Cutting Crime (Justice Reinvestment)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the paucity of information that is available for sentencers. It is worrying that we rely on the public spiritedness, intelligence and inquisitiveness of judges and magistrates to determine the problems in their localities and reflect them in local sentencing, but there is no system to give them access to proper objective evidence and information. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted that point.

[Alun Michael]

We went through a period when sentencers were almost discouraged from going to see what was happening. In my time on the bench, which was quite a long time ago, I used to spend time, particularly with respect to youth justice, going to see where we were sending people. That included community as well as custodial disposals. It was invaluable. Under the previous Government, we moved back to encouraging sentencers to engage in an understanding of the places where people were to go. However, it is clear from work done by charities that more could be done, and that not enough is known, particularly by judges, who have a disproportionate influence, through the training programme, on the decisions of magistrates. They set the tone. A lot needs to be done in that area.

Incidentally, the issue of purpose arose elsewhere. The Committee also undertook an inquiry into the role of the prison officer, which overlapped with the later stages of the justice reinvestment work, and I want to draw attention to one of our conclusions:

“The aim of imprisonment should be to reduce re-offending, while treating prisoners with humanity and keeping them appropriately secure.”

That clarity of purpose should be reflected in the aims and objectives of the prison service, and in the way in which its activities are measured. If lots of other things are used as measures they get in the way of that overall objective.

It is important for us to mainstream the objective of reducing crime and reoffending. In the report on justice reinvestment we said:

“We are concerned that there has been low take-up of crime-related indicators in local areas and we believe that local strategic partnerships should better reflect the priority given to crime as a matter of public concern both nationally and locally.”

That is something that local MPs and councillors have, in my experience, always considered important, because it is important to their constituents. Therefore it is not impossible, if the information and data are adequate, to achieve coherence. There is a need for coherence across several Departments—we refer in the report to the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and others—to ensure the most appropriate allocation of resources to reduce crime. The report states:

“A considerable amount of management information about offenders is held locally by prisons, probation areas and other providers which, if captured centrally, would provide a wealth of material to support the case for cross-departmental reform.”

The idea that reform should be cross-departmental is important, because most of the resources that affect offending, for good or ill—the resources that, if applied in the right way, lead to a reduction in reoffending, or, if not properly applied, lead to a likely increase—lie outside the criminal justice system. That, too, is highlighted in the report.

One of the things that worries me most at present is the decision made in rather too much of a rush by the incoming Government to cut the support for, and the pledge to, unemployed young people. I do not say that just to be oppositional. I came into national politics because I worked with unemployed young people and saw their hopelessness. It was what led me to decide we needed to change things nationally. That is going back to the 1980s. I believe that the end of the pledge was foolish and short-sighted, but, more to the point, in relation to the criminal justice system, it may turn out to be a very expensive step. It was meant to save money, but I believe it will prove expensive. The drivers of offending and reoffending, or the things that can reduce them, are education or the lack of qualifications, basic skills and employment-related skills; drug rehabilitation or its inadequacy; mental health—we know that mental health problems are the trigger for the activities of many people who end up in prison; and housing. Those are the four drivers of the apocalypse of reoffending, so to speak. There is a need somehow to connect those four areas of provision and efforts to reduce reoffending.

If I were to include a fifth element it would be relationships. We underestimate the extent to which relationships or their lack, or failure, drive offending and reoffending. There is a connection between those things and the other four drivers. I suggest that, for instance—and this came out in the report on prisons—trying to turn prisons into learning establishments where prison officers and prisoners share the sense of the importance of learning opportunities would make an enormous difference. I heard on the “Today” programme a couple of weeks ago a reference to a protest in America, where local people objected to the fact that prisoners were being given greater educational opportunities than prison officers. The result was that educational provision for the prisoners was reduced. The obvious thing would have been to increase the educational opportunity for prison officers and turn that into a shared preoccupation. I have certainly come across prison officers with a passion for education and a wish for learning, who care about what they are doing. I suggest that that approach would make a great difference.

My other particular concern at present is last week’s announcement of the ending of the Youth Justice Board. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that he hoped its work would continue elsewhere. He acknowledged that the work of the youth offending teams, bringing the different professions together in tackling youth offending, has been quite successful. My worry is about the fact that the expertise on youth offending and what can work in tackling it does not lie in Departments. It is not the sort of thing that civil servants do well. They are good on policy development, and so on, but from ministerial experience, I would say they do not have the professional expertise that the Youth Justice Board provided in support of the youth offending teams. We need that expertise somehow to be reinstituted, or the Minister may find that the effectiveness of work with young offenders starts to move backwards.

Justice reinvestment is not about massively increasing the resources that we put into the criminal justice system. Indeed, it is potentially about reducing them by using the available resources in a much more targeted and effective way. It is therefore an approach that should be attractive to the Government, just as it provoked a positive response from the previous Government. Does that mean that we have a boring consensus across party lines? No, I think that we had a very exciting convergence of views in the Select Committee, driven by the evidence rather than by the media. That is in the public interest, for three reasons: first, it is in the interest of good administration and governance; secondly, it makes the best use of available resources and stops demand for them getting out of hand—and we have seen how great the risk is, under successive Governments, of the demand for prison resources in particular getting out of hand; and thirdly, it delivers on the victim-centred agenda of reducing the likelihood that people will become victims a second or third time.

