Dangerous Driving

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak at the end of this debate on the law on dangerous driving. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) on securing the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting such a good example of a non-party political debate on an issue that, literally in this case, affects life and death.

The debate began with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood telling us the desperately sad story of Ross and Clare Simons, which he pieced together with the precision of the professional historian that he is. He rightly left it to us to imagine, all too vividly, the emotions involved for the family and friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) described the death of the mother-in-law of the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as that of William Avery-Wright. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) told us the ghastly story of Eleanor. All those contributions will have moved everybody in the House. We must not forget all the other Members who are not here, but who have similar horror stories to tell from their constituencies.

In 2012, 377 motorists were found guilty of an offence that resulted in a fatality and 116 were found guilty of causing death through dangerous driving. That is almost 500 unnecessary deaths a year or almost three every two days. One of those deaths, which occurred almost exactly two years ago in March 2012, was that of my constituent, Paul Stock, who was affectionately known as Gloucester’s best welder. He was killed while crossing a road in Tredworth with his wife, Mandy, by a man called Graham Godwin. Mr Godwin was riding the scooter that caused the death while disqualified, uninsured and speeding, and there was a female riding pillion on the one-seat scooter. He had multiple previous driving convictions and said in court that the law did not apply to him. The judge described him as

“an absolute menace on the road”

and gave him what he explained was the maximum possible sentence—just two years in prison.

Paul’s widow, Mandy, later wrote to me saying that the law needed to be changed to reflect the devastating consequences of such a crime, whether it causes death or serious injury, when the sentences for careless or dangerous driving can be up to 14 years, as other Members have mentioned. By extraordinary coincidence, I had the opportunity to raise the matter at Prime Minister’s questions almost immediately afterwards. In responding to my question, the Prime Minister said:

“It is important that we give our courts a sense that when there are appalling, extraordinary crimes, they can take exemplary action. That is important in a justice system.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 904.]

I was fortunate that Mandy’s sister, Sue, was a constituent of the Prime Minister. They were therefore both able to meet him at one of his surgeries not long after that. I was also grateful that the Secretary of State for Justice allowed Mandy, Sue and me to see him shortly afterwards.

There is no doubt that everyone in the House agrees that the current sentencing guidelines are inadequate. The question is what should be done and when. Although one or two Members, notably the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have made some interesting points about wider issues relating to driving offences, I want to focus on the sentencing guidelines for cases in which people die as a direct result of behaviour that comes under the general heading of dangerous driving. In particular, I want to speak about situations in which drivers have caused death while uninsured and disqualified. I believe that we should let judges decide what sentence is merited when Mr Godwin lifts two fingers not just to Paul’s widow, Mandy, but to our whole system of justice by saying that the law of the land does not apply to him. I believe that we need consistency in seeing that justice is done and that maximum flexibility should be left to the judge to interpret how severe the sentence should be for individuals who have caused death.

I am in no doubt that all Members agree on that simple proposition. I am in no doubt that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Justice agree. I am in little doubt that they intend to bring legislation forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East suggested that Ministers should mull this matter over for the next six months. I do not believe that further consideration is needed. Ministers are well aware of the issue and of what needs to be done. Therefore, I urge them not to linger. I know that the Secretary of State had hoped to bring new legislation before Parliament this spring. I hope that the Minister will confirm today that that is what they intend to do. The time has come for all those who have been mentioned in this debate and all the constituents of Members who are not here to feel that the law is on their side and that judges will be able, where appropriate, to sentence people much more severely than they can at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The definitions of careless and dangerous driving are relatively new, having been introduced to try to correct defects in the reckless driving law. I will say a bit more about maximum sentences and sentencing policy, but I was coming first to the point that he has just made.

Many problems arise not necessarily from sentencing policy from Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and charging policy. CPS guidelines have moved on again, because as with every type of case, the CPS has to consider the realistic prospect of conviction as well as the public interest. In the past, it perhaps did not examine driving cases with the same assiduousness as other criminal cases. I believe that that has begun to change. The consequence was that charges were either not brought at all or brought at a lower level, because the CPS did not believe that there was a realistic prospect of success. In part, that may have been due to the influence of public opinion about standards and quality of driving, which has changed a great deal over the years, as it has in relation to driving under the influence.

[Richard Graham]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the general public’s reaction, which he has described, may have been exacerbated by the fact that in 2011, the latest year for which we have complete data, of the 20 cases of those found guilty of causing death while uninsured or disqualified, the average custodial sentence actually served was only 8.4 months?

[Mr Slaughter]

I will come back to the issue of sentencing—the offence that the hon. Gentleman mentions carries a much lower maximum sentence than the ones that I have mentioned—but first I wish to explain my point about charging policy, which still leaves something to be desired. It is not a straightforward matter. First, there is the question of the degree to which the driving has fallen below the standard of competent driving, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned. That judgment needs to be made by the CPS.

