Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and John McDonnell

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Already in the debate we have heard, in speeches and interventions, about the relatively short period of time that young people spend in custody. That continuity is absolutely essential if we are to take meaningful strides not only in dealing with rehabilitation, but in reducing reoffending rates, which concern all of us and are a priority for the Government.

My amendment is a probing amendment, but I am keen for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider further these proposals in relation to SEN provision in secure colleges: that education providers in those colleges be required by contract to put SEN at the heart of their education provision; that those providers also be required by contract to ensure adequate and proper training for staff so that they can properly identify special education needs and meet that need when it is identified; and finally, that we give further thought to exactly who in a secure college should be responsible for working with home local education authorities when young people either have education, health and care plans, or might be eligible for them. I commend those points to the House.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will be very brief, because other Members wish to speak. I find this whole secure college proposal abhorrent. It flies in the face of all the evidence that has been put before the Justice Committee and debated in the wider media. What do we know about trying to address the issues that confront young people once they get involved in this system? We know that the most successful units are the smaller ones. So what is the response? It is to create a mass-scale prison.

The other thing that we know works—this is absolutely critical—is for young people to be located close to their homes so that they can maintain family and community contact. The scale of this proposal in catering for about 25% of young people in the prison system means that these colleges will be located in the centre of the country, nowhere near the vast proportion of homes where these young people live, so we will be breaking down family connections. We have warnings before us, right across the piece, that in a mixed-gender establishment those most at risk will be young women. Some of the statements and evidence provided about those risks were frightening.

All the evidence tells us that a system such as that proposed will not work, and I think the Government know that. This is Oakwood for children, and we know what happened in that privatised prison—riots, assaults, and a lack of control. I think the Government know that there is a danger that that will be replicated in this large institution. That is why the Bill is allowing for the use of physical force against young people, contrary to everything the courts have told us.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and John McDonnell

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

It is a disgrace that we are talking about civil liberties and yet we have only nine minutes left, the debate in the Lords ended only 18 hours ago, and the amendments land before the House when it is likely to rise early next week because of insufficient business. Our job is responsibly to look after our constituents’ interests, which means both their human rights and their protection and security. Not one of the amendments we are considering is capable of doing that as a result of this bouncing of the House. I have been in this place only 17 years now and the worst civil liberties violations have occurred when the House has been bounced into urgent decisions. That is what is happening today and I resent that.

I resent it on behalf of my constituents. The practicalities of the provisions mean that we will deprive some of their citizenship and, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) has said, we will do so in a way that will not even allow them to answer the charges themselves. That is the SIAC process, which I voted against all those years ago.

What are the practicalities of depriving someone of their citizenship when they are a threat, particularly if they are abroad? In the other House there was a discussion about the comity of interest between individual states. What are we to do? Will we deprive a suspected terrorist of their citizenship and leave them as the responsibility of another state? Will that protect our citizens’ interests, if that person can then roam free to take action against this country? That is not fair, just or based on human rights, and it does not practically tackle the issue of security.

Their lordships want time to set up a Joint Committee to give this difficult area of policy the detailed consideration it needs. The Minister referred to the Government’s proposed review as independent, but the amendment makes no reference to independence. The reviewer will be appointed by the Government, not by an independent process. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a veto over what is reported to the House and that applies not just to national security but, as the amendment says, to public interest. Public interest has been used in this House by successive Governments to avoid embarrassments and to avoid providing the House with information on which we can make considered judgments.

The Government’s amendments are not acceptable. I do not think they resolve the concerns that the other House has raised and I hope that that place holds firm so that we can negotiate a proper process. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that we need a reasonable process within a limited period of time to allow us to return to the House to consider proper proposals that protect civil liberties while, just as importantly, protecting the security of our constituents.

[Mr Buckland]

I feel like I am in an episode of “Just a Minute”, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here goes.

I support the Government’s amendments, as we must focus on the issue. This is not some descent into despotism; all we are talking about is a return to the law as it stood before 2002. We are not even talking about the principle of statelessness, because the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows for a person to be stateless when that nationality has been obtained by fraud. We are talking about only a very small cohort of people who pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens we represent.