The Justice Committee’s report is the product of remarkable consensus among Members of Parliament in the four main parties. The members of the Committee put in a considerable amount of time. That was true not only of the Chairman but also, on the Conservative side, the new Chairman of the Treasury Committee—there should be an ally there—the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), and on the Labour Benches myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). When we came to the writing of the report we expected we would be up against it. We expected a degree of cross-party controversy. However, perhaps it says something about the quality of the evidence and about the considerable investment of time in the inquiry over two years, as the Chairman of the Committee said, that we found ourselves in passionate agreement at the end.

I revert to comments by Professor Jonathan Shepherd, cited in paragraph 309 of the report, who

“advocated offender management schools and institutes in research intensive universities, similar to the police school model, and argued that such institutions can be cost-neutral.”

In analysing crime—what causes crime and what can drive it down—methodology is absolutely crucial. That is central, as well as a proper understanding of the actual experience of crime at a local level. The way forward is to put correct methodology at the centre, then trusting people to apply it locally, understanding the needs of their community and communicating those needs and the methods with which they are approaching them. That is precisely the approach to transparency and accountability that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) asked me to underline. The justice reinvestment report offers an agenda that it would be wise for Government and Opposition to support in the coming months and years.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this timely debate, bearing in mind not only yesterday’s announcement but the ongoing nature of the debate on an important area of public policy.

The judiciary have had strong views about this area of public policy for a number of months, if not years. It is no secret that for some time prison governors had expressed their concerns about what they regarded as the overuse of short-term prison sentences, namely those of 12 months or less, because they are ineffective in managing offenders in the prison estate and at dealing with the all-important statistic of reoffending within six months of release from sentence. That is where the public interest lies, which is what I was delighted to hear other speakers, such as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), Chair of the Committee on which I now serve, emphasising. The public rightly demand protection, certainty and reassurance that the system is doing everything that it can to manage out reoffending.

We are moving away from talking about targets and more towards talking about outcomes, but no matter which word is used, the reoffending figures are where it is at. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) got it almost right with his reference to the Diamond project—he was with me at an interesting session a couple of weeks ago. The preliminary evidence from the Diamond project is dramatic—“preliminary” was stressed, because the work is ongoing, with the pilot due to end in March next year. Figures of 28% reoffending are extraordinary, bearing in mind the depressing litany of statistics with which we all are familiar. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for having brought into the full glare of publicity the concerns of the judiciary, prison governors and everyone—such as me until my election—who is heavily involved in the criminal justice system.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is absolutely right: there needs to be a consensus, even at the risk of that being dull. I would go further than him and say that the old debates about toughness and softness, which have plagued the issue since about the mid-1990s, have really had their day. Instead we should be talking about whether we are being smart on crime or stupid—dumb, if preferred—on crime. That is where the debate should be, where the battle lines should be drawn and what we need to be focusing on.

I was not a member of the previous Committee, which produced the report, but I have read its recommendations and the Government response carefully. The Government response, although I accept that the current Minister is not responsible for those utterances—I am sure he is glad that I remind the Chamber of that—represented a missed opportunity. The report was from a Committee of the House that included senior Members and former Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, who could use not only their experience in office but their experience of many years in the House and in their constituencies.

However, I am delighted that Cardiff was mentioned, because I practised for many years as a member of the Bar in that city, in the Crown court, and know intimately the problems and challenges facing the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman and others.

I was disappointed that, instead of a frank owning up to some of the deficiencies in the system, we had an over-defensive approach in the Government response.

[Claire Perry]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose constituency of South Swindon is next door to mine, for giving way.

There is so much evidence of interesting, innovative programmes, which we have discussed in Committee. Is my hon. Friend aware of the Vision Housing project in London, which aims to house ex-offenders and which is delivering the most extraordinary reduction in reoffending by providing one of the very things mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael)—stable housing upon release for ex-offenders? What is the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon as to why, with all this evidence for and cross-party commitment to making changes in the system, we still seem to be stuck in an old model with the National Offender Management Service and the Prison Service? We are not prepared to embrace the innovation that we all see out there every day.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend hit on an important point about NOMS. While we welcome the dedicated and hard work of members of NOMS, some of us wonder whether the synthesis between dealing with offenders in the prison estate and offenders in the community was ever achieved by NOMS. That was one of its purposes. It was to look in an overarching way at the whole system, and to provide some synthesis which, frankly, has not happened.

Tempting as it is to lament the rise and fall of various quangos—some speakers referred to this but, with respect to them, that misses the point—their best point, which the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned, is that we must not lose the expertise and knowledge of the people who worked so hard within those bodies. The Minister, I am sure, has taken that point very much on board in the case of the Youth Justice Board.