In addition, having decided what level of offence to charge, there is the issue of seriousness regarding the quality of driving, and that of aggravating or mitigating factors, particularly if they pertain to the individual accused. Such matters are not straightforward, and again, on occasion, prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding what to charge and what are their prospects of success. In the most serious driving cases it is open to the CPS to charge someone with manslaughter, but that happens very rarely.

Hon. Members from across the House have reviewed the nature of offences—again, in response to pressure from parliamentarians and the general public over time—and a number of changes were made by the previous Labour Government. In particular, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years, as it was for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences of causing death by careless driving or by driving illegally. Those offences attract lower sentences—five years, I think, in the first case, and two years in the second—but they are new offences that came into effect in 2008.

Although it concerns a more recent offence, perhaps for completeness I should mention the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which again attracts a maximum five-year sentence. That was introduced through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and both the Minister and I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. That offence was contained in one of the few clauses of the Bill that attracted unanimous support in Committee, and it arose out of a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). That is significant not because he is also a doughty campaigner on these issues, but because many individual advancements in legislation have come about through private Member’s Bills or the actions of individual Members on behalf of their constituents, and indeed through debates such as this.

There have been substantial changes and increases in maximum sentences. That allows for new sentencing guidelines, and for longer—and indeed more careful—sentences to be given, since all the factors I have described must be taken into account by the sentencer. New offences were created where lacunae in the law were identified, which is right. The changes in law under the previous Labour Government led to the substantial revision of sentencing guidelines in 2008. I will not go through those in detail, but they substantially increased some of the guideline sentences and gave clear instructions to the courts about how aggravating or mitigating factors should be dealt with.

Although the sentence of just a few years for taking a life will always seem inadequate to the family of the victim, I suspect that what often causes most concern to families are the sentences handed out for some of the “lesser” offences such as causing death by careless driving or while driving illegally. Those sentences can be measured in months, or perhaps just one or two years, and that will never seem an adequate punishment for the taking of a life.

As I have said, steps were taken a decade ago, and more recently, and the ball is now firmly in the court of this Government. Sentencing guidelines are being looked at again, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that—as always—he will give a careful and thoughtful response about when and where he believes the sentencing guidelines are going, and say what is in the Government’s mind regarding improvements in the law.

Before I conclude, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East. Although we have focused narrowly—quite properly, as this is the subject of the debate—on the issue of dangerous driving and on lenient sentencing in particular, one cannot look at death on the road in isolation because it must be considered in the round. One must also look at prevention.

Safety on the UK’s roads has improved immeasurably over the past 40 years, and we have gone from having almost 8,000 deaths a year in the 1970s to around 1,700 a year—a phenomenal improvement. That is against a background around the world of 1.3 million deaths due to road traffic accidents—I saw those statistics today in The Economist—the vast majority in developing countries. There are now more deaths from road traffic accidents around the world than from tuberculosis or malaria. While we can congratulate ourselves a little on the improvements in this country, there is still more to do.

Numbers of driving offences and the use of the motor car as a weapon of destruction are increasing elsewhere, and there are particular problems in this country that we have not fully addressed. One is the issue of young drivers, who account for only 5%—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, who will recognise that the addition in the statute book of the drug-driving offence makes it more likely that that will be considered. My point about the guidelines is that consideration is also given to other offences committed at the same time as the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister is correct about the provisions, but if someone has caused death by driving when uninsured, disqualified and under the influence of alcohol, the maximum is still two years.

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, indeed, but that of course is a separate point. As I hope I indicated, I have listened carefully to what has been said, specifically about sentencing for the offence of causing death while disqualified from driving. We will take away everything that has been said, but I have paid particular attention to his point. The Justice Secretary wrote to the Sentencing Council—as it now is—asking it to review the death by driving guideline, and it has agreed to include that in its programme of work.

Probation Service

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

That is what the Justice Secretary’s own risk register says, but he is not willing to publish it so that we can all see for ourselves that he is refusing to follow his own Department’s advice.

The idea that the national probation service and the private companies will work anything like as closely together under the new system as offender management teams work is laughable. The chief inspector of probation has said:

“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector…will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”

The chief executive of Hertfordshire probation trust, Tessa Webb, has said:

“We’re very concerned about separating offenders out between low and high risk. Things don’t work like that. We think there should be a coherent, single organisation.”

Do Members really think that G4S and Serco will hold up their hands if something goes wrong? They did not with electronic tagging or the transfer of prisoners. If anything goes wrong, who will get the blame? The national probation service. There is no risk for the big private companies and no taking of responsibility—just a nice little earner.

There is a risk, however, to the public. As has been said, according to the press, the MOJ’s own risk register raises serious questions about the plans. We would think that the Justice Secretary would want to reassure the public by publishing the risk register, but he is refusing to do so, which in itself raises a number of questions.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Can we just agree that 600,000 crimes a year are committed by people who have already broken the law and that that is of huge cost to all our constituents and costs taxpayers about £10 billion? Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree that something must be done and that, surely, statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community—for the first time ever—of people who reoffend and have been sentenced for fewer than 12 months must be a huge step forward?