It is important that the Government ensure that they do not end up with decisions being made in an arbitrary or disproportionate way, which is why the provision about reasonable grounds is important and goes a long way towards answering that point. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a Member, correctly said that the decision to deprive people of their state per se does not breach any international conventions. That is the case that was not properly answered by the Opposition.

In the seconds I have left in which to speak, all I can say is that the Government have moved a significant way and that that allows me and others to support their amendments and reject the Lords amendment.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and John McDonnell

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I think that the new clause is capable of achieving perfection, perhaps in the other place. As it stands, however, it does not work in terms of what it sets out to do. I am going to consider my position before deciding whether to abstain or to oppose it today.

I have looked carefully at the exceptions set out in section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and at the discretion that the Home Secretary is given under the legislation. That discretion is based on a series of factual events such as the existence of hospital orders or other Mental Health Act dispositions. The exception proposed in new clause 11 gives a subjective discretion that does not sit well with the wording of the UK Borders Act. Once we opened the door to that kind of subjective discretion, what would be the difference between what the new clause hopes to achieve and the wording of the Bill in relation to the discretion that is to be given to the courts? In a nutshell, the Bill’s existing provisions, as amended, already do the job of dealing with serious offending and of making a proper distinction between offences for which sentences of more than four years’ imprisonment are imposed, and those for which under four years are imposed. There is a clear logic to the provisions, and the new clause is therefore unnecessary. It would create the risk of upsetting the entire apple cart when it comes to the important work of deporting serious criminals from our country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have rightly asked us to curtail our speeches and I shall try to complete mine in four minutes, but I am seething with anger. The Bill affects many of my constituents, and this is the only time for Back-Bench MPs to introduce or speak to amendments on Report. I am being denied that opportunity because most of my amendments will not be reached today.

I will speak to only one amendment in the group, amendment 79, which deals with the restriction of bail for detainees. I have 1,000 detainees in my constituency, at the Harmondsworth and Colnbrook detention centres. The Bill will deny many of them the right to apply for bail in the 14 days before their removal. I deal with detainees in my office almost every working day of my life. Large numbers of them are parents and, in those last 14 days, they want to get bail so that they can see their children. Others need bail because they are sick or suffering from a mental illness. The Bill will deny them that opportunity, on the approval of the Secretary of State.

The Bill will also mean that a person will be unable to apply for bail if they have already applied 28 days beforehand. That means that there could be new set directions under the first rule, and a rolling programme could mean that people never have the opportunity to apply for bail. Some might think that spending 28 days in a detention centre before someone can apply for bail is not that significant. I suggest that they visit a detention centre. I also suggest that they read the report on visits to the Harmondsworth detention centre during 2013. It sets out the number of people who doctors had determined were mentally ill, had ill health effects from their experiences or had been subjected to torture. Of the 125 being held under rule 35, only 12 were released.

I also ask hon. Members to read the report on mental health in detention centres that was published in January this year by Medical Justice. It states:

“There is a crisis of mental health in detention, as demonstrated by the many Court cases…Evidence and experience shows that mental illness is the greatest health issue for detainees. The safeguards to prevent the detention of those with serious mental illness are not working. The rate of mental illness is already high in those who are subject to detention, in part due to the stresses in their life journey to that time. Detention serves to increase that mental illness and distress”.

The reasons for that distress are clear. When someone is detained, they may be told that they cannot appeal for 28 days, then they may lose that appeal and bail as well. There then follows another 28 days, and so on. The detainee never knows when they will be released. That is why detention impacts on people’s mental health.

The report from the chief inspector of prisons came out earlier this month. It explains what is happening in detention centres. There is an increase in the number of self-harm incidents. A significant number of detainees are refusing to accept food. In Harmondsworth, we now have regular hunger strikes. The place has been burned down twice as a result of detainees’ anger at being detained. The report said:

“Disturbingly, a lack of intelligent individual risk assessment has meant that most detainees were handcuffed on escort… and on at least two occasions, elderly, vulnerable and incapacitated detainees, one of whom was terminally ill, were handcuffed in an unacceptable manner”.