I make the point now, I hope clearly, that we must remember that youth justice ought to be treated in a discrete, separate way. It is not appropriate to meld the system of youth justice in with that of adult justice. They are two different beasts, which require two different approaches, and we must not forget that. At the same time, the issue of transition between the youth justice system and the adult system can be difficult—practically, for sentences, in terms of the gymnastics that they have to go through in remembering which particular regime fits what. My point is that the public interest is best served, when it comes to young offenders, by the sort of focused, early-intervention approach that I know everyone in the Chamber and in the wider community supports.

My point is about the public interest and how it is best served. I have talked about reoffending rates, but will now look in some detail at the part of the report that dealt with confidence in community sentences. That has been the issue about which politicians have danced for many years. They have worried about weak community sentences being poorly monitored and implemented, resulting in higher rates of reoffending.

The question of confidence is key here, but how do we achieve that? We have already been shown several important pointers, such as the Diamond project. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the issue, but it is important that we reiterate it. Community sentences will fail if they are not properly policed, and they will be ineffective if they are not adequately monitored. There are some good examples of community sentences that work. For example, the drug rehabilitation requirement sentence, which is a high-intensity sentence, involves a regular review—it can be monthly or it can be held at less frequent intervals—by a Crown court judge or magistrate. Under such regimes, judges will see defendants on a regular basis and open up a dialogue with them. They will challenge the defendant if the requirement is not being met and assist them if a particular issue needs to be addressed, such as non-compliance because of work restrictions or requirements or problems with a methadone prescription if the defendant has been convicted of possessing or supplying a controlled drug. Such sentences are having a really positive impact on not only the individuals themselves but the communities in which they live.

The power to review sentences regularly already exists in section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The Government, in their response to the Committee, referred to their piloting of the use of section 178 in a range of different orders. I am interested to know—I will forgive the Minister if he does not have an answer today—the results of that pilot. I want to know the extent of it and the different types of orders that were used. It seems that if we give judges more involvement in the policing of community sentences, it will have a greater impact on the offender and go a long way towards promoting confidence in our sentencing regime.

The Diamond project used a range of mechanisms to enforce compliance with the order. Police officers or community support officers regularly knock on the doors of the homes of offenders to ensure that they attend the community project. We were looking at unpaid work in Lambeth the other day. We discussed how the scheme worked and we met offenders and former offenders who were working in the project. The input of former offenders—the euphemism nowadays is service users, which is relevant in this context—was vital, because they had gone through the system, come out successfully and were not reoffending. They were, I suppose, setting an example to those on the current order who, at times, were having difficulties or issues. It was wonderful to see people of experience assisting those who were on the order.

We spoke to some of those on the unpaid work scheme. Most of them understood the purpose of the order. They knew that it was not just about them and their rehabilitation but about their punishment. One gentleman I spoke to—I will not quote him out of court—did not quite get that point. It is important to hold such conversations because it helps us to understand the nature of punishment in our society.

For many years, the role of punishment in the criminal justice system has been hotly debated. Many protagonists say that punishment has no role in the criminal justice system, but, with respect, they entirely misunderstand where we are with punishment now. Their view of punishment comes from the 19th century, and we have moved on a long way since then. Punishment encapsulates not just custody and loss of liberty but a range of approaches that can be taken within the community. The example I would give is the one alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed when he mentioned one of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Justice Select Committee last week. The witness talked about her wish to be challenged by probation officers. Challenging people’s behaviour and facing up to them is a modern form of punishment. I am talking not about having a cuddly cup of tea but about saying, “Look, what you are doing is wrong. The way you are behaving is inappropriate. What are you going to do about it?” That is challenging the individual to face up to what they have done, to understand why they did it and to move on to be a better citizen.

It is wholly artificial to divide punishment from rehabilitation and public protection. The truth is that they all elide to. In many ways, getting the punishment right will ensure that the offender is rehabilitated and the public are protected.

I come back now to the point that I made at the beginning of my address, which is that the public interest is best served by a system that results in a lower rate of reoffending. That is why justice reinvestment is common sense. It not only saves the Exchequer massive amounts of revenue and protects the public but makes better citizens of those people who end up in the system.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made a vital point about access to information about local rates of offending, where the hotspots are and what the problems are. It is vital that sentencers—the judiciary and lay magistracy—have full access to the hard facts, because it will help them reflect local sentencing priorities. I am not saying that Cardiff has a particular problem. In fact, it is very well managed by Jonathan Shepherd, the University Hospital of Wales and the local police. There are other parts of the world in which crimes of violence are still a huge problem. The public of those particular towns or cities demand, quite rightly, that sentences be passed to reflect those problems.

[Alun Michael]

Although I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, there is another side to the coin. If people see the correct trends—what is actually happening—that can inspire more confidence, too. For example, St Mellons had very high burglary levels at one period. Much was done and there was a massive drop. If we hear that there has been a slight incremental rise in the area, and we look at it against a 10 or 15-year perspective, we see that it is only a slight ripple rather than a major increase. It is just as important to give the good news to local communities as it is to identify hotspots.