[Sadiq Khan]

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to go back to the beginning of my speech, I would be happy to do so—this is one of the problems when Members read a hand-out from the Whips—but I have already answered that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not against that, but Labour Members have come up with no suggestions whatever on how to achieve it, and did not do so in 13 years in government. This Government will make that difference. The reason is that that group of people—the ones who walk the streets with £46 in their pocket—are being abandoned by the system. Many have deep-rooted problems, such as drug, mental health and educational problems. We currently expect them to change on their own. When we do nothing, they carry on reoffending, which means more victims and more ruined lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has said, it also means a cost, as estimated by the National Audit Office, of between £9.5 billion and £13 billion a year.

[Richard Graham]

Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the shadow Justice Secretary gave little recognition to the gravity of the problem; that, in his motion, there is nothing—not a single word—on how to reduce reoffending; and that the motion is simply a negative approach to the Government’s proposals?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the Opposition are doing is opposing. I hear no suggestions, but we heard no suggestions from the Labour Government. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on many occasions in the past few months. On 17 July, he said:

“But I also know that the status quo is not an option. Re-offending rates are too high.”

He has also said that we need to target specific groups, such as those who receive short sentences, many of whom are in the revolving door of reoffending. However, we heard nothing about that in his speech to his party conference this year, and there is nothing about it in the motion. The truth is that he has no plan.

Worse than having no plan, the Opposition did nothing in government. They had the chance to tackle the problem of support for short-sentence offenders when they were in office. In 2003, they legislated for custody plus, a highly complex and bureaucratic system, but at least it was trying to address the problem. However, in February 2006, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who was the Minister at the time, said:

“We intend to introduce Custody Plus in the autumn of 2006.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 934W.]

Only five months later, the then Government said that they would not implement the new sentence of custody plus. In November 2007, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said:

“No decision has yet been taken as to when custody plus will be introduced.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 946W.]

In February 2010, just before the general election, Lord Barker said in the other place:

“Resource constraints have meant that we have been unable thus far to implement custody plus and there is no prospect of doing so in the near future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 February 2010; Vol. 505, c. 17WS.]

They opted out of their plan to tackle the problem that we are going to solve. They said that they could not do it, and it has been left to this Government to come up with a plan that will deliver real change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I will make some progress and then take some interventions.

There has been talk about the categories of low and medium risk, something the right hon. Member for Tooting refers to regularly. The categories come from the current system—it is how the current probation system works. We will build on that in the new system.

We will not do business with anyone who cannot demonstrate the right expertise in preventing reoffending. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the valid point that there are many good community and voluntary sector organisations doing excellent work in this field. I want more of that work to be part of what we do in the probation sector.

[Richard Graham]

What my right hon. Friend says about the variety of organisations that have something important to contribute on rehabilitation is surely something we all recognise in our own constituencies. Will he confirm for the record that there is nothing to prevent—indeed, lots to encourage—the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire probation trusts from getting together and bidding with a business for rehabilitation contracts?

[Chris Grayling]

Not only that; we are encouraging our management teams from trusts. We cannot contract on a payment-by-results basis with ourselves, but the Cabinet Office is investing money to encourage and support teams of staff who want to take over the business, run it and be free to innovate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is right that such people live chaotic and fluctuating lives and things can change, but the Justice Secretary explained that the people making the assessments would always be on the job and would be in the same room as the other people who would be involved.

There are some legitimate questions for the Minister. I have seen payment by results work well in job searching and I know that there are good voluntary and private organisations with skill and experience that could be put to good use in rehabilitation. There are also private companies, however, that have failed spectacularly to handle work that has hitherto been carried out by the public sector. Whenever the profit motive comes into play, the desire will be to maximise profit and minimise risk and effort. How will the Government ensure that private companies, in particular, do not simply come along and pick the low-hanging fruit? How will we ensure that a very important Liberal Democrat principle is adhered to—[Laughter.] The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches are having a laugh, as they say, but a decision on this very important principle was passed at the last Liberal Democrat conference—[Interruption.] If hon. Members care to listen, they will find out what we think is really important. The principle that we would adhere to is that all ex-offenders should receive appropriate help, even when the risk of reoffending is high. So how will that happen, and how will the costs be factored? After all, many ex-offenders will leave prison never to reoffend, all on their own. Will there be some form of incentive to encourage voluntary sector or private providers to take on the hard cases—people with addictions, low educational attainment and poor or even non-existent employment records?

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lorely Burt]

I have taken two interventions. I am sorry.

How we will ensure that everyone gets the help that they need to become a real stakeholder in Britain today? I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Llwyd]

That is precisely what will happen. Once the profit motive comes in, common sense dictates that that will happen.

