Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Rehman Chishti and Gareth Johnson(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
With regards to addressing the backlog of criminal cases, the Minister will know that the largest category in the backlog of 60,000 cases is sexual offences. Previously, I have made representations to the former Lord Chancellor and the No. 10 policy unit to have specialist sexual courts to address that category. On 16 June, the previous Justice Secretary announced pilot projects for sexual offences courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook Crown court. That is something that I pushed for along with Kim Hollis, the former Director of Public Prosecutions in the British Virgin Islands. Has that taken place and what further steps have been taken to ensure that those pilot project results are taken forward?
Gareth Johnson
I understand that, yes, that has taken place. My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue about the backlog and particularly about the serious offences that are contained within it. This is why we must get the number of outstanding cases, particularly the serious sexual offences, down. As far as the courts specialising in sexual offences are concerned, we are looking at pilots and considering the matter. There are pros and cons to that approach, and that is represented right across the criminal justice system with some people speaking up in favour of it and others against. That is why we need to look incredibly carefully at that very serious issue.
Road Safety
Debate between Rehman Chishti and Gareth Johnson(10 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin, and a privilege and pleasure to see in his place the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), for whom I have great admiration and respect. I am delighted to have secured this debate on road safety, an issue affecting every one of us in society; all of us use the roads at some point. The issue has been raised with me by many of my constituents, by charities campaigning for safer roads and by many other organisations.
It is fair that I should declare my interest at the beginning. I was once named by Brake as a champion of road safety for my campaigning on drink-driving. It is only right that I should put that on the record. I understand that the issue of road safety is covered by two Departments: the Department for Transport and, in relation to sentencing on matters such as drink-driving, the Ministry of Justice. There is greater collaboration on that matter.
Every death on our roads is an avoidable tragedy and every injury a preventable suffering. Our roads have become safer and are among the safest in the world, but last year more than 195,000 casualties were still reported to the police. We should not lose sight of the achievements made in improving road safety. Last year, there were fewer fatalities in the UK than in most other countries in Europe and the rest of the world, and in 2012, one third as many people were killed on our roads as 20 years ago, but more can and should be done to reduce harm to road users. In November is road safety week, which since 1997 has been organised by Brake and involves schools, organisations and community groups taking action to improve road safety. It is a reminder that we can make our roads even safer and reduce tragedy if we all work together.
This is only a short debate, so I will focus on some key factors contributing to road casualties. The first are drink-driving, driving while disqualified and driver distractions. Colleagues may have other road safety issues to put to the Minister, and they should do so.
We all know the dangers posed by those who choose to drink and drive. Department for Transport figures show that the number of deaths from drinking and driving has increased by 17%, accounting for 16% of all road deaths in the UK. The latest review of drink-driving laws in 2010 by Sir Peter North noted that a minority of drivers persist in drink-driving and that many of those caught are well above the legal limit. A staggering 40% are 2.5 times over the limit. Many go on to reoffend; more than 12,000 people a year convicted of drink-driving offences have previously been convicted for such an offence.
This year, I proposed a ten-minute rule Bill to raise the maximum prison sentence for repeat drink-drivers from six months to two years, to give the courts the additional powers that they need to tackle persistent offenders.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue that I know he feels strongly about. Does he agree that part of the problem with the law at the moment is that magistrates are required to give a discount for a guilty plea from defendants convicted of multiple drink-driving offences while disqualified, even if the reading is high? Their powers of punishment are insufficient, which they find frustrating when they are trying to mete out justice.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that he saw that for himself when he was a solicitor and dealt with such cases. When I was a barrister, I saw that the police and all the other agencies found it frustrating that an offender could be brought to court yet given a limited—even minimal—sentence for serious offences, even taking into consideration the danger that they posed to wider society.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the combination of offences. Normally, somebody who has been drink-driving has probably also been done for driving while disqualified. I will refer in due course to driving while disqualified, but his point is valid. I thank him for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill on drink-driving and repeat offending and my private Member’s Bill on driving while disqualified.