[Mr Buckland]

Absolutely. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the matter in context. I have been talking about the end result—clearing up the spilled milk—but a lot of the targeting work is all about intervention to manage out the problem. That is a very important point here. A lot of the work that the Committee did was about not just looking at the end result of sentencing but intervening at an earlier stage to get it right and to avoid having to rely on a criminal justice system that does not always deal with problems appropriately, particularly when it comes to young offenders. The restorative justice concept is a prime example of the alternative approach.

I will end by reminding the Minister of the meeting that we had some weeks ago in Birmingham with key players in mental health. It was a very productive round-table discussion, hosted by the National Centre for Mental Health. We were lucky to be joined by senior consultant forensic psychiatrists and the mother of a young man who, as a result of serious drug problems, ended up with a mental health problem and was treated inappropriately by the criminal justice system.

I make this plea—I hope that the Minister will forgive me for making it because he has heard it from me before, but I make no apology for that—that we must get the diversionary therapies and methods absolutely right when it comes to mental health, not only in the Crown court and the magistrates court, in terms of making it easier for sentencers to pass mental health treatment conditions as part of a community order, but at the police station too. That means ensuring that if a desk sergeant or even a duty solicitor or any person who comes into contact with an arrested person, an accused person or a suspect is able to have recourse to community psychiatric nursing help—[Interruption.] I do not know if the person who is in charge of the amplification system wanted me to make that point more clearly. [Laughter.] However, I am happy that it has been amplified and made more clearly.

The intervention of community psychiatric nursing at that level and the professional input of mental health services will go a long way to ensuring that people who have genuine mental health problems end up being treated appropriately rather than in a criminal justice system that far too often fails them, resulting in inappropriate prison sentences being imposed and in the alarming statistics that we are all depressingly familiar with regarding the number of people in our prisons who have mental health conditions.

At the top end of the scale, I would argue that the Mental Health Act provides very important and valuable services for those people with acute mental health problems. However, it is more towards the middle and the bottom end of the scale that the system is, I am afraid, quite simply deficient.

It is very much a question of commissioning. The Minister will agree with me that collaborative work with the Department of Health is essential if we are to get the mental health services that we need. So I urge him to do all he can as a member of the new Government to ensure that, by the time we get to the new commissioning regime next year, mental health services are at the top of the list when it comes to new provision.

On that note, I conclude my remarks, Mrs Main, and I am very grateful to you.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to say that we are having the sound issues tackled. I also want to say that I will call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 4.50 pm, followed by the Minister. Can those Members who wish to speak before then be mindful of that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I detected a degree of contradiction in how the hon. Gentleman presented his question. He does not want to go as far as we would on the rehabilitation of offenders, but then asks us to go the distance. That is exactly what we will do. It would be wholly short-sighted to cut our capacity to deliver rehabilitation of offenders, and that is why we will enable a system that gets the whole country—including the voluntary, not-for-profit and the private sectors, as well as the existing state services—to work together to deliver effective rehabilitation of offenders and effect a step change in the delivery of what is a critical public service.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the provision of training for prison service staff on the management of offenders with mental health conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

Ministry of Justice and Department of Health Ministers and senior officials discuss offender health issues regularly. Over 17,000 prison officers received mental health awareness training between 2006 and 2009. A new mental health training framework was launched in 2009-10, which regional offender health teams now co-ordinate.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer and I am delighted to hear that his Department is working with the Department of Health. Will he do all that he can to work effectively with that Department to ensure the proper commissioning of mental health services, which will not only improve intervention in the police station, but ensure a wider range of effective sentences in our courts?

[Mr Clarke]

That is precisely what we want to do, and my hon. Friend’s approach is very much in the right direction. Much reform will take place in the Department of Health, including obviously the commissioning of services for mental health. It is important that account is taken of the need to commission proper services of all kinds for prisoners, and that is being taken on board by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his team. We will work closely with them. The present prison population includes people whose criminality goes alongside a definite need for support—in this case for mental health problems—which, if tackled successfully, might reduce their liability to reoffend.

Criminal Bar (Public Funding)

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

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

I apologise for being late, Mr Bone. I am afraid that public transport let me down.

I declare an interest as a criminal lawyer. I was called to the Bar in 2005 and practised criminal law from a firm of solicitors in Hull for a number of years. Shortly before my election to the House, I was in the latter stages of pupillage at my local chambers, of which I remain a member. I hope, therefore, to bring practical experience to the debate as both a junior member of the criminal Bar and a solicitor who has practised criminal law and been heavily reliant on public funding.

In the time allowed, I hope to dispel a couple of myths. The first is that publicly funded criminal lawyers are taking excessive sums from the public purse. In my experience, the opposite is true. Colleagues at the Bar work long hours and receive modest fees for their services. In preparing for this debate, I asked a criminal solicitor in Hull, Mr Waddington of Williamsons solicitors, what a 25% cut to his criminal practice would mean to his business. It is worth mentioning that Williamsons is the biggest criminal firm providing services to my constituents. Mr Waddington described the prospect of 25% cuts as “disastrous”, and greater cuts as “catastrophic”.

