Safer Neighbourhood Policing: London

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for securing the debate and for her excellent speech to kick things off. She is a tenacious and passionate campaigner on behalf of her constituents. In this debate on safer neighbourhood policing in London she has clearly shown that she understands the big issues facing not only her constituents, but our citizens. It is great to see so many London colleagues present for this important debate.

I also pay tribute and put on the record my gratitude to all police and police community support officers, and to all who work for the Metropolitan police. They work day in, day out to protect us and to keep us as safe as possible, preventing crime, detecting those responsible for crime, playing a huge role in maintaining the rule of law and due process, and helping us to feel safer.

There is no point beating about the bush: the very future of safer neighbourhood policing in London as we know it is under threat. As has been said, one of the legacies of Ken Livingstone’s time as Mayor of London was the creation of dedicated community policing teams. I know from my own constituency just how successful and popular safer neighbourhood teams in London were and are. In some of the wards in and around my constituency, there were teams of at least one sergeant, two police officers and three PCSOs. As a resident, a ward councillor and a Member of Parliament, I saw at first hand their work to build community relations. They knew shopkeepers, vicars, priests, imams, neighbourhood watch co-ordinators, resident association members, head teachers and youth leaders. They actually spoke to and engaged with youngsters and made an effort to build relations with parts of our diverse communities that previously had no relations with the police.

The teams’ networks gave them a unique insight into what was happening on the ground and in their patch—proper, old-fashioned community policing: bobbies back on the beat, some would say, not only providing reassurance to the community, but acting as the eyes and ears for gathering intelligence, preventing crimes from happening and clearing them up when they did. That is what policing by consent is all about.

Over recent years, however, safer neighbourhood policing has been devastated in London. While we have had a Conservative Mayor and a Conservative Prime Minister, the number of officers has been steadily eroded. Since May 2010, the number of PCSOs in London has dropped by up to three quarters, with some boroughs—Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Westminster—seeing falls of 80% or more. I have with me some of the figures, which cover the period between May 2010 and September 2015. Hackney has lost 69% of its PCSOs and 29% of its uniformed officers; Harrow, 75% of its PCSOs and 24% of its uniformed officers; Hounslow, 75% of its PCSOs and 11% of its uniformed officers; Kingston—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), whose borough this is, has left the Chamber—75% of its PCSOs and 19% of uniformed officers; and Lambeth, 80% of its PCSOs and 32% of its uniformed officers. Across the whole Metropolitan Police Service, 62% of PCSOs and 11% of uniformed officers have been lost. In some areas, there is one officer left, or at best two. There is no longer the same dedicated team for geographical areas as there once was.

Although crime has been broadly falling over the past decade and a half, too many areas of London are still blighted by antisocial behaviour. Violent crime is up across the city and, worryingly, knife crime is on the rise again.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the broader metric of crime is down. Does that not suggest, to a large extent, that, given the financial constraints that any Mayor or Government would have been under in recent years, the Metropolitan police has done a pretty good job of utilising diminishing resources to ensure that people are kept as safe as possible? While I very much accept some of the concerns about the breakdown of the neighbourhood model to which he refers and the importance of integrating with other agencies, broadly there is a good case for saying that, given those financial constraints, we have done a pretty good job, although we should not be complacent about the future.

[Sadiq Khan]

The police service does a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances. However, internet crime is going through the roof, along with serious youth violent crime, knife crime, knife crime with injury, gun crime and gun crime with firearm discharge. I pay tribute to the remarkable work done by police officers and CSOs.