My Bill has the support of Brake, the Royal Automobile Club and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. In today’s edition of The Times, there is an article by Julie Townsend, the deputy chief executive of Brake, saying that even one drink is now too many for most drivers, urging the Government to consider reviewing what is happening in other parts of Europe and asking that the legal alcohol limit be reduced. Undoubtedly, the Minister will comment on that in due course.
My first question to the Minister is this. What are the Government doing to address persistent drink-drivers? Secondly, will the Government support my Bill to raise the maximum sentence to two years for repeat offenders? Thirdly, will they also consider reviewing the sentencing guidelines for drink-drivers?
Those who repeatedly drive while disqualified are linked to repeat drink-driving offences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) pointed out. According to a reply to my recent parliamentary questions, Government figures show that in 2012, 42% of offenders sentenced for driving while disqualified had received a conviction for the same offence within the previous 10 years, and 72% of offenders who received a custodial sentence had been convicted for the same offence within the past decade. As with drink-driving, the maximum sentence for driving while disqualified is six months’ imprisonment or a level 5 fine. The Magistrates’ Association has raised the issue with me, saying that its members are concerned by the many instances of the offence, sometimes repeated many times, and are frustrated that their powers of imprisonment are insufficient.
Last week, I introduced two Bills to strengthen the law on driving while disqualified. The first would increase the maximum sentence that a driver can receive for causing death while disqualified from the current two years’ imprisonment to 14 years, in line with the current penalty for causing death by dangerous driving. The second would increase the maximum jail sentence to two years for repeat offenders who continue to drive even after having been banned.
My fourth question to the Minister is: will the Government consider increasing the maximum sentence for disqualified drivers and support my Bills? Fifthly, will they consider reverting driving while disqualified to an either-way offence, as it was prior to 1988? I understand that such issues are dealt with predominantly by the Ministry of Justice, but their implications for road safety are immense.
On alcolocks, existing measures’ contribution to reducing drink-driving seems to have decreased due to a hard core of heavy drinkers who are not susceptible to them. We therefore need to consider new ways to reduce drinking and driving. Several EU countries, including Sweden, France and Holland, have introduced alcohol ignition interlocks, commonly referred to as alcolocks, which are alcohol testers connected to the car’s start-up mechanism. They have been found to help reduce repeat offending, especially when used as part of a rehabilitation programme. Various international studies have shown that alcolock users had 65% to 95% fewer repeat offences than drivers whose driving licence was suspended or revoked. The previous Government conducted a trial programme in 2005, but there was never any follow-up.
The North report in 2010 discussed the use of alcolocks and said that trials had shown that there are merits in such initiatives, because when alcolocks are in use they prevent people from drink-driving. There are also existing powers in place, although not in force, under the Road Safety Act 2006, for offenders to be referred to an alcohol ignition programme.
Recently the European Commission has been working on developing a common road safety enforcement strategy, which could include making use of alcolocks in certain cases. So, my sixth question to the Minister is this: what recent assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of introducing alcolocks in the UK? Seventhly, will the Minister consider the evidence from other European countries on the potential benefits of introducing alcolocks? Eighthly, what discussions have been taking place to introduce alcolocks across the European Union?
I move on to the next category that I wish to discuss. This year, the Government made a welcome move to tighten up the rules for high-risk offenders—those offenders who have been caught more than two-and-a-half times over the legal limit, who have two or more convictions for drink-driving within two years or who refuse to provide a sample. The rule changes mean that high-risk offenders must pass a medical examination to prove that they are fit to drive before they can do so.
Although the scheme has been shown to help reduce reoffending, there are concerns that a fifth of high-risk offenders have been on the register before. Evidence shows that a driver at two times the legal limit is at least 50 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. So my ninth question to the Minister is this: what consideration has been given to lowering the level for high-risk offenders to two times the alcohol limit? Tenthly, how effective has the scheme been in ensuring that those people who should not be driving are not on the road?
I move on to my final category, which is distractions. The theme for this year’s road safety week was, “Tune in”, asking people to “tune in” to road safety and give it their full attention. Driver distraction is a major cause of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. Research shows that although it is now illegal to use mobile phones at the wheel, around a third of drivers continue to flout the law.
