released early from prison under the Labour Government? Those people were prosecuted—I was a prosecutor—and judges passed proper sentences, but they were let out early by Ministers. That was totally unacceptable.

[Mr Slaughter]

I took only two notes when the Lord Chancellor spoke, one of which was on that point. It was a bare-faced cheek for him to talk about the early release of prisoners by some days at the end of their sentences under the Labour Government and then immediately to decry indeterminate sentences for public protection, which ensure that violent and dangerous sex offenders are kept in prison until they are not a danger to the public. Does the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) want to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

In football terms, that was an instant replay. I am glad that Lord Leveson now chairs the important inquiry into the media. After that is completed, he will start the next inquiry. He must be an incredible chap to be able to chair the Sentencing Council and conduct all these other inquiries. I am glad that he is still there; continuity is important.

Let me go back to the intervention I made at the start of the Lord Chancellor’s speech. He said that the Government would be able to give us more information at the end of the debate on the case that I raised, which has been concluded in the courts. It concerns a group of four al-Qaeda-inspired fundamentalists who admitted planning to send mail bombs to their targets during the run-up to Christmas 2010. Their targets included the Palace of Westminster, the home of the Mayor of London, the Stock Exchange, and other buildings of that kind.

Those defendants participated in what is known as a Goodyear direction, which, as the Lord Chancellor and other Members will know, enables a trial judge to indicate the sentence that will be given if a defendant pleads guilty. I understand that the sentence that is indicated cannot be increased by the judge at the time when the defendants are sentenced.

[Rehman Chishti]

I have huge admiration and respect for the right hon. Gentleman. However, I dealt with Goodyear indications when I practised as a barrister, and I recall that a judge can refuse to give such an indication. He can say, “This is too severe. If the defendant wants to plead guilty, he can do so; otherwise he can stand trial.” A Goodyear indication can relieve a potential victim of the stress and the ordeal of giving evidence, but ultimately it is a matter for the judge: if he thinks that the sentence is too severe, he will not give a Goodyear indication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure and privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for whose work at the Bar I have great respect. I was a barrister for eight years. I prosecuted and defended at all levels, and I appeared at courts with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in our younger days. Having practised at all levels, including magistrates courts, Crown courts and the Court of Appeal, I want to stress that in any civilised society, there must be a right to a fair trial. That right is at the very heart our constitutional law, as set out in “Hood Phillips”. Related to that right is the issue of the competence of our judges. Having appeared before them at all levels, I can say that our judges—be they magistrates, district judges, Crown court judges, Court of Appeal judges or Supreme Court judges—are of the finest calibre. That supports the argument about consistency and transparency in sentencing.

Linked to that is the argument about checks and balances in our legal system. For example, I appeared at Maidstone Crown court many years ago representing a young defendant who was charged with six counts of supplying class A drugs, which one would have thought would get an automatic custodial sentence. However, taking account of the overall circumstances—the defendant was only 18, had been kicked out of home, had no job and no resources—it was decided that he got into supplying drugs as a runner in order to live day by day. In those exceptional circumstances, the Crown court judge ordered a community penalty and that he receive rehabilitation so that the young man could get somewhere in life rather than be stuck in a system in which he would go inside and come out as a hardened criminal. In that example, the checks and balances were clearly there. Within 90 days, the Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which then accepted the decision of the Crown court judge. It acknowledged that it was right and proper for the judge to show discretion in that case.

As I say, all the circumstances have to be looked at. As my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford and for Broxtowe rightly said, there is a sense in which not every case is a straitjacket. It comes down to having confidence in, and trusting, our judges. I made that point in my maiden speech, referring to the ability and the competence of our judges and the fact that they have to be trusted. Linked to that, I would say that rather than referring matters to the European Courts, they should be left to our Supreme Court and its judges—some of the highest calibre judges I have ever encountered.

[Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend comment on cases where the judges might have got something wrong and what routes of recompense there are in those circumstances? I speak as chairman of the all-party group on retail and business crime. I hear a number of instances from independent retailers where judges have given questionable summaries, so these retailers are unsure whether the justice system works in their favour. Let me cite one quick example, where a judge said that because the perpetrator of the crime stole scratch cards rather than real money, a reduced sentence was appropriate. The shop was particularly upset by the judgment but had no way of securing recompense by getting the sentence increased or getting justice from the system.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which I was going to come on to later, but will address now. When it comes to a court decision or sentence that people feel is not right, there are checks and balances. As I said, the Attorney-General can refer the matter to the Court of Appeal if the sentence appears unduly lenient. In the example my hon. Friend mentioned, it is right and proper to have the victim impact statement at the outset. The incident might seem trivial in some people’s eyes, but not to the retailer in this case for whom the circumstances were very important. We must ensure that the gravity of the circumstances is properly taken into account.