Private companies will be handling extremely sensitive cases, many of which pose huge risks to the public, with little or no experience of assessing risk. We know that that, too, is a movable feast. They will also be unable to cope with the demands of managing offenders who need encouragement, support and patience—work which the probation service itself is doing very well at present. The Ministry of Justice figures show that all 35 probation trusts are hitting all their targets with good or excellent performance levels. The reoffending rates for all adult offenders on probation supervision are the lowest they have been since 2007-08. In October 2011, as we know, the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence.

Reoffending by those who undergo supervision by probation has been falling every year since 2000, and two thirds of individuals managed by probation trusts in the community do not go on to reoffend within a year. The service’s high-level performance is continuing. The Government want to fragment that. The highest reoffending rates of 57% are of course found among those offenders who undergo short-term prison sentences—that is, the group who have no current contact with probation trusts. The Government have in the past ruled out the option of handing over responsibility for these individuals to probation trusts.

Probation trusts have made savings of 20% between 2008-09 and 2012-13, despite the fact that the probation budget has fallen by 19% in real terms over the same period. That all goes to show that it is trained and experienced probation workers who keep crime rates down and protect the public from further harm, but the Justice Secretary seems to have little regard for any of that.

These plans represent a victory of dogma over common sense and are yet another example of the Tory mantra that public is bad and private is always good, despite G4S torturing people in South African prisons and, along with others, skimming off millions of pounds of Government money.

[Richard Graham]

If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he accused Government Members of being anti-public sector. For those of us who have worked in the public service for large chunks of our life, that is deeply offensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what has happened to reoffending rates over the past 10 or 15 years? Have they got better or worse, or have they stayed the same? If they have stayed the same, does he not agree that something needs to be done differently? Secondly, does he not agree that the high rate of reoffending by those with sentences of fewer than 12 months needs to be tackled urgently?

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman’s question has two parts and I think we have already answered it. The reoffending rates are static, but the bulk of the problem lies in a group that is not yet the responsibility of any organisation—certainly not of the probation service. What I am suggesting is that if we want to provide support for that group of offenders, we should extend the remit of the organisation that has proved that it has the expertise, skills and ability to make a difference. Instead, the Government intend to move to an untested system of payment by results that is unique throughout the criminal justice world and that will be inhabited by companies that have proved themselves to be not only incompetent, but dishonest in the exercise of previous contracts let to them by this Government.

A problem has been identified, but the system that we are producing will make things worse, not better. The Government are in a fix of their own making. They talk of a revolution in the way that offenders are managed. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is no longer in her seat, said that the Liberals identified with the idea of a revolution. However, we know that revolutions have a tendency to eat up and destroy those who are central to their genesis.

The Government want to place the supervision of thousands of potentially dangerous and unpredictable offenders in the hands of companies that have no track record in the field and that increase their profits consistently by employing poorly paid, untrained, temporary staff. If we add to that the privateer’s tendency to promote commercial confidentiality over partnership working, which has been central to the progress that has been made over the past 20 years, we have a volatile and frightening prospect.

Had the Secretary of State graced us with his presence until the end of the debate, I would have reminded him, as has happened once already, of the statement that he made in this House on 9 January:

“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

That might be okay for the Secretary of State in his personal life, but he is charged with a responsibility to the public of this country and he needs to exercise it better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

If that were the case, I would consider it exactly the kind of poor contract management that I have been talking about. The important point is that we pay for results. Equally, we should reward those companies that are helping the most difficult.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely good points, and I hope that the Opposition are listening carefully. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) keeps referring to private contracts, but the Lord Chancellor has confirmed twice today that probation trusts can bid for those contracts in conjunction with someone who can take the financial risk. Does she agree that the hon. Gentleman should stop slagging off the private sector?

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my next point. We have been talking about private versus public, but it is not like that. We are not just talking about the Sercos and the G4Ss. We want public servants to come together and create mutuals. We are most effective when we all work in partnership. The “us and them” culture perpetuated by the Opposition does nothing to improve outcomes for anyone, whether in jobs, tackling reoffending or anything else. This stale thinking has had its day. We are in the 21st century, not the 20th.

Police and crime commissioners will have a massive role in bringing together successful partnerships to bid for contracts. I pay tribute to an imaginative approach in my constituency, spearheaded by the police and crime commissioner, working with the youth offending team. The team had to find a new home. One of our police stations had closed. The PCC brought together a partnership between the council and the youth offending team, which enabled the re-opening of the police station, with a front-facing desk, that also provided a secure working environment for the team and its clients. That is a great example of partnership working and of how police and crime commissioners can make a difference. I commend what the Government are doing on this agenda.