Although no one would expect Mr Waddington to clap his hands at such a prospect, it is important to mention that he was also concerned about access to justice for the most vulnerable. As a law-abiding citizen, as he put it, he was particularly concerned about the potential effects on innocent parties in criminal proceedings, such as victims of crime and witnesses who might be subject to cross-examination by unrepresented defendants if criminal solicitors and barristers were forced to refuse instructions.

In my experience, colleagues at the criminal Bar and solicitors do not feel that the previous Government were overly generous during the past 13 years, but the cuts threatened by the new Justice Secretary and the coalition Government are likely to force them to close their doors for good.

Despite the consistent accusations of irresponsible spending, it is indisputable that the previous Labour Government streamlined and made efficiency savings, especially in criminal legal aid. As recently as March, the previous Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), said:

“The Government strongly believe that there must be a significant restructuring of the provision of criminal defence services in order to achieve greater value for money from legal aid, while still ensuring fair access to justice and enabling legal aid providers to remain profitable and sustainable.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 13WS.]

That is a crucial point. The solicitors and barristers to whom I speak are genuinely concerned about their practices and about whether they will be sustainable after £2 billion of cuts to the Ministry of Justice budget.

It is true that the Labour Government carried out significant reform of legal aid. Most prominently, Lord Carter carried out a review of legal aid procurement, a key aim of which was to reduce criminal defence rates. Those were substantially reduced—by 13.5%—but I am not saying that what happened was perfect, because I am aware of examples where injustice resulted. Cutting costs is clearly a priority for the Government, but at what cost? The Justice Secretary has confirmed that his Department will play its part in reducing public spending, but I submit that legal aid has been stretched enough. If the coalition Government try to stretch legal aid yet further, I fear it will snap.

The Labour Government recognised that legal aid could not reasonably be exempt from efficiency savings and, of course, I recognise that the criminal legal aid bill is more than £1 billion. However, I urge the Government to consider a number of issues in the comprehensive spending review. Cuts to criminal legal aid may well lead to defendants being unable to access appropriate legal representation, because criminal practitioners will decide that enough is enough, and that may compel defendants to represent themselves. That will inevitably lead to the system being clogged up, as defendants battle through what is a procedural and legal minefield. Miscarriages of justice may result from poor-quality advocacy caused by defendants representing themselves, or by the inappropriate use of inexperienced advocates, and there may also be expensive delays in court time.

Cuts to legal aid for criminal cases have already encouraged the use of employed higher court advocates, who offer less experienced representation. Speaking from my experience as a criminal solicitor and, indeed, a junior member of the Bar, I can say that there are some good-quality higher court advocates. However, the truth is that the Bar is very special. The training for it is very different, and there is no comparison between higher court advocacy and barristers. The Bar is far superior because barristers do the job all the time. Higher court advocates will waltz into a Crown court once a fortnight or once a month, but a member of the Bar is there continually.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point about the lack of experience of higher court advocates. Would he agree that one of the absurdities of the Crown Prosecution Service’s obsession with using higher court advocates is that people who are highly qualified in terms of civil service work are taken out of the system and away from the work that they should be doing in reviewing cases? That work is then delegated to often less experienced assistants within the CPS. The public sector unions frequently complain about that current fad, because it puts employees within the CPS under pressure.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful for that intervention. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman or have put it better myself.

Criminal practitioners are still coming to terms with a number of the significant reforms introduced by the previous Government that have impacted on pay and the availability of work. In particular, the graduated fees scheme has led to solicitors keeping work in-house, rather than instructing the criminal Bar.

As I have said, there has been a real reduction in fees of 13.5% over three years. A 4.5% reduction took place this financial year, which is bound to have a significant impact. Regardless of the merits of the reforms, they have resulted in a considerable upheaval in the funding of the criminal Bar. That should be taken into account in any future review and in any decision that the Minister needs to take. Further cuts to criminal legal aid, whether to the criminal Bar or to criminal solicitors’ fees, will lead to the social exclusion of the most vulnerable at a time when they are already likely to be suffering cuts in other publicly funded services, on which they rely heavily.

In conclusion, the criminal Bar plays an essential role in maintaining a fair justice system. Further cuts to legal aid will result in an unfair system, with access to justice being available only to those who are able to pay for it. That will inevitably undermine democracy and justice. Given the lack of sympathy that the electorate will have for the offender, it seems too easy to attack criminal legal aid. However, there is a real danger of taking that less politically damaging action and, in doing so, seriously undermining the very foundation of our society. I am very proud of being a member of the Bar and of the traditions of the profession, which I respectfully submit are being put at risk by the actions that I believe will be taken by the Government. I therefore urge the coalition to carefully consider those points and to resist dropping the axe on criminal legal aid and on such essential services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate. I shall not attempt to claim anything like the level of detailed expertise that he and other hon. Members have on this subject, nor shall I be able to defend the livelihood of the criminal Bar quite as assiduously as they have this morning. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred to special pleading. I am not sure whether any of what has been said this morning falls into that category. I feel that perhaps my role here is to make it clear to anyone flicking through the TV channels who stumbles across this debate that they are not actually watching a courtroom drama.