Other distractions can include eating and smoking at the wheel, which have been shown to increase the risk of a crash. Furthermore, evidence suggests that talking on a phone while driving can be worse than drinking alcohol, with reaction times 30% slower for people using a hands-free phone than for those driving with a blood alcohol level of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood. So, my final question to the Minister is this: will he review the evidence on the dangers of hands-free mobile phone use when driving?
In conclusion, further measures are needed if we are to remain a world leader on road safety, and we must consider ways to reduce deaths and injuries on our roads. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to the questions that I have put to him.
Budget and Structure of the Ministry of Justice
Debate between Rehman Chishti and Gareth Johnson(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Johnson
As I understand the system, there will be payment by results. If the results are not achieved, there will be a financial consequence for that company. We will be able to say, “If there are no results, the taxpayer will not have to shoulder the full burden.” To draw an analogy, we would not expect the Ministry of Defence to pay for guns that do not fire, so why should we expect the MOJ to pay when anti-reoffending programmes do not work? We should pay for what works, not for what does not work.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with the MOJ that we should consider other means of resolving disputes, such as mediation, rather than going down the avenue of tribunals and courts, which cost a lot of money?
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is more scope, particularly in family courts, for the increased use of mediation and perhaps non-judicial disposals. We want to see court processes in appropriate cases, but nevertheless we could consider ways of avoiding them, if it is correct to do so.
I was reassured by the Secretary of State’s comments to the Justice Committee last week, when he confirmed that the probation service could also tender for contracts to work with offenders. That is right. The public want less crime; what is less important to them is who achieves it. Whether it is the probation service, a charity or private company matters little; what is vital is that whoever helps offenders to stay on the straight and narrow is successful in that important quest. Payment by results is potentially groundbreaking for the MOJ, but I concede that the devil will be in the detail. We need to ensure that cherry-picking cannot prevail, for example, and that the system recognises tangible improvements in a repeat offender’s behaviour, rather than progress towards good behaviour.
Successive Governments have tried to tackle the so-called revolving door of reoffending—the tendency to come back into the system time and time again, particularly following short-term custodial sentences. There are two approaches to the problem. We can either curtail short prison terms, letting people off without custodial sentences and not having any short-term prisoners, or we can work with such offenders, both in custody and on release. I support the latter approach. It has not been done in the past, but the commitment now to ensure the supervision of such offenders on release is the right approach and very much to be welcomed. The involvement of charitable and private sector organisations in such work has made it affordable. I believe it will be more successful for their presence.
However, it is not just the work of prisons that we need to review; it is also the courts. I worked in the Court Service and saw a very changing environment. In fact, three of the five courthouses I worked in are no longer courthouses, but restaurants, accommodation and so on—I think one is a Zizzi. They have changed beyond all recognition. Although it is sad to see that happening to old courthouses, it is right for the Department continuously to assess the value for money it provides for the taxpayer. It has a difficult balancing act to perform, between the value for money it provides on one side and the interests of justice on the other. Witnesses cannot be expected to travel long distances to vast super-courts. Justice delivered locally is still an important doctrine.
The virtual courts system has been highlighted as a good way for the Department to save money. However, I would urge caution on this approach. Virtual courts can actually cost more. We therefore need an intelligent and targeted use of the system, rather than a blanket approach. I am probably the only Member of Parliament who has used the virtual courts system—I guess I should declare an interest—and I have seen not only its strengths and weaknesses, but its expense to the Department. I am pleased that the Department is also looking at different ways in which magistrates courts can operate. It makes sense to allow them to keep more cases for themselves. That will enable savings to be made without compromising justice. In limited circumstances, magistrates can already sentence adult offenders to 12 months. If we trust them to give such sentences for some cases, why not for all cases? In some courts, the same magistrates who can sentence a 14-year-old to up to two years cannot give an adult more than six months. That needs to change.
The challenges for the Department are substantial. In playing its part in tackling the country’s debt, it needs to find savings, yet they have to be made without compromising justice or the safety of the public. The first job of every Government is to protect the public. I pay tribute to the Department for the enormous strides it has made of late in doing just that, while at the same time finding significant savings in its budget.