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

The right hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. I pay tribute, as I will in my speech, to all the officers in England and Wales who I represent, and to those in London in particular for this debate. When we look at levels of crime, we see that internet crime and cybercrime was not recorded before, so we do not know what the levels were. We know that it is a major issue, but the previous Government did not record it. We are now recording it, so that we will have better knowledge of what is happening and can put resources in the right place. However, I want to put on the record that while he said—I think understandably—that internet crime is going up, actually we did not record it, nor did the Government of whom he was a Minister.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am sure we all accept that technology is advancing and that evolution is a wonderful thing. I repeat the point that I pay tribute to officers, who do a remarkable job under difficult circumstances. However, the Mayor of London—he and the Policing Minister must accept this—aided and abetted by the Government, has filleted safer neighbourhood policing. We have heard some of the results of that in today’s debate, and we will hear more of that in Labour Members’ speeches.

I want to add two further thoughts into the debate. First, there has been a debate over a number of years about stop and search and the impact it has on keeping the city safe. I am one of those who believe that, historically, it has been overused and done so in too much of an arbitrary fashion, so that certain communities have seen strained relations with the police. Someone is unlikely to come forward tomorrow and provide invaluable information or give evidence that can help with a prosecution if yesterday they or a family member were wrongly stopped and searched, and treated discourteously or badly by the police.

Let me be clear: intelligence-led stop and search plays a crucial role in keeping Londoners safe. We should all be worried about the rise in knife crime over recent months. The deaths of teenagers because of knives deeply alarms me not simply as a Member of Parliament and a citizen of this city, but as a father of two teenage girls. However, we will not be able to pursue an intelligence-led approach to stop and search if we lose safer neighbourhood policing, because that provides the police with the intelligence they need to inform stop-and-search activities. Without safer neighbourhood policing feeding into police intelligence, stop and search risks becoming a blind and arbitrary action, with a resultant negative impact on community relations that would damage all of London.

Secondly, the horrific attacks in Paris were a wake-up call to all of us. It could so easily have been London. If we are to prevent a repeat of the Paris terrorist attacks here in London, we must always be vigilant and make the most of all the resources at our disposal. High level, technologically-led intelligence operations have a role to play. Our security agencies, who do such a sterling job, have considerable pressure on them to keep us safe, but community policing should never be dismissed.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, has pointed out that intelligence that leads to the investigation of people who may be responsible for acts of extremism or terrorism increasingly comes from people reporting suspicious behaviour to—guess who? To local neighbourhood police officers and PCSOs, who they know and trust. The hollowing out of neighbourhood policing is putting those relationships and that intelligence-gathering capacity at risk. If we weaken safer neighbourhood policing, we weaken our protection against terrorism.

I would like to end as I began by thanking London’s police. They do a remarkable job in terribly pressured circumstances, which is not helped, I am afraid, by the deep cuts inflicted on them by the Government and the current Mayor of London. Safer neighbourhood policing has been hit particularly hard. To lose that crucial community-facing aspect of London’s policing would be a terrible mistake. It is important that those of us who understand the importance of policing by consent for crime prevention unite to stop a further hollowing out across London.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Sadiq Khan]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way again, because I am very short on time.

[Sadiq Khan]

I will make it easy.

[Mike Penning]

The right hon. Gentleman has already presented his election campaign so we can wait a little longer for another press release.

We need to make sure that the public have the truth and are not scared—[Interruption.] I will not give way again, so hon. Members need not even try. We must make sure that public are not scared by these sorts of debate and the sorts of press releases that are being out here. Let me give an example of fantastic policing work being done in Westminster—in particular, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westminster North, who did not mention this in her speech. Under Operation Trident recently, there have been 150 arrests, 15 knives have been seized, and nine adults have been charged with drug-related offences and given custodial sentences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Buck]

Part of the issue with Operation Trident, which does some excellent work—I referred to it specifically—is that we have a lot of difficulty finding out what it does. The whole point of this debate rests on the fact that our safer neighbourhood teams were conduits for local information and relationship-building. That in no way detracts from the quality of police work. We are addressing a different problem. Operation Trident’s success lies on the bedrock of ward-based safer neighbourhood teams.

[Sadiq Khan]

The Minister does not get it.

[Mike Penning]

I will have to write to right hon. and hon. Members, as I will not have time to deal with all the points now, because we are going over the debate that we have already had. However, Operation Trident has done fantastic work, with local information, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, so arrests and prosecutions have taken place. That is happening today.