Transforming Legal Aid

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

This settlement will be for four years, plus, potentially, one additional year from 2015, so it will take us into the foreseeable future. Of course, competitive tendering was Labour’s idea. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for not making the point about the thresholds. We will agree the quality thresholds that need to be crossed by bidders with the profession, so that we get something that guarantees what we all agree is the necessary level to ensure that a quality service is provided. It is worth saying, however, that legal qualifications in this country are among the best in the world, so if someone is legally qualified, I regard them already as blue chip.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has listened carefully to the consultation on the original Labour idea of competitive tendering. He has achieved the necessary savings, he has ensured that only those with a strong connection to the UK can access taxpayer-funded—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, the shadow Secretary of State has been chuntering away in a loud voice for most of this session, so may I finish without his interrupting me further? The Secretary of State has ensured that only those with a strong connection to the UK can access taxpayer-funded protection and he has looked after the interests of capable local legal firms in Gloucester. My constituents will welcome the changes. I regret only that the shadow Secretary of State is not capable of joining us in welcoming what has been announced today.

[Chris Grayling]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s support and his comments, and I am very grateful to him for them. The big problem that Labour Members have is that they were looking forward to an autumn of attacking the Government but we have a sensible set of proposals with which, I hope, most people will agree. That is Labour’s difficulty today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

1. What recent estimate she has made of the amount of money spent by the national lottery on good causes.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Approximately £30 billion has been raised for good causes since John Major’s Government introduced the national lottery in 1994.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Many people across the country will not necessarily know that the huge increase in Sport England funding for sports facilities through the Inspired Facilities fund was generated by the change this Government made to the lottery funding, and I am very grateful for it. Last week, he saw, with me, the huge improvements made at our newly regenerated Gloucester athletics track and the case prepared by the Gloucester rowing club to make to Sport England. Does he agree that both those things will represent a fantastic Olympic legacy for my city?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, I do. One of the best things we have done is to raise the amount of money sport receives through the national lottery, from 13.7% when we came to power to 20% now. That has allowed improvements such as the ones my hon. Friend has detailed, and I congratulate him on his leadership in his constituency and the great work being done by volunteers in all those clubs.

Policing

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). She made a thoughtful speech and although I did not necessarily agree with everything she said, I have an image of the hon. Lady on a horse single-handedly fighting crime in Wigan. I hope it will not come to that but, if it does, I am sure she will do a wonderful job.

The elections for police and crime commissioner are incredibly important. When the proposals were first suggested I was a little nervous about them because of the cost involved in putting the elections together. However, as the campaign developed—a very vigorous election campaign is going on in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire at the moment—I became sold on the reforms for a number of reasons.

I was interested in comments by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who said, I think, that if turnout is low, we should perhaps consider revisiting the issue and look at whether we should abolish the proposals. If that is the case, I simply point to low turnouts in European parliamentary elections—I would support the right hon. Gentleman were he to propose abolishing the European Parliament on the basis of turnout alone. I do not think, however, that we should necessarily read too much into the turnout figures, and there are plenty of councillors up and down the country who were elected on a low turnout. Given the timing of the elections, I believe there will be a reasonable turnout in the former county of Humberside area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, there is appetite for the elections in our area.

Replacing the police authority had become necessary. In 10 years serving as a local councillor, I never served as a member of the police authority, and nor did my Labour or Conservative ward colleagues. Therefore, the residents of the ward I represented never had a direct link into the Humberside police authority. Some people were fortunate enough to have a councillor who happened to be on the police authority, but the likelihood of that happening was minimal.

Similarly, police authorities could not be held to account at the ballot box, because most members were not elected members of local authorities, and independent appointees and people from the Home Office were also members. I never bought the idea that the police authority was electable. I suspect that many more of the good burghers of Brigg and Goole can name the candidates for the PCC elections than can name the last chairman of the police authority.

That is partly owing to the fact that Lord Prescott is doing what the Government want—he is ensuring a high-profile campaign in Humberside. I have found a good appetite in east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire for the elections. People want to know why somebody who spent £500 million trying to close our regional FiReControl should get the job. They want to know why somebody who spent £60,000 on foreign trips should get the job. They want to know why somebody wants the job when, in the Yorkshire Post in August this year, he described his current job in the following terms:

“The House of Lords is a bit like a job centre, you have to go down there to get paid expenses, and it just gets totally tiring.”

I can understand why the people of Brigg and Goole want to know why that man should have the job.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises some good points. He is absolutely right that interest in the candidates for the election is very high. Many of my constituents want to know why the wife of the former Member of Parliament for Gloucestershire, who campaigned specifically to abolish to Gloucestershire constabulary, is now standing to be the police commissioner for that very force. Does my hon. Friend agree that some curiosities are emerging?

[Andrew Percy]

All I can say in response to my hon. Friend is that you literally could not make it up. It gets more ridiculous by the day.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes has made clear, the Conservatives have a very good candidate. They have lit the touch paper on the campaign locally with an exciting idea to charge drunks for wasting police time—that very good proposal needs to be explored. The shadow Minister talked about raising the turnout. I do not want him to come to Brigg and Goole, but he should visit my website, where he can learn of the vigorous campaign in the area. We have had a lot of street surgeries in Brigg and Goole, and many of my constituents have received four or five communications in the past few months. We are finding that there is a lot of interest, and we have a responsibility to try to get the turnout up.