Voting by Prisoners
Debate between Rehman Chishti and Gareth Johnson(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I start my comments in light of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, as set out in Hood Phillips’s “Constitutional and Administrative Law”. As paragraph 3.13 clearly states:
“The legislative supremacy of Parliament means that Parliament (The Queen, Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled) can pass law on any topic affecting any persons, and that there are no fundamental laws which Parliament cannot amend or repeal.”
Secondly, all our main legal authorities—from Dicey to Coke and Blackstone—assert that Parliament has the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever. Thirdly, no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
In that light, if the House were to vote to confirm the current legislative provision that prisoners should not have the right to vote, that must surely be respected. Once a document is recognised as an Act of Parliament, no English court can refuse to obey it or question its validity. That is our common law, as established in the case of Manuel v. Attorney-General of 1983. The courts of our land must therefore respect the wishes of Parliament.
Schedule 3 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, as amended by the Representation of the People Act 1985, makes it quite clear that someone convicted and sentenced to imprisonment loses the capacity to vote.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that no one is being forced to forfeit their vote? Criminals choose to forfeit their votes when they decide to break the law. All that people need do in order to retain their votes is comply with the law.
Rehman Chishti
My hon. Friend has highlighted the fundamental point that people have rights and responsibilities.
Successive Governments have made it plain that when people are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, they lose the moral authority to vote. In 2003, Baroness Scotland of Asthal clearly stated that those who were convicted and imprisoned would lose that moral authority. The earlier legislation was right then as this legislation is now, and we should respect that.
Parliament’s supremacy has been challenged by the European Court of Human Rights. That cannot be right. It cannot be right for judges from developing judiciaries in eastern European countries to challenge the supremacy of our Parliament and our judiciary.
It is ethically and morally wrong to allow prisoners the right to vote. The concept that those who commit a crime must pay the price with their liberty and the withdrawal of certain rights must be correct.
Dartford Crossing (Congestion)
Debate between Rehman Chishti and Gareth Johnson(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am pleased to open the debate and to have secured a discussion on the biggest local issue facing Dartford. As the time allowed for the debate is short, I will try to cover as many points as I can and, with your leave, Mr Rosindell, I will take interventions, about which I have spoken to the Minister. Of course, I will also leave time for the Minister to respond.
Hon. Members will know that the Dartford crossing is probably the most congested part of the country’s motorway network. Tailbacks regularly stretch for miles on both the Kent and Essex sides of the crossing and cause delay and misery for motorists. The crossing is a scar on the face of Dartford. When a problem exists by the crossing, local roads in Dartford also become congested with motorists trying to find alternative routes. The crossing should open up Dartford and encourage businesses to base themselves in the area; instead, it holds it back and strangles commerce. A continuation of the status quo is not an option for the Dartford crossing.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on the passionate way he has fought for the issue with different agencies over the years. I applaud his commitment to that. He mentioned Dartford being affected by the crossing, but does he also agree that it affects constituencies around Dartford in terms of businesses, people travelling and holiday makers? It is absolutely vital for the whole of the south-east that we get this right.
Gareth Johnson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I totally agree with him. The issue affects the whole of the Thames Gateway area—not least Gillingham and Rainham, which are particularly pertinent to him. It is essential that we tackle congestion on the Dartford crossing in order to open up the whole area and allow business to flourish across the Thames Gateway network.
I am pleased that the Minister shares my view that a continuation of the status quo is not an option for the Dartford crossing. Although we may disagree on some issues regarding the crossing, I pay tribute to his work on tackling the problem. His positive, can-do attitude to dealing with the problem has led to more progress on the issue during the six months he has been the relevant Minister than in the whole of the last 13 years. His determination to remove the toll booths, which ultimately cause the congestion, is to be welcomed. I have noticed that each time a difficulty with removing the toll booths has been presented to him, he has not simply thrown the papers away and given up on the notion of removing the booths; instead, he has sought to find a solution that tackles that problem.
I want to make it clear that the tolls on the Dartford crossing should be scrapped in their entirety. That is what was promised to the residents of Dartford by the previous Government. We were told that the tolls would be scrapped when the bridge had been paid for. That happened in 2003, yet the tolls remain. Today, I call on the Minister to scrap the tolls completely.