We have discussed checks and balances from the prosecution angle. Here, I would say there are provisions in statute—the Criminal Justice Act 2003—where the previous Government got it right in respect of checks and balances. This deals with the prosecutor’s right to appeal a case through a terminatory ruling to the Court of Appeal. I was involved in one of those cases. In the case of R and R at Harrow Crown court, a Crown court judge felt that gloves with lead in the middle of them did not constitute an offensive weapon—the same as knuckle-dusters—accepting that they were used to drive a Harley-Davidson. It was argued that these could not be offensive weapons per se and that there was no intent to cause injury. In that case, it was right and proper to use section 58(2)(b) of the 2003 Act to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. The judge’s decision was overturned.

That brings me back to the point about consistency in judges’ decisions and the importance of having checks and balances—for example, at the Crown court where the Attorney-General can apply them to unduly lenient sentences. On the other hand, if a sentence is manifestly excessive, that, too, can be referred to the Court of Appeal. I would say that the system works well for both sides, ensuring consistency in sentencing from judges who, in my view, are some of the finest in the world and who have exhibited consistency in the cases that I have been involved in.

Linked to that issue are arguments about the Sentencing Council, which the Lord Chancellor and other Members mentioned. The composition of the Sentencing Council is the important point for me. We have referred to senior judges on it and we have mentioned people from Victim Support. It is entirely right and proper to have sentencing guidelines where there is experience at all levels.

The other point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford was the need to ensure that there is consistency throughout the country. One member of the Sentencing Council, the hon. Mr Justice Globe, has practised on the northern circuit, while another, also an eminent member of the judiciary, has practised on the midlands circuit. There is a member from the Probation Service, and a member, Professor Julian Roberts, who is a leading academic. The integrity of this independent body is maintained when its members, including judges, convene from different parts of the country to ensure that the guidance that it issues reflects the views of its entire membership.

As I said to the Lord Chancellor, it is right for us to have a sentencing guidelines council. The fact remains, however, that these are only guidelines. At the time of the riots in August, I made clear my view that the firm sentencing of the judges was entirely appropriate, because those tragic events were not ordinary incidents. The Sentencing Council is there to set guidelines in relation to day-to-day offences, but I believe that judges are right to depart from such guidelines when they must deal with serious and extraordinary events.

We all remember the rhetoric of 1997: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” Ten years down the line, when half the total number of offenders were reoffending within a year, we looked for the key factor in terms of the causes of crime. I think that it was nonsense for the then Leader of the Opposition—subsequently Prime Minister in the Labour Government —to use the words “tough on the causes of crime”, given that events such as the London riots are often linked to causes such as the breakdown of the family and failure to provide the right support. The riots happened because society did not get it right and the Labour Government did not get it right. We know that alcohol is one of the key factors in crime, but the causes of crime were not dealt with in that regard. Instead, 24-hour alcohol licences were given out, which exacerbated the problem further.

I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about the automatic release of prisoners halfway through their sentences. Earlier this year, I submitted a written question asking how many instances of bad behaviour there had been in 2010. I was told that there had been 11,500. Did those who had been responsible for that bad behaviour have to stay in prison for longer? The answer was no: they came straight out. That is clearly reminiscent of the last Government, who got it completely wrong. I suggest to the Solicitor-General that we should seek to ensure that if people are released halfway through their sentences, good behaviour should be taken into account. Indeed, that point is often raised by a great many judges.

When I mentioned early release to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), his argument was, “It was only a few days here and a few days there.” It is good that he has accepted that early release went on, but it was completely unacceptable for 80,000 people to be released from prison early under the last Government, for a number of reasons. A victim has plucked up the courage to go to court. The police have done their part, obtaining statements and tracking down the person responsible. There is either CCTV evidence or circumstantial evidence. There is a prosecutor who has prepared a brief, and there is a judge who has done his job and has passed sentence. That sentence is then undermined if someone is released early, or released early on curfew. In that respect, the last Government completely undermined our criminal justice system and people’s confidence in it.