I am pleased that the coalition programme includes a fundamental review of the legal aid system. That was inevitable and unavoidable, in today’s economic climate. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to the fact that we have the most generous system of legal aid in the common-law world. Of course, we should be proud of that, if all the money is being spent well.

I acknowledge that a comparison of the costs of our legal aid system and those incurred in inquisitorial systems is not necessarily straightforward because of the differences between the two. The basic principle, which I am sure that all of us support, is that, whatever the outcome of the comprehensive spending review as it relates to the legal aid system, we should not be in a position where people are not represented in criminal cases.

There are clearly some failings in the present system. All the previous speakers expressed concerns about the level of fees. As Members will know, if 50% of the legal aid budget is being spent on 1% of the cases, it may not be that the fees are excessively high but that perhaps the cases are taking longer than is necessary—not deliberately, but perhaps there is a slight incentive to ensure that they go on longer than is totally necessary. That needs to be looked at, particularly if it means that less funding is available for less high-profile cases in which we would also want people to be properly represented.

I assume that what the Prime Minister said about senior people working in the public sector earning a multiple of no more than 20 times what the lowest-paid workers in their field receive may impose some interesting restrictions on the level of fees that might be available to barristers doing work that is funded by legal aid. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that when he responds to the debate.

On another aspect that I am sure other Members are concerned about—the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon referred to the availability of legal aid in MPs’ expenses cases—the name van Hoogstraten will be familiar to all Members here today. The safest thing I can say is that he is a colourful gentleman. Estimates of his fortune vary widely—hundreds of millions would probably be a safe figure to quote—yet apparently he received £1.12 million in legal aid. I do not know whether there have been changes since he received that funding that would preclude that from happening now. Very helpfully, the hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, which indicates that perhaps nothing has changed, and that such funding would still be available to someone who claims that they have no cash assets—Mr van Hoogstraten’s assets had been frozen. We clearly have to address that.

[Mr Buckland]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

What sort of action can we take? If a small number of complex cases ties down half the available funding for legal aid, can anything be done to shorten the process without impacting on the quality of legal advice and the handling of the case? The difficult balance between setting the fees at a publicly acceptable level, and setting them at one that ensures that there are people able and willing to advocate, needs to be found. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will clarify his view on whether the Legal Services Commission has a better idea of the costs and profits associated with legal aid cases, to which other hon. Members referred. The Minister will know that the Legal Services Commission was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee.

There are no panaceas. Some have advocated no win, no fee arrangements as a solution, but, clearly, it is unlikely that anyone would want to pursue, on that basis, cases involving the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the problem of funding criminal legal aid cases, but does he accept that one problem is whether it is right to make people of means who are acquitted pay for their legal representation when they emerge from the court free and not guilty? We have to grapple with that question. Ultimately, although van Hoogstraten was convicted by a jury, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial and, for legal reasons, it was adjudged that there could be no further trial, so he is not, perhaps, the best example. We should focus on people of means who have been convicted. Finally, and I do not want to take up too much time, one problem is—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Buckland]

Forgive me.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

It is difficult when we have a room of lawyers, but interventions are supposed to be short.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am afraid that the Government have inherited a situation, for which I blame the previous Government, in which we must tackle these solutions against a background of not simply being able to wheel in more resources. The first step is to make cuts in wasteful expenditure now. I accept quite a large part of the hon. Gentleman’s analysis and we should also consider how we look across all Government Departments and all sectors—we must take into account health, housing, employment, education and training at the same time as we consider policing, justice and imprisonment—because the whole picture contributes to the broken society and tackling it will help to contribute to a less criminal society.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T2. In the light of the Legal Services Commission’s recent misallocation of duty solicitor scheme membership and duty rotas for criminal legal aid work, will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake an urgent review of the LSC’s continuing inefficiencies?

Defendant Anonymity

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a great honour to make a contribution to a debate that has been singularly well informed, not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who made a particularly useful contribution, but by the very powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who has an almost unique perspective on these matters. It is a perspective slightly different from mine: I spent many years slightly further down the food chain, dealing with both the prosecution and defence of serious sexual crimes in the Crown court, including the abuse of children, rape and other offences of a sexual nature, involving both males and females.

It is perhaps inevitable that a debate about defendant anonymity has been dominated by the issue of the treatment of the victims of rape and the investigation of that very serious crime. That is not a criticism—in fact, it is a rather welcome development. It is inevitable because the focus of the proposal in the coalition document was centred on rape. That was a mistake. The points made about broadening the ambit of the anonymity question are right. Perhaps the most important point made today, however, was the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe: the word “anonymity” is causing us a problem. It is taking us away from the real issue, which is the coverage and reporting of such cases, an issue that has been thrown into particular relief in recent years by the power of the electronic media and the internet.