The right hon. Gentleman might find—because of the high-profile Labour candidate and the exciting ideas of the Conservative candidate—that there is an appetite for the campaign. It might not manifest itself in an 80% to 90% turnout on 15 November, and I am not pretending we will get to those figures, but people know about the election, and if they want to take part in it, they can.

As I have said, I served as a local councillor for 10 years in my area. In some ways, the previous Government’s record on crime was very good. I was a bit nervous about the introduction of PCSOs and wondered what would happen, but it was a very good idea. I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work on PCSOs. However, it is not quite as has been presented. As I pointed out in an intervention, there was a reduction in police numbers in the Humberside force area back in 2007, but we did not see a single Labour Member locally campaigning against it. Labour Members now campaign against reductions in police numbers, but in 2007 they made the case for removing police officers and replacing them with civilians.

Although good things happened on crime under the previous Government, there was a 400% to 500% increase in the local police precept. The good people of east Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire could not hold anyone to account for that directly. When they get a police and crime commissioner, they will at least be able to hold to account the person who is charging them for their local policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by paying particular tribute to the officers of Bedfordshire police force who police my Luton constituency, and to the officers who police this place, too. We see so many of them that we sometimes forget to acknowledge them. There are serving police officers putting themselves on the front line to protect us even today in this House. They should be properly respected, but also properly resourced.

I think it was Churchill who said that we shape our buildings and then our buildings shape us. I, for one, having been a Member of Parliament for the last two and a half years, have been incredibly proud to sit in this Chamber. I do not believe that it should be rebuilt in some kind of circular fashion. I believe there is something fundamentally decent and good about the way in which we do our governance in this country, whereby we sit on one Bench and the Government sit on the other, and we try to assume their roles, as they will one day assume ours. That, however, should not be our model for understanding how to do something as complex and as important as policing.

I deeply regret the politicisation of the police, and I deeply regret the fact that we were unsuccessful when we marched through the Division Lobbies to try to defeat those proposals which, in my view, represent the worst of all possible worlds. We are where we are; I acknowledge that. In a moment, I will say a few words about the context of Bedfordshire and the choices people face as they go to the polls on 15 November.

I fundamentally believe that there is something problematic about taking this route to politicise the police in this manner. Why do I say that? The other day, I met my area’s chief constable, who is called Alf Hitchcock—we had some sniggers earlier, but that is genuinely his name. He is a fantastic chief constable. I went to see him to talk about contemporary policing issues, and it was stated that the election campaign would begin to skew our view and our public statements on the quality and standard of policing. This applies not just in the run-up to the election—many of us across the House will have made the link in our own thoughts—but after the election, too, for the subsequent three and a half years. We will start to view our policing through that lens, based on who has been elected and who has not. I hope that we can aspire to a greater place than that in our political life. The reality is that the rules, like the buildings, are shaped and then they will begin to shape us. This model of doing policing will change how we approach policing locally. I deeply regret that.

I regret it, too, because of the door that is opened. Those who are ideologically committed to pushing through the reforms have now fled the scene—on foot or by plane to California. They have taken the view that by putting these reforms in place we would get good-quality independent candidates, but the reality is that with a deposit set at £5,000, that will not happen. In my Bedfordshire police authority area, we have an English Defence League candidate who was arrested this weekend, yet he will still be on the ballot paper because he is out on bail. There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that brings us to that stage, when we are dealing with the people who—day in, day out—defend us and defend the most marginalised in our communities.

To deal briefly with the Bedfordshire context, there are two clear and pressing issues. Others have talked about the impact of 20% police cuts. I believe that we should not elect someone who is a cheerleader for those cuts. I believe we should elect candidates right across the country who say that they will work collectively to put pressure on the Home Office to realise the folly of what it is doing. We should not elect candidates who are simply willing to outsource everything as a solution to those cuts. In Bedfordshire, Olly Martins is the Labour candidate, a fantastic candidate. He has pledged publicly that the option to outsource back-office functions to G4S—the same organisation that got us into such difficulty with the Olympics when the police had to be brought in to bail it out—will be off the table if he is elected. He will stand against the Tories’ 20% cuts.

[Richard Graham]

I want the House to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying about police delivery and police expenditure. In the county of Gloucestershire last year, costs went down by 4% and crime went down by 4%. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer to say to my constituents, “We want to see expenditure up, crime up and your council bills going up as well”? Is that the message he would like to give out?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I fear that the hon. Lady will share the frustration of the Opposition Front-Bench team. We will make clear the position on the victims commissioner along with all the other victims and witness issues when we properly respond to the consultation that we have just engaged with on our policies.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T7. Will the Minister say when the review of the justice needs of Gloucestershire will be finished? Given that both the Crown and the magistrates courts in Gloucester are top of the list for replacement in the south-west of England, will he confirm that his Department will look closely at the proposal, which he knows I strongly advocate, for a new justice centre that brings together courts, tribunal and police station in the heart of Gloucester’s Barbican site?