I strongly agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. I strongly support what the Government are doing in not just looking at custody arrangements. Of course one has to consider custody when an offence is so serious that that is warranted, but it is crucial to look at underlying causes, and at skills and education. A lot of the people whom we are talking about cannot read and write, so it is no surprise that they go inside, come back out, commit a crime, and go back inside. We have to ensure that they have skills, so that when they come out, they can contribute to society; that is right and proper.

Linked to that is the issue of ensuring that people work while they are inside. I very much welcome the Lord Chancellor’s proposal that there be an offer of 35 hours’ work in prison; that is right and proper. The money that people earn in prison should go to the victim, so that when a judge makes an order for compensation at the outset of the sentence, the money is paid. That is better than saying to the victim, “I’m really sorry; the defendant is going into custody, and he has no money.” That is completely and utterly unfair to the victim. Under this proposal, the judge can give a sentence of custody plus compensation paid for through work carried out inside.

I very much welcome the reforms relating to knife crime and gangs—things by which all our constituencies have been affected, albeit at different levels; there might be more or less of them in different parts of the country. The Government are sending a clear message that knife crime will not be tolerated by introducing an automatic prison sentence for adults who use knives, or threaten to do so, and so endanger people’s lives. That is right and proper; it is what the public want, and I very much want the Government to introduce that.

I welcome the Government’s push towards ending the practice of releasing dangerous sexual and violent offenders halfway through their sentence without a Parole Board hearing. It is absolutely right and proper to protect the public—we have to do that—by ensuring that there is a Parole Board hearing and approval, so that we can be sure that the offender is no longer a danger to the public.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has a detailed, lengthy argument to make; when I was at the Bar, I was taught that brevity is a virtue, not a vice, and I shall apply that principle. I have nothing more to say, other than that I very much support the Government’s proposed reforms to improve our criminal justice system and ensure consistency and transparency in our legal system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

My hon. and learned Friend is too kind. I will also say this: Lord Justice Rose is a very great man.

[Rehman Chishti]

On that point, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the 3,000 new offences brought in by the Labour Government had little effect in reducing crime? It was simply a case of legislation being made for the sake of making legislation, rather than making a real difference to people’s quality of life.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do agree. We made the same points during the passage of the 2003 Bill, as it then was, and subsequently.

Victims and Witnesses Strategy

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I think it certainly should, but I will have to examine further how effective the administrative arrangements for detecting such cases will prove to be. We are always trying to improve the exchanges of criminal records, so that people bear the proper consequences of any criminal records that they have built up.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement. Will he confirm that the money raised by the increase in fixed penalties for motoring offences will also be used to support victim services?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes. The reason that we are raising more money from offenders through the surcharge is precisely to improve the services offered to the victims of crime. Whatever the source of the money, it will all be directed towards improving those services across the country.

Legal Aid (Women and Families)

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

It is a great honour and a privilege to present this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Legal aid was first established by the post-war Labour Government under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. It was established to ensure that ordinary members of the public who cannot afford legal fees can obtain legal services when they need them in areas such as family law, mental health, education, immigration and asylum, consumer issues, welfare benefits, employment and criminal defence.

The aim of legal aid is to ensure that individuals are able to defend or to enforce their rights, or to obtain advice on how to tackle the problems they face. As a result, it plays a key role in tackling social exclusion, and in helping individuals to protect their rights against richer and more powerful opponents. Since its creation, it has formed a central plank of the post-war welfare state. It is the arm of the welfare state that keeps the other arms honest and ensures that they are all directed towards the public good.

Legal aid funds private practitioners to provide that service, rather than setting up a legal equivalent of the NHS. As a result, many legal aid practitioners provide support through a comprehensive network of outlets, often run by self-employed individuals in small partnerships, as opposed to the state directly contracting lawyers. But that makes them uniquely vulnerable to major systemic shocks, such as current plans brutally to cut social welfare legal aid.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate, which I know he cares passionately about. On funding and sustainability, does he accept that our legal system costs more than £2 billion a year and is one of the most expensive in the world and that that is, in current economic and financial circumstances, unsustainable?

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer who has practised in the past. I will respond to his point later.

