Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Buckland and Tom Blenkinsop(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
1. What steps the Government have taken to improve the conviction rate for rape and other serious sexual offences.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The Crown Prosecution Service continues to improve its response to cases involving rape allegations and other forms of serious sexual offending. It has taken a number of steps to improve the conviction rate, which includes increasing the number of specialist staff within its dedicated rape and serious sexual offences unit and improved specialist training for prosecutors.
Tom Blenkinsop
Despite claims that we have the highest ever number of convictions, conviction rates for rape, domestic abuse and other sexual abuses have fallen in the past two years. How does the Minister intend to rectify that situation?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman rightly points to the fact that the actual number of convictions continues to increase, which means justice for more and more victims. It is right that the Crown Prosecution Service brings cases to juries, and, of course, it is a matter for juries to determine whether a suspect is guilty. Increased funding for the rape and serious sexual offences units means an improved early engagement with the police so that the experience of victims becomes a better one, and we have tried and tested evidence that the experience of victims is vital if we are to make improvements.
Crime and Policing
Debate between Robert Buckland and Tom Blenkinsop(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House. I hope that I shall not use my full allocation of time because I know that several hon. Members still wish to play their part in this wide-ranging debate. The shadow Secretary of State went through the gamut of policy in general, talking about not only policing but wider issues of criminal justice, and I shall be as faithful as possible to the parameters that he set in his opening speech.
The preceding speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was revealing in the sense that he said that the Labour party learned a lot about what people wanted during the ‘80s and ‘90s. However, it seems to me that Labour learned a lot about what tabloid headlines demanded rather than about what was happening on the ground. The Labour Government’s increasing distance from the reality of people’s lives was reflected by their culture of legislative incontinence and increasingly centralised control that must have made police officers—from chief constables down to those at ground level—feel that at times they were being made to revolve on the spot. The consequences of the lack of clarity—the ever-changing parameters set for the police—were manifold. I shall concentrate on several that were worrying.
The first casualty of the previous Government’s obsession with centralism and targets was trust in the ability of constables and more senior police officers to take decisions—decisions on the priorities that they wanted to set in their localities, on the appropriate responses to complaints of crime, and on whether a suspect should be charged. One of the most fundamental powers available to the police was rudely taken away from them, and I am delighted that the new Government will restore in part that discretion to the police. I take this opportunity to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in urging the Government to go further and to restore the power of charging completely to police officers. Let me tell the House why I believe that.
In recent years, there has been an increasing obsession with the need for the investigating authority to get everything precisely in order before the decision to charge. That fad—that obsession—has led to debates in this House, before the election and since, and in the media about detention periods prior to charge. We have hotly debated the subject, here and elsewhere, with wildly and dramatically conflicting views expressed about civil liberties. I am left wondering why we have ended up in that position. Why is there that obsession with the need to delay everything before the decision to charge?
Time and again, when police officers made the early decision to charge, it provided the key incentive to the investigating authority to get on with the job of investigating the case thoroughly, preparing it for trial and making sure that victims and witnesses were not kept waiting. Then, the decision to charge was removed to the Crown Prosecution Service.
The advice before charge system involves an often experienced police officer having to telephone a CPS lawyer, probably located some distance from the police station, and reinvent the wheel by explaining everything to that lawyer, only to be told that the lawyer was not seized of all the necessary information and the key decision to charge would have to be put off. That has led to real frustration, not only on the part of police officers, but also, and crucially, on the part of witnesses who, having made their statements, have been asked to wait for months—sometimes for more than a year—before giving evidence. What effect does that have, first, on the ability of the witness to remember events clearly and, secondly, their enthusiasm to come to court? Those are fundamental problems that I saw at first hand, time and again, during my years in practice in the Crown court.
Another consequence was the culture of clear-ups—the driver whereby the police had to resolve unsolved crimes. It did not seem to matter what the crime was; what was important was getting that clear-up. The outcome was essential. It did not matter if the crime was serious; as long as the box was ticked and it was moved off the system, everything was okay. That is not a reflection of public opinion or public confidence, or of a Government who are learning the lessons and listening to people. It is a complete negation of what the public interest is and what the public really want.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
If that point is juxtaposed with the other part of the Government’s plan to have democratically elected leaders of local police authorities, if a candidate stood on a manifesto of clear-ups and won, would such a policy be allowed?
Mr Buckland
Obviously, there will be a distinction between police commissioners getting involved in day-to-day operational duties and their other role, but I think it will be perfectly in order for candidates to debate that question and how we deal with the clear-up issue. That is a matter of legitimate public concern and debate, so I do not see any problem with dealing with that. It would be a different matter if on a day-to-day basis, a particular case were in some way influenced by a commissioner. In terms of the remit of that elected official, that would be to stray into the wrong territory.