[Mr Djanogly]

I have of course met my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and discussions about the court and tribunal estate in the Gloucester area are ongoing. Our aim is to achieve an estate of appropriate capacity to meet the business need, and which is also efficient and less costly to run. We continually review our estate to ensure that it is well utilised and offers the best possible quality of service and facilities that we are able to provide for our users.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

1. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

4. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

6. What plans he has to promote work in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

As I have said, we are building on the great work that is already being done, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The purpose of prisons, it seems to me, is first to punish for crime, and secondly to reform as many criminals as possible. The second aim has been neglected in recent years, but the kind of work that my hon. Friend describes ought to be replicated as much as possible throughout the system, and that is the end towards which we are working.

[Richard Graham]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. He knows about the existing business in Her Majesty’s prison Gloucester, where prisoners repair bicycles which a charity then sends to Africa. It is a not-for-profit business. How does my right hon. and learned Friend think we could ensure that if the business were profitable it would not undercut businesses outside the prison, bearing in mind that paying the minimum wage might set a precedent in regard to other rights for prisoners?

[Mr Clarke]

One of the things about which we try to be scrupulous is ensuring that work in prisons does not undercut the work done by businesses employing honest employees outside. We would not be able to persuade organisations such as the CBI and our private sector partners to work with us if they thought that we were undercutting British competitors. We will not pay the minimum wage, because the taxpayer would find that he or she was footing the bill for it all. However, the costs of running a business in prison are considerable because of the security that is imposed. We intend to ensure, by means of a code of practice, that fair and proper competition is maintained and that we do not undercut ordinary honest businesses.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I always believe that policy is best judged by results and that half the fuss that surrounds policy making completely fails to predict what will go right and wrong thereafter. I firmly believe—I am quite confident—this package of policies will not have the results that the hon. Gentleman fears, but we will both know in four years’ time. The whole purpose of the policies is to achieve the precise opposite of what he holds up as a possible outcome. We had to have radical reform, and it has to be carried forward in a business-like and sensible way to deliver a criminal justice system and access to civil justice of the kind we require.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today that serious sexual offenders, such as those recently convicted for rape and assault in Barton street and Eastgate street in Gloucester, will now serve two thirds of their sentence in jail, rather than half. They will also welcome the fact that illegal immigrants will no longer have access to taxpayer-funded legal aid. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that successful drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes run by organisations such as the Nelson Trust near my constituency in Stroud have an important role to play in these new policies?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is far more sensible to have an appropriate determinate sentence, and serious sexual and violent offenders—those serving longer sentences—should go back to having to serve two thirds before being eligible for release. Indeed, if the Parole Board thinks that they should not be released, they should probably serve their whole term. That is far superior to the lottery of the IPP that we have at the moment. I strongly agree that we must do something to encourage the many people in the voluntary sector who want to work with ex-offenders and can successfully help those who can be rehabilitated to get themselves out of a life of crime.

Sentencing

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

The consultation ended on 4 March this year, and we made our concerns clear back in December. I shall deal with the timeline in a moment, because it is relevant to the spinning that has taken place over the past seven days.

Under our current system, if a guilty plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity, there is discretion for a sentence to be reduced by up to one third. The later in the process the guilty plea is entered, the smaller the reduction becomes. There is a discount of a quarter if the plea is entered once the trial date is set, and a discount of a tenth when it is entered at the door of the court at the time of the trial. As I said earlier, there is a discount of 20% if the plea is entered at the first opportunity but there is overwhelming evidence against the defendant.

I accept that a sentence discount represents a tension between the delivery of justice and the improving of efficiency in the legal system, but that tension can potentially bring benefits to victims who are spared the trauma of a long period in court. Up until now, the system has always sought certainty that the right balance is being struck. If the sentence reduction is too great, it threatens to undermine the principles of sentencing and public confidence in the system. Worse still, it may mean that justice is not being served.

The Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle” proposed a maximum discount of 50% for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. No. 10 and the Lord Chancellor would like us to believe that they are in full consultation mode and are simply “flying a kite” about changing the current practice. I accept that there has been consultation on the proposal, but the Lord Chancellor’s decision to accept a 23% cut in his budget has led to a fixation with reducing the prison population. That fixation has overridden all other objectives, and shows just how out of touch the Government have become. They want to reduce prison numbers not because crime is being reduced or because fewer people need to be in jail, but quite simply because of money.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

In the light of his accusation that the only motivation for the Government’s offer of consultation with options is reducing the prison population, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that between 2007 and 2010, his party’s Government released early the equivalent of the entire current prison population of 80,000?

[Sadiq Khan]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is not misleading the House intentionally or recklessly, but, as he knows, the maximum time off on end-of-custody licences was 18 days. We are not talking about an additional 17%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Of all the points that have been made, that is the silliest. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that it is silly to expect a Member to respond to every consultation document when he has other opportunities to make his views known, such as asking questions of the Justice Secretary on the Floor of the House, speaking to the Justice Secretary, and speaking to the Opposition.