The Government know that many legal aid practitioners provide support in the way that I have described. That is why the Cabinet Office has taken over this Minister’s mess and is trying to ensure the long-term viability of the advice sector. Legal aid support, particularly early intervention, demonstrates effective value for money for the taxpayer. According to cost-benefit analysis by Citizens Advice, for every £1 of legal expenditure on housing, debt, benefit and employment advice savings are made, although I will not give all the figures, which I am sure are available to hon. Members. As a result, it is clear that the savings made by cutting the legal aid budget will be dwarfed by increased costs elsewhere to the public purse. That is why cuts to advisory services, particularly to welfare advice, are both short-sighted and short-termist.

There is also a human cost. In any given year, legal problems such as divorce, eviction or debt will be experienced by one in every four people, but by one in three people with long-term sickness or disabled people, half of unemployed people and half of lone parents. People with one unresolved problem often accumulate other problems rapidly. If you cannot resolve early-stage problems, more problems will often accumulate and end up in a vicious circle. These cycles can result in people losing their jobs and income, suffering stress-related illnesses and experiencing relationship and/or family breakdown.

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important intervention. I agree with every word that she said. I will come back to this matter and develop it later in my speech.

Such problems are closely related to social exclusion, poor outcomes for children and levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, all of which represent significant costs to public services. Children whose families are experiencing civil and social problems are more likely to become involved in truancy, exclusion, and offending.

For the past 40 years, local law centres have been providing legal advice and support to the most vulnerable and needy in their communities. In the late 1970s and early ’80s I worked as an advice worker in a law centre and have experience in that field. I dealt with communities that suffered due to unemployment and other reasons. Law centres are an essential part of community life and are the first port of call for many people experiencing social and civil legal problems.

Law centres must be protected because of their experience. They have been working for 40 years with local communities, building a relationship with the public, landlords, organisations, local authorities and projects. They have local access; they are well established in communities; they are easily accessible; and they are trusted by communities. The brand power of law centres, like citizens advice bureaux, lies in their having gained public trust and confidence. They provide face-to-face advisory services and build trust and stronger relationships with clients. Services provided by the 52 law centres in England and Wales can be divided into three strands, namely individual casework, education and prevention, and developing policy. All three strands of services provided by law centres and CABs demonstrate the important strategic role played by these organisations in their local communities.

[Rehman Chishti]

On advice centres, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government will spend £4.7 million to fund 44 court-based independent domestic violence advice positions across the country, which clearly shows that they are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in our society?

[Mr Sharma]

I will answer that question later in my speech.

Issues raised in individual casework are often the root causes of problems faced by communities, which places law centres in the unique position of being able to disseminate information to other support bodies and to propose remedies. Research by the New Economics Foundation calculated the contribution of law centres by quantifying the social value such institutions provide and found that for every £1 invested in a law centre, a further £15 of social value is generated.

Family legal work remains the most costly area for the civil legal aid budget. It covers issues of child welfare and protection, as well as divorce, property and relationship breakdown issues. The proposals have retained legal aid for cases where domestic violence or forced marriage is involved and for cases where children’s safety is in danger.

[Mr Sharma]

I agree. As I stated earlier, the impact will be on families in society.

Abundant research has been carried out into the adverse consequences of family breakdown. There is also ample evidence suggesting that job loss, financial difficulties and loss of income can bring about family break-up. Therefore, the provision of advice for other civil law problems, such as employment, housing and debt are important in preventing problems from escalating.

The Government’s proposals would seriously damage access to justice, especially for the most vulnerable in society. The Ministry of Justice impact assessment shows that there will be a disproportionate effect on women. Similarly, the cuts disproportionately impact on black and minority ethnic clients and those with disabilities. As legal aid is targeted to those with low incomes, it will have a disproportionate effect on this section of the community. However, it is likely that those on very low incomes will be particularly negatively affected.

And then there is domestic violence. I direct the Minister to a speech of great power delivered by the noble Baroness Scotland in another place to the Minister, Lord McNally:

“look at the average case, such as when a woman has run from her home. She manages to go to her GP, who sees the injuries and notes them and then sends her to hospital because there are fears that she may have cracked a rib or another bone. She is seen by the medical staff and they verify that the injuries that she complains of are genuine. Her neighbours may have come in to rescue her from an assault. They may not have seen the assault taking place but have noted what was happening and taken her away. Social services may have come along and examined the children, spoken to them and heard what they had to say. All of that might have been used by the police who then came along and arrested the man. He may then acknowledge that he has indeed committed the offences that are alleged against him. Even if all those things had happened, under”

the Government’s current

“provisions the woman would not be entitled to legal aid. That cannot be right.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2012; Vol. 734, c. 595.]