There was a rather absurd reversal of roles, whereby senior Ministers—a succession of Labour Home Secretaries—wanted to outdo each other in order to sound tough on crime. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) is not in his place, but he described his era as a golden age: a year of broad sunlit uplands, peace and tranquillity, as he stood with a shining sword in hand, on his way to the new Jerusalem. Juxtaposed with that, senior police officers increasingly sounded like politicians and had to defend the indefensible. Their language became more and more obscure, and they did not sound like police officers anymore or like the representatives of a police force—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made and I strongly support. Something was rotten in our state, and, if this Government had not acted quickly to recognise that, something would continue to be wrong.
Mr Buckland
I shall not give way at this point, because I need to develop this point. I am delighted that in place of that rotten rhetoric, we have a sense of honesty and reality when it comes to addressing what is going on at the coal face of the criminal justice system.
A major part of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech was on antisocial behaviour, but by assuming that there will be a wholesale abolition of the structure, an assumption that other Opposition Members repeated, an Aunt Sally has been set up. When the Home Secretary in her paper described the process of moving beyond ASBOs, she meant development and improvement, rather than wholesale abolition.
I shall propose a few sensible simplifications of the system. The criminal ASBO, or CRASBO, is a waste of time and should be removed. At the end of a Crown court trial, when a defendant has been convicted, punished and has received his sentence, an application is made, almost as an afterthought, for a criminal antisocial behaviour order, which is often poorly drafted, ill thought-out, unworkable and unenforceable.
Academies Bill [Lords]
Debate between Robert Buckland and Tom Blenkinsop(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I yield to nobody in my admiration for the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for the passion with which she makes her argument. I think her argument, if it was based on an analysis of the Bill, was that clause 6 should be removed and that no existing schools that select according to ability should be allowed to become academies. She made a passionate speech, but it was based on the fundamental misconception that the Bill is, in some way, all about enshrining selection as the way forward and selection on ability as the lodestar for academies. That is wrong and it is a fundamental misreading of clause 6, which refers to “pre-existing” selective schools being allowed to apply to become academies. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I say that she misses the point.
I welcome the Bill in general. I particularly welcome the amendments accepted by the Government in the other place and those resulting from debate there, especially the ones relating to the provision for children and young people who have special educational needs. I should declare my interest as a parent of a child with SEN. The amendments in the other place were the result of considered debate and of contributions by Members in that place from all parties and none. The amendments were an important part of the process by which the Bill has matured as a result of debate, so it would be wrong to say that the Bill comes to the Floor of this House without having had any thought, consideration or detailed debate, or indeed any consideration by the Government. I am glad to say that they have listened to the quality of that debate and taken appropriate action.
That has been particularly important in respect of clause 1, because I was concerned by the original provision that was drafted on special needs, which described how children with varying needs would be catered for. That has now gone and the current provisions incorporate part 4 of the 1996 Act, which fully satisfies those of us who were concerned about a lack of parity in the funding for children with SEN at maintained schools and those at academies. That important amendment solves that problem.
The other good news was the amendment made to clause 2 to incorporate subsections (5) and (6), which make it obligatory for local authorities to set aside an amount of money to spend on services for academy pupils with “low incidence” SEN. In other words, the provisions create a class of expenditure in the non-schools education budget for low incidence SEN. That is very important when considering the provision of resources and places. I am thinking, for example, of units for children and young people with a range of particular needs.
Tom Blenkinsop
On resources and the payment of salaries in supporting SEN students, how is the coalition proposing that we deal with the supply and salaries of tutors of, and special needs advisers on, language therapy, when primary care trusts are being proposed for closure?
Mr Buckland
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My belief is that the pooling of resources will still occur in LEAs, and it is my belief that commissioning GPs will want to take a similar approach when it comes to the local provision of speech and language therapies. That subject is very close to my heart—I know that it is close to the hon. Gentleman’s, too—and I shall be watching very carefully to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the important provision and support that speech and language therapists provide to children with special educational needs.
The nub of it is that as a result of the amendments, many of the concerns held by those of us who are interested in the provision for special educational needs have been allayed. However, one or two matters remain to be addressed, particularly the ongoing duty on local authorities to provide a statement of special educational needs, wherever a child goes to school and whatever type of school they go to, and to adhere to the requirements of that statement. Sometimes, unfortunately, problems arise. All Members will have had parents come to them with such problems—I certainly have, both in my capacity as a Member of this House and as a school governor in a former life.
As I have said, a problem can arise when a school does not, for whatever reason, follow the requirements of a statement of special educational needs. We all know that there is a statutory requirement to do so, but how do we enforce that requirement? What will happen in an academy? Will the local authority require the academy to live up to the provision set out in the statement? Questions on those important details still need to be answered.