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether I correctly heard what the right hon. Gentleman said? Did he accuse me of misleading the House in the figures I mentioned in my question to him?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I recall, the right hon. Gentleman said quite the reverse: he said you were not misleading the House intentionally.

[Richard Graham]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Did the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that what I said was factually accurate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

To save a bit of time, let me say that it might be more appropriate for that question to be asked in an intervention on the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am afraid I have no idea what that point of order was about, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman will have a fourth chance to intervene in a while.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me make some progress.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have made some progress.

The consultation period ended on 4 March, so there is no more time for the public to have their say, and it appears that experts and stakeholders who voiced their opposition have been ignored. Last Tuesday morning, the Cabinet Sub-Committee signed off the policy, and last Tuesday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) asked in Justice questions how giving half off a sentence would help to protect the public. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) replied. He did not say the proposal was still under consultation, or that it was being considered only for non-violent, non-serious or non-sexual offences. He said:

“I would have thought that a moment’s reflection would make that clear. Let us suppose that someone who is accused of rape co-operates with the authorities…That is one example where there is a definitive benefit”.—[Official Report, 17 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 140.]

By the bye, when the Lord Chancellor seeks to blame others for trying to introduce “sexual excitement” into the debate, he should look not at journalists or Labour Members, but at his Front-Bench team.

If there was any doubt that this Government had already made up their mind about this policy, the Lord Chancellor’s answer to my question in last Tuesday’s Justice questions made the position clear. When I pleaded with him to reconsider this proposal, praying in aid not just the Labour party, but judges, victims’ groups and the Government’s own victims commissioner, he said that it would “survive” the consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman, who knows this area very well, will know that the proposals, which we know have been approved, are for all crimes. If they had been for classes of crime, we could have had a debate about whether or not crime A was in the right category, but this discount of a maximum of 50% is to apply in respect of all crimes. He is right to raise the issue of a broad-brush approach being taken to save money.

[Richard Graham]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I will, because the hon. Gentleman has been trying to get in.

[Richard Graham]

The shadow Justice Secretary said earlier that he had not quite followed my point, so I will give him a second chance to answer it. The proposal I put to him was that between 2007 and 2010 his party released more than 80,000 prisoners early, 16,000 of whom had committed violent crimes—that figure of more than 80,000 is equivalent to the entire current prison population. So before he and his party get too pious about their track record, will he confirm whether these facts are true or not?

[Sadiq Khan]

It is a fact that the previous Government released prisoners 18 days early once they had been through the hoops. However, violent criminals, people on the sexual offenders list and people accused of terrorist offences were not released early, and these people were released a maximum of 18 days early and on licence. The hon. Gentleman will also know that on four occasions during the previous Conservative Government prisoners were released early without the checks and balances that we conducted.

[Richard Graham]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

I think that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s point on more than one occasion and I want to make some progress.

We also know that the Government had originally scheduled tomorrow—the last day before recess—to be the day on which they published their response to the Green Paper. So when the Prime Minister says at Prime Minister’s questions that this is only a consultation, when No. 10 says that the Ministry of Justice is merely “flying a kite” and when we are told that this is not an across the board reduction in sentence, we know that that is not the case.

I wish to spend some time talking about why Labour Members believe that the whole House should support our motion and reject this policy. The Green Paper, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate, in last week’s Justice questions, and the Lord Chancellor, on BBC’s “Question Time”, have all said that the maximum 50% discount would apply to all crimes. So it will apply to grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, rape, burglary, muggings, death by dangerous driving and all the other crimes that we can all think of that have such a miserable impact on communities up and down the country. Let us consider the impact of the proposals on some sentences. A convicted rape offender could be back on the streets after only 15 months. Someone convicted of causing actual bodily harm where the assault is premeditated and it results in relatively serious injury could end up serving three months in prison. Criminals convicted of burglary when the occupier is at home could serve as little as 10 weeks in prison. In the case of very serious crimes, where sentences are longer, the additional 17% rise in the discount might have the greatest impact. In such circumstances, an additional 17% translates into reductions of years.

Public Disorder (NUS Rally)

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I am sure the Metropolitan Police Commissioner will have noted my hon. Friend’s views in respect of any allegations of criminal behaviour. Not only will the commissioner be reviewing the deployment of police officers in such circumstances, but, as he repeated to me this morning, he is determined to ensure that the perpetrators of the violence, wherever they came from, are brought to justice.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the remarks made on television yesterday by the university of London union president were irresponsible and tarnished the reputation of responsible trade unions, and that Opposition Members who signed a coalition of resistance with ULU about direct occupation of buildings should withdraw from that association?

[Nick Herbert]

I did not see the remarks to which my hon. Friend refers, and I would be grateful if he would send them to me. Anybody who incites a criminal act in any way should expect to face the consequences, and the police cannot, and must not, tolerate the actions of anybody who either was directly involved in violence, intimidation or criminal damage yesterday, or incited that behaviour.