[Rehman Chishti]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, in relation to the interdepartmental working between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, that the Home Office is providing more than £28 million of stable funding until 2015 for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services and £900,000 to support national domestic violence helplines and the stalking helpline, and that that shows its commitment on this issue?

[Mr Sharma]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very good intervention, but at the same time we need to consider the impact of the reductions and where the resources are going. That is what the debate is about.

Detainee Inquiry

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I have met a very wide range NGOs, human rights groups and those with an interest, and I have been trying to persuade them that the Gibson inquiry is something that they should get engaged with. I very much hope still to see them doing that. I am still having meetings about the Green Paper on security and justice and of course on the supervision of the security services. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was here earlier; we will continue to engage. I agree that it would be very much better if we could get the NGOs and others to accept that this is the way to proceed. We will continue to listen to their arguments about why they feel that they cannot, and we will do our best.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that under procedure there is no other way than to allow the Crown Prosecution Service to make those investigations before carrying on with the inquiry?

[Mr Clarke]

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend believes that. I think that is right. The problem of letting the inquiry go ahead while the police are carrying out the investigations is obviously that one could hopelessly compromise the other. We cannot have witnesses giving evidence about events when the police are in the middle of inquiries into the self-same events. [Interruption.] Well, that was the basis upon which we started, and everybody accepted that Gibson could not start until the police investigations had finished. There are sensible reasons, as my hon. Friend says, why we are in that situation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Yes, an equality impact assessment was carried out.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T5. According to a written question that I asked the Minister earlier this year, in 2009 the disciplinary punishment of additional days for bad behaviour in prisons was imposed on 11,550 occasions. What steps are being taken to improve discipline and behaviour in prisons?

[Mr Blunt]

There is a zero-tolerance policy for any violence in prison towards staff, visitors or other prisoners. In addition, one should not underestimate the importance of our proposals on work in prisons. If we can put in place a much more useful prison regime under which far more prisoners are engaged in useful work, it will aid the delivery of discipline in our prisons.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

As a duty solicitor, I declare an interest in—as in the title of the Bill—legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). He reminds me of many a client I have represented in Edmonton police station who fails to accept any responsibility despite the compelling case against them. He fails to accept responsibility despite the fact that two thirds of people reoffend when they come out of prison and most of our prisoners are lying idle in prison. Despite the plethora—the incontinence—of criminal justice legislation, all of which he probably had a part in as Home Secretary and Justice Secretary, victims still feel a lack of proper confidence in the justice system, but he does not accept any responsibility for that.

During the 13 years of the Labour Government, there were more than 20 criminal justice Bills, some of which I had the opportunity to scrutinise. I gave my maiden speech on one of those occasions—the debate on the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. That was in many ways one of the messaging Bills that were very much part of the new Labour project; they simply sent out a message without having any real effect. We also had many a Christmas tree Bill. For example, one of their last Bills, the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, had many pieces of additional legislation tacked on to it as it went through its stages. That is another danger of over-legislation.

The shadow Justice Secretary criticised the Green Paper, consultation and further consultation on the IPP issue. What is he complaining about? Does he want us to move quickly to legislate and run the risks that we have seen before? We have a litany of unimplemented 2003 legislation that we are now having to deal with. That is part of the legacy. That legacy is not only a failure in our prison system and criminal justice system, but a failure of legislation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn and other Opposition Members have to accept responsibility for that.

One issue that will be raised in the consultation is self-defence and defending one’s property. The right hon. Gentleman and others have been involved in discussions about sending out a message on that issue. I encourage him to read the case of R v. Keane or the recent case of R v. McGrath. Those show that his efforts at messaging and putting more baubles on Christmas tree Bills have not made a jot of difference in terms of changing the existing legislation that applies in that area. We need to learn those lessons well, and this Government are doing that, because it has taken 13 months for us to introduce this criminal justice Bill. I hope that we will not come back next year with another criminal justice Bill, and that we will scrutinise this properly, making any necessary changes and then moving forward.

What we need in our justice system is to get back to the three R’s—retribution, restoration and rehabilitation, which need to be properly balanced. The Bill is not the whole story in relation to what the Government are saying about criminal justice. We would not want that. We do not show our card on the basis of how many laws we pass and the extent of this legislation, for example. Our approach is to do with our intervening early to stop many of these people getting involved in the criminal justice system. It is to do with the way we are dealing with drugs and ensuring that many people more recover instead of getting parked up on methadone. That all matters greatly, as does more structural reform.