These men were so ill that

“one man died shortly after his handcuffs were removed and the other, an 84-year-old man, died while still in restraints.”

Those were

“shocking cases where a sense of humanity was lost.”

That is what Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons said four weeks ago.

It is unacceptable to detain people on such a scale. Harmondsworth has gone from a row of Nissen huts where no more than 30 people were detained to effectively two prisons with 1,000 detainees. To deny people the right to bail in the way in which the Bill proposes takes away hope, and increases the pressure and mental stress and the number of mental illnesses. At the same time, it brings about this level of abuse and inhumanity. I urge Members to be careful. This Bill will increase harm and be counter-productive. It will deny justice to the most vulnerable people in our society. It is unnecessary. All people want is the right for their case to be heard in the normal manner, as we would all expect it to be. They are crying out for justice.

Legal Aid Reform

Debate between Robert Buckland and John McDonnell

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in her very proper analysis of the issue. This is not about lawyers; it is about access to justice. I am glad to see the Minister agreeing with those sentiments in the sense that the Government are not indulging in character assassination as regards practitioners in law.

There have been some excellent speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for getting this debate the time that it deserves. I was happy to support her in her bid. I wish there were more time, as five minutes can hardly do the subject justice. It was a pleasure for me to take part in the Westminster Hall debate sponsored by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who took part earlier. I do not propose to reiterate the points that I made in that debate.

I put on record my thanks to the Department for having answered some of the questions that I have been tabling about the breakdown of the costs of civil legal aid for the last year for which figures were available—2008-2009. The figure of £24.7 million in legal help for welfare benefit cases, as alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), is startling, and we should pay close attention to it. There is no doubt, as other Members have said, that there are serious deficiencies in the decision-making processes as regards benefit entitlements. I am utterly convinced that that large amount of money could have been saved if that system were more sound. I urge the Minister to work as closely as he can with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that it starts to take a share of the burden of the cost of representation.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Buckland]

I am sorry, but I cannot take interventions on this occasion because I want to ensure that other speakers have their say. As I said, so much to talk about, so little time.

Let me pray in aid Wiltshire law centre in my constituency, which carries out debt, welfare and housing work. To put it bluntly, it is set to lose the vast majority of its income if these proposals are implemented. May I put in a plea to the Minister to work as hard as he can with all agencies of Government to ensure that places like Wiltshire law centre get some form of block funding to ensure that its valuable work continues? It is as fundamental as that. I am worried that if we lose that service, my constituents will have to travel a very long distance to get legal aid, because most private firms in Swindon now do not offer the services offered by the law centre.

I have spoken in the past about special educational needs and education law. I reiterate my plea to the Minister to ensure that when the education Green Paper is published in March the forms of alternative dispute resolution, whether it be mediation or other forms of ADR, are properly explored and set out so that the need for legal representation in those cases becomes a thing of the past.

I have drilled down as far as I can to find out why this country spends more per head on legal aid than other country. The National Audit Office paper on the procurement of legal aid observed that during its control period in the latter part of last decade, England and Wales prosecuted more than a million more people than any comparator country. We have to look at why we spend a lot on legal aid. I do not think that it is a problem. I think it shows that we take prosecution seriously. The only real comparison we can make is with other common law countries, and they do not prosecute as many cases as England and Wales. Comparisons with France are utterly irrelevant. The French spend five times more on the judicial system than us because of their inquisitorial process. We must focus on comparisons with other common law countries. The simple fact is that we litigate more in England and Wales. As I said, I make no apology for the fact that this country brings more prosecutions than any other country. That issue should be dealt with in other debates. It is a causal issue, rather than being about the symptoms that legal aid has to deal with.

On domestic violence, my plea to the Minister is that we work hard on getting the definition right. I suggest that it is not right in the Green Paper. We should be considering courses of conduct rather than individual incidents. I would be happy to work with him on that matter.