For generations, local newspapers were, with the greatest of respect to them, the chip paper of tomorrow. They were easily forgotten—trashed, buried. However, the internet is not just for Christmas; it is for life. I am sure that we have all had constituents who were the victims of false allegations years and years ago, but who are haunted by the spectre of a Google search linking their name for ever with that false allegation. I am sure that we have all had cases of people pleading for help—some of them have mental health problems as a result of what happened to them. Let us not forget that none of the proposed changes to the law will help those people, which is why the point made some time ago by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—that this issue not only covers home affairs or justice, but is a media matter, for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—is so important.

The more I think about the issue, the more I come to the conclusion that we should be grappling with the equally difficult—indeed, perhaps somewhat more difficult—question of the power of the internet, and how to regulate it and seek in some way to expunge the names of those innocent individuals from that awful spectre of a Google search when, for example, they apply for jobs and find that their names are for ever besmirched. That is the problem that so many innocent people have to face, and it is a problem that we need to start talking about, and seeking to address and in some way solve.

I return to where we are in this debate. Recognising the problem that I have outlined, I think that reporting restrictions should surely not be confined to rape or sexual allegations generally. There are many scandalous allegations made against individuals—they have been well discussed today, but I shall not repeat them for fear of overstepping my time allocation. However, the point has been powerfully and simply made by many colleagues in all parts of the House that to try artificially to restrict the proposal to one category of crime not only poses the kind of problems that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) identified in her powerful contribution, but risks taking us back to the naturally emotive issues that surround the crime of rape.

I should like to digress for a moment and talk in support of the many speeches that have been made today about the need for better investigation of rape crimes. Let me tell the House that my experience of the prosecution of rape is that juries always look for that extra bit of reassurance—particularly where consent is the issue—that they can often get from powerful scientific evidence. “Why scientific evidence,” one might ask, “if the issue is consent? How on earth can that be relevant?” The answer is that trials can take peculiar twists and turns. Issues that might not have seemed important to investigating officers at the outset of the investigation can suddenly loom rather large in the consideration of the jury when one goes through the evidence with a fine-toothed comb.

I will give the House a simple example. Where the act took place can often be a powerful indicator of whether consent or the lack of it can be proved. For example, if the act took place on a floor or an area that would not be consistent with consent, scientific evidence can often help to prove a case, particularly if the defendant and the complainant disagree about where the particular act of intercourse or sexual misconduct took place. I know that that might sound like arguing with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, but the truth is this: the scene of a crime of rape should be treated as seriously as the scene of a crime of murder or any other alleged act of serious violence. Far too often, scenes of crime are not sterilised, preserved or properly protected by investigating officers, with the result that valuable sources of evidence are lost. I accept that that is a question of resources, and I know that senior police officers will have a very difficult round in the year ahead, but time and again police officers have told me that this is a problem that they face. There is no lack of will or empathy involved; there is simply a lack of resources for conducting proper investigations of rape allegations.

The attrition rate has been mentioned. That is perhaps rather an inelegant phrase to use when we are talking about such a sensitive crime, but we must not forget this. The rate will be increased if prosecutors make decisions to pursue cases that fail the test of a reasonable prospect of conviction. That should be a cast-iron test to be applied to every case, irrespective of the type of allegation. I do not say that in a cold-hearted way; I believe that such a test serves the public interest.

Let us put the questions of attrition and investigations out of our minds for the moment and return to the question of reporting restrictions. I believe that there is a case for the creation of a discretionary power for judges to impose reporting restrictions in whatever cases they see fit, subject to a simple test—namely, that of the interest of justice. That is a wide test that is applied by the judiciary up and down the land every day of our working lives. At a stroke, it would cut through all the sensitivities that have been quite properly expressed today, and all the problems that come with identifying particular professions and particular types of offence. We must trust the judiciary to do the job that they are trained to do.

In that regard, the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—I nearly called her my learned friend—was an extremely important one. She proposes discretion up to charge. I would go further and propose discretion throughout the course of the trial. That could cover a range of different allegations. It would also allow a properly informed judge, faced with an unmeritorious application from a defendant who perhaps did not deserve the protection of reporting restrictions as much as someone of good character, to make a decision based on all the information before them. That would remove the quite natural emotion that we hear in debates such as this one, and allow us to avoid the natural collision of views over the investigation of the serious crime of rape, as well as the more general issues about journalism, reporting and reputation.

For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about their current position and to widen the ambit of the measure to include a wide range of offences. Furthermore, the word “anonymity” might be relevant in the case of an undercover police officer, who can now give evidence while being protected by statute—following the problems of two or three years ago when the European Court ruled that the current common law position was inadequate—but we should stop using the word in relation to this debate. We should be talking about reporting restrictions. If we do introduce legislation on this subject, I want that term to be used. On that note, I hope that I have in some way contributed towards this excellent and well-informed debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

That is absolutely right. We talked earlier about the problem of putting things in boxes and isolated cases. Some women go through thinking that they have contributed to the incident or even that it is somehow their fault, but if they knew that the person had a consistent pattern of behaviour in raping women, they would no longer think like that. Sometimes a woman—or a man—does not want to stand in front of a court; a difficult case might fail completely because no one else comes forward and the evidence is insufficient. In those circumstances, the victim could end up being branded as a woman—sometimes a man—who makes false accusations. They have told the truth, but on the balance of evidence available from only one witness, the accused is found not guilty, and the woman then becomes “a liar”. What signal does that send when we want to encourage more witnesses to come forward?