In some areas, such as youth justice, the Bill does not have a great number of clauses. There is a recognition of the progress that has been made, including the youth rehabilitation order. That needs to be properly implemented.

One area where there needs to be retribution is knife crime, as I am sure we all agree. In our manifesto, there was a clear commitment to it, so I welcome the intention of clause 113 to make it crystal clear that anyone who threatens with a knife will receive a custodial sentence. I welcome that intention, but I know—sadly all too well in Enfield, where we have had seven fatalities in the past three years and one in the past month, all at the hands of someone with a knife—that any possession of a weapon is in effect threatening. Even if the person possessing the knife does not intend to threaten, he or someone else could well become a victim of its use if he gets involved in any disturbance later.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

rose—

[Julie Elliott]

I may not be an economist, but I am a British taxpayer and I can tell the House that the figures simply do not add up.

Even the Justice Committee, in its third report on legal aid, said:

“We are surprised that the Government is proposing to make such changes without assessing their likely impact on spending from the public purse”.

This is another case of the Government not listening to the experts on legal aid. I think we are detecting a theme here.

Let us maybe have one more for luck. I commend the good work of organisations such as the Law Society on looking at alternative cost-saving measures. The Law Society proposed alternative savings worth £384 million—£34 million more than the Government are looking to cut—which would still protect all civil and family legal representation. The Law Society made its representations but was ignored. Then the Justice Committee recommended that the Government assess the merits of their proposals. Again, that recommendation was not listened to.

With these reforms the Conservatives are demonstrating their reckless handling of the British justice system. We already knew that we could not trust the Conservatives to protect the most vulnerable members of our society; we now know that we cannot trust them to uphold the founding principles of British justice either. The Government’s own impact assessment says that these reforms will increase costs, increase criminality and reduce social cohesion. With that testament, I am left wondering: what are the real costs of these reforms to legal aid?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is always an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I agree with some of what she says, and certainly with her remarks on my Bill about dangerous driving.

I do not disagree with everything that the Government propose in the Bill, but I have concerns about parts of it. On civil liberties, for example, clause 12, which seeks to limit advice and assistance in a police station, is a mistake. It is no good for the Government to say that the previous Government proposed to do similar things; I am concerned about what this Government are doing. Section 58(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that people in a police station are entitled to legal advice from a solicitor in private consultation. That absolutely must remain. Clause 52 proposes to prevent people from recovering defence costs in Crown courts. If they pay their own fees, they will be prevented from recovering their costs if they are successful at trial. That is a mistake.

I am concerned that the Government seem to be ignoring advice. Some of it is very good—the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) made some superb remarks about what effects she thinks the Government’s plans will have—but the Government seem to be passing it off as irrelevant and unimportant. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broxtowe says that that is not right, but I have seen it. The Bar Council has provided detailed proposals for alternative savings. I have seen no evidence of the Government’s acknowledging those proposals. That also applies to Law Society proposals. I agree with the remarks of the Bar Council, my professional body, that the Bill represents do-it-yourself justice, not access to justice.

Of course, solicitors, whether family or criminal—whatever the nature of the practice—are bound to want to protect themselves from cuts to their businesses. However, in my experience, publicly funded lawyers do not act just for money but because they want to help people, give them advice and protect them from often complex law. Lawyers always say that law is complex—we are bound to do that. I say it constantly, even to myself. However, it is genuinely difficult, and the procedure is often complicated. Lay people struggle with the most basic proceedings, and I have real concerns about the Government’s agenda. It is truly the most vulnerable who will suffer the consequences of the Government’s proposals.

Let us consider only a few of the matters that will be outside the scope of legal aid provision: clinical negligence, criminal injuries compensation, debt, education and employment. It is madness. Providing employment advice and assistance saves money in the long run. If a client goes to an experienced employment solicitor with instructions about a case, the solicitor is often the filter that prevents them from completing what is nowadays called an ET1 and getting it to a tribunal. That prevents costs in the long run. The Government have failed to recognise that.

[Rehman Chishti]

Employment tribunals do not currently have the power to order costs. What about a position whereby a malicious claim is made, someone defends their character and fights all the way but cannot be awarded costs at the end? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that needs to change?

[Karl Turner]

I am not sure. I do not think that I have time to consider the hon. Gentleman’s point properly and give him a fair answer. It worries me that, although the Government are trying to save money, not providing advice and assistance at this early stage will cost them much more in the long run.

Excluding housing law and welfare benefits will mean the most vulnerable in society suffering the most. The Chairman of the Bar said:

“The Government has failed to listen to the views expressed by many in the judiciary, the legal profession and voluntary organisations in formulating its proposals on legal aid.

Legal aid will be withdrawn from whole swathes of areas of law and access to justice will be systematically deprived.”

I agree entirely. He does not have an axe to grind. He has been in the profession for a terribly long time and should be respected for his professional opinion.

I could mention many solicitors in my area who have contacted me in recent days to warn me of the dangers of lack of access to justice. They make those points not because they are worried about not buying the next flash car, but because they represent people and they care about those clients. I mean that sincerely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I speak as a lawyer who practised as a criminal barrister and, for a period of time, appeared in the county court representing victims of domestic violence in seeking non-molestation and harassment injunctions and looking at contact and family law cases. With all that in mind, I consider the Bill in two parts. First, I look at it in terms of improving our criminal justice system and our justice system overall. What do I mean by that? I mean making our justice system more friendly and less acrimonious, and resolving matters at an earlier stage rather than allowing them to go to court. People have talked about mediation and said that it may not be possible in every case. Of course, that is right. However, it is right and proper to consider how to resolve matters before they get to the courts.

Let us consider the consultation proposals put forward for the small claims courts. It is absolutely right that matters are resolved before they get to court because it is often the case that people lose more in legal fees than they gain in compensation or fees awarded back to them by the court.

Mediation cannot, however, be used in cases of domestic violence. That is why the 5,000 responses to the Government’s 12-week consultation made it clear that the Government had broadened the criteria for objective evidence to be used in domestic violence cases.

I turn briefly to a matter that is often raised with me by my constituents, who say that it is morally wrong that legal aid is being given to squatters to fight eviction. I asked the Department for Communities and Local Government how many squatters there are in the United Kingdom, and was told that there are 20,000. How can it be right that people can occupy the homes of others and cause damage, and then be given legal aid by the taxpayer—your money, my money—to fight eviction? That is absolutely wrong, and it is right and proper that the Government are carrying out consultation to improve the situation. That would also put us on a par with Scotland, where squatting is a criminal offence.

I want briefly to touch on the subject of legal aid being given to foreign students who want to appeal decisions on visa applications. It is fantastic that people from different parts of the world want to study in our country, but when they apply for a visa at the high commission or embassy in their country and are turned down, they appeal to immigration judges in our country. Who pays for that legal aid? Those students do not pay taxes. British citizens pay for that legal aid. That is wrong and it must stop.

Another important point about immigration cases, which the Bill deals with, is the instances of repeated appeals on judicial review on the same point, one after the other. I spoke to an immigration tribunal judge who raised that very point. He said that people make numerous appeals, one after the other, on the same point, and get legal aid. Clearly that is wrong, and it has to change.

The Law Society proposes that legal aid be capped at £250,000 per lawyer, but that is unworkable as it means that legal aid would have to be transferred to another lawyer. Its proposal does not tackle the root cause.

The shadow Justice Secretary said that under the previous Government reoffending and offending behaviour had been looked at. That is complete nonsense. I tabled a written question to the Ministry of Justice asking how many prisoners had lost remission for disciplinary offences in the previous 12 months. The answer revealed that

“in 2009 the disciplinary punishment of additional days was imposed on 11,550 occasions”.—[Official Report, 27 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 517W.]

That quite clearly shows that the system is shambolic. In the past, prisoners did whatever they wanted and misbehaved, yet they were let out early. That is the record of the previous Government.

The Secretary of State spoke of rehabilitation and of prisoners doing 40 hours of work. A judge imposing a custodial sentence will be able to instruct the defendant to work for 40 hours and pay compensation to his victim. That is restorative justice and it stops the victim being hung out to dry.

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s proposals. We must listen and engage, but the 12-week consultation showed that we have listened about broadening the definition of domestic violence and are working with other parties to ensure that hard-working taxpayers’ money is not given to people who enter properties, cause damage and yet are given money to avoid eviction.

Applying the principle that brevity is a virtue and not a vice, I end my remarks.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and, in particular, the abolition of legal aid for squatters resisting eviction. Can he clarify how much was spent on that in the past 10 years?