I appreciate that the point was made seriously, but I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee—the point about Google raised by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was well made—that there is an equivalence between the psychological and reputational difficulties of the accused, although they certainly exist, and a lot more women being raped. There is no qualitative equivalence between them. Quantitatively, the number of malicious, false allegations is minute, whereas the number of unreported—certainly unconvicted—rapes is massive. On the balance of the argument, qualitatively and quantitatively, the case for anonymity is not made.

[Mr Buckland]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

Briefly, as I mentioned Google.

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is a trade-off between the effect on an innocent person and rape being undetected and victims not being served by the system, is he?

[Geraint Davies]

We must maximise our impact on injustice against victims and the wrongly accused. Ultimately, however, there is a trade-off, because if we push forward with anonymity, there will be more rape, more rapists and more rape victims. A few innocent people might get accused because of the culture and environment we create, but it is obvious where I stand in that trade-off.

The chief constable of Cheshire gave the example of a vicar who used to be a teacher. There was a media revelation about him being accused, and immediately eight more victims came forward, as a result of which he was convicted. We have heard about the 12 women who came forward about the black-cab driver; suddenly, after photos were published, 81 more women came forward. In the case of the paedophile running a teenage football team, publicity led to 14 more victims coming forward. Under the anonymity proposal, that would not have happened, and we would not be protecting the victims, including children.

There is a prisoner’s dilemma whereby we rely on the brave victim coming forward and encouraging other people to have the confidence to do so. With anonymity, the risk is that that person will stand alone, and that in the time between the accusation and the court case, she will be open to harassment through texting and phone calls saying, “You haven’t got a chance. You know you’re going to lose.” Then, when she does lose, other people will look at her and say, “I’m not ending up like Mary. She was harassed for ages, and now she is regarded as a liar.” Anonymity changes fundamentally the power relationship between victim and accused. The accused will realise that, it will reduce the risk to serial rapists who use drugs or alcohol to carry out their crimes, and it will increase rapist confidence.

Under the proposal, the balance could tip even further against the victim. The statistics already suggest that 0.5% of women are raped each year—about 140,000 women a year. Of those, about 100,000 do not report the rape. Why is that? Obviously, there is a systemic problem with the justice system. About 5% of women in the population—1.4 million—have been raped. Despite that horrendous figure, we are discussing measures to deter people from coming forward.

The chief constable of Cheshire gave a snapshot of statistics in the year to March 2010. He reported that 155 crimes had been recorded as rape, 33 of which were prosecuted, with 23 convictions. Nobody was found to have put forward a malicious, false accusation, although 13 cases were regarded as non-criminal. His evidence suggested that, occasionally, accusations are dismissed. I do not pretend that there are not malicious, false allegations, but there are few of them. Obviously, false allegations are serious, because when people are found to have made them they are punished by, for instance, as has been mentioned, two years in jail, which is fair enough. However, we should not change legislation because of a small number of people, when a large number of people are suffering very serious consequences, against a backdrop of a massive amount of rape. We should not rush a change through before the summer recess as has been suggested.

Women, in particular, will see the proposal in the wider context of a new Government suggesting that there should be less closed circuit television and less use of DNA, and now they are suggesting that there should be anonymity. Plus they are cutting £125 million from the police grant. When all that is put together, it does not look good to the victim, or suspected victim, of rape. To those watching this debate, I point out that 1.4 million women have been raped. Again, that is against a long-term cultural backdrop of endemic sexism in the judicial system. I see men on the Government Benches raising their eyebrows, but we have all heard about contributory negligence: “She was drunk”; “She had a short skirt on”; “He couldn’t help himself”; “He was a former boyfriend”; “And what about her sexual history?”; “What about his military career?”—all irrelevant, erroneous considerations. Consent is consent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Government will give priority to victims to exactly the extent that the House would expect. It should be in the forefront of all our minds when trying to protect the country against crime that the interests of victims should be paramount. My reflection on this hour of questioning is that it is no good for the Labour party to respond to every suggestion that there might be budget constraints as though that represents a threat to an essential service. The fact is that there is no money, and that is the fault of those in the Labour party. They will not be taken seriously again until they face up to the reality of the situation to which they have largely contributed, and start producing some realistic alternative policies to challenge those being put forward by the Government.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State clarify whether his Department is to review the current system of classification of controlled drugs—which has been called seriously into question in recent months—and particularly the role of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs?

[Mr Clarke]

We have been looking at practically every aspect of policy in our first weeks in office, but we are not rushing to readdress the categorisation of drugs and we are going to ensure that scientific advice on this subject is treated properly, objectively and in the public interest. Any views that my hon. Friend wishes to put forward on the workings of the present system will be carefully considered by myself and my team of Ministers.