[Mr Clarke]

No. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend with that information, but I am grateful for his welcome. I do not know whether anyone would oppose this, but it is plainly wrong to make legal aid ordinarily available to people who, by definition, are squatting in properties for which they do not have a legal claim.

Sentencing

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) commented on the efficiency of the Conservative Whips and I can see that the Lord Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is also very effective. I have not seen the note that the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has been passed by the Lord Chancellor’s PPS, but if he will discuss it with me afterwards I can check whether it is accurate.

It is not just us who think this policy is wrong. The Sentencing Council, the body charged with offering expert advice on such issues, states that

“in other common law jurisdictions the largest discount on offer is around a third, with some offering up to 35%. To date no jurisdictions have been identified where the discount is significantly higher than this”.

It goes on to point out:

“The Council has not identified any research to date that indicates that an increase in the level of the discount would be likely to increase the volume of early guilty pleas.”

The only evidence we have seen shows how much money will be saved, and cost is once again being put above good justice.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

May I ask the shadow Secretary of State to clarify? Does he agree with the leader of his party, who said:

“Tougher prison sentences aren’t always the answer”?

When are they appropriate and when are they not? What does the leader of his party mean?

[Sadiq Khan]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what the leader of my party believes. He thinks that it is inappropriate and offensive both to victims and our criminal justice system if all offenders are given a discount of up to 50% for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Further evidence that the Government are out of touch is provided by their Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Louise Casey, who has argued:

“A discount of 50% offends many victims, underplays the harm that may have been caused…and can seem to be placing administrative efficiency over justice.”

Campaign groups such as Justice and the Criminal Justice Alliance also oppose the policy. The judiciary have also been critical. Lord Justice Thomas, vice-president of the Queen’s bench division, and Lord Justice Goldring, senior presiding judge for England and Wales, have said that halving sentences because of guilty pleas will fail to reflect the seriousness of offences.

The Government’s policy on law and order is a mess. They just do not get it. Before the election, the Prime Minister made promise after promise to get elected. He promised to protect front-line services and he is now cutting 14,000 prison and probation staff. His Government are also cutting front-line police, which we will debate later this evening, and 23 specialist domestic violence courts are being closed. They promised a prison sentence for anyone caught in possession of a knife—that promise was broken. They promised honesty in sentencing and that they would introduce minimum and maximum sentences—those promises were broken.

Prisons Competition

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I would not like to guarantee that for any prison in the country. In far too many prisons drugs are, although more expensive, rather more readily available than in the outside world. That is a serious disgrace and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working very actively on our plans to begin with drug-free wings and then drug-free prisons. This issue has to be addressed, and people in the service are keen to do that. I hope to come back later this year—as soon as possible—with some announcement of progress on that front.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Can he confirm that armed forces personnel are being trained to be deployed to man prisons if the need arises?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, and there always used to be military contingency plans, because Governments must have contingency plans for all kinds of disasters. Unfortunately, if people are so unwise as to take industrial action in prisons, the situation can rapidly become far worse than in a normal strike because we start getting disorder among the prisoners. We have updated those contingency plans, and the military are indeed involved, but I should make it clear that no one is contemplating a military takeover of any prison. The Prison Service and prison governors would still be in charge. None the less, it is only prudent to make sure that we have the military preparedness that could, but almost certainly would not, be required. It has not been required in living memory, because one begins by using management staff and other teams that have been drafted in. Only in extremis would one start using the military for perimeter guarding and that kind of thing.

Reforming Civil Justice

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The cap of the success fee—which is a kind of bonus to a winning lawyer who has taken a no win, no fee case—will not be applied to special damages. As my hon. Friend rightly says, special damages can be enormous, such as in cases where the plaintiff has been disabled for life, and if the so-called success fee—the bonus—is taken as a percentage of that, it could be colossal, even though the size of the award might not reflect the complexity and difficulty of the case, but just the fact that the plaintiff was very severely injured. We are increasing damages by 10% of general damages, and we are capping the success fee that the plaintiff will have to meet at 25% of the general damages. Special damages will not be affected.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the online road traffic accident scheme will be expanded to cover employers’ liability, public liability and personal injury claims up to the value of £50,000?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, I would like to see that, we are consulting on that and I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s views. It has worked very well in the road traffic accident cases and we are therefore seeking to extend it, in line with his question.