I will have the honour and privilege in the next couple of weeks of going to Hendon for the passing-out parade, so more officers will be coming out of basic training. On PCSOs, the commissioner has already announced that there will be no reduction from the present levels. I think we would accept that that is right and proper.

Let me also touch on some of the points to do with representation. I think that is really important. Actually, this is one of the things that the commissioner has done that I think is really important, and the Mayor of London has supported it as well. The commissioner has said that recruits—people who want to join the police—have to live in their communities. There is an exemption, which is right and proper, for our armed forces. I was born and bred in Edmonton, but I went off and joined the Army at 16. When I left the Army, I would never have been allowed to join the Met police under the present rules unless there was an exemption for our armed forces. That exemption is right and proper.

However, I think we need to go further. I would say this as a Hertfordshire MP, but the Metropolitan police often recruit trained police officers from outside the Met area and bring them in. I do not think that that is great. I know there are some specialist roles that need to be done, particularly in relation to armed response and other areas, but actually officers should replicate the communities that they serve. I am determined that, throughout the ranks of the police forces in England and Wales, officers should replicate the communities that they serve and live in them. They do not now, and that is not something that has suddenly happened; it is something that we should have addressed years ago. How many chief constables are from a black and ethnic minority background? Very few are, so we must ensure that that happens.

The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee mentioned other duties that the police undertake. That is one of the things that I have been banging on about. I am sorry if she has not heard or has been sent to sleep by any of the speeches that I have made on that subject, but I know that the shadow Policing Minister has heard them. We now have an inter-ministerial group—it started under the coalition—so that we are stopping police officers doing something that they are fundamentally not trained to do, particularly in relation to mental health. I have been out on patrol with the police, like many colleagues here, and all too often when we say, “Where are we going?”, the reply is that we are going to see Mary or Johnny, and this is at 7 o’clock on a Friday night. “Why are we going to see Mary?” “Well, because social services phoned up and they haven’t seen her all week. She’s a very vulnerable lady, so we should go and see her.” No, we should not. It was because a phone call had come in earlier in the evening saying, “We haven’t seen her. Will you go and see her?” That is a social services responsibility. Of course we went, and of course the police would do that, but it is not the key role of the police.

Human Rights Act

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is an interesting point, but I am not sure the hon. Gentleman is correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is about to correct me to correct him.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

To clarify the apparent misunderstanding among Government Members, section 2 of the Human Rights Act is quite clear. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), was careful to remind the House of the careful steps that the Government went through before 2000. Section 2 says that UK courts and tribunals should take account of Strasbourg case law. It is not that they have to do so; it is possible for a UK court to consider and then ignore the jurisprudence. The understanding is that it is about taking account of, rather than blindly following the jurisprudence.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It says “take into account”, and that is what it means. In forming the judgment, the court “must take into account” the convention. The court might decide—it sometimes does—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Betts. May we get back to the question of the Human Rights Act and what it says? It incorporates the convention into British law and requires courts to take account of the contents of the convention and the rights within it. The Conservative party’s love affair with the tabloids before the last election was all about walking away from this controversial thing because it interfered with British law. Interestingly, the Government, in the person of the Foreign Secretary, now say that we will not leave the convention, but that we might not operate within the purview of the European Court of Human Rights in the future. I am not sure how those two things can be put together. The Foreign Secretary said he will restore rights to British courts, but the rights of British courts have never actually been taken away; they have been asked to take into account an important convention.

The politics are simple. If Britain withdraws from the European convention on human rights and sets up a British Bill of Rights that is outwith that convention and may have all kinds of things within it—good, bad, indifferent, appalling or wonderful—it sends a message to every other country in Europe. Those countries thinking about withdrawing from the European convention because they have been criticised for their treatment of Travellers, for their treatment of gay, lesbian or transgender people, for suppressing popular protest or for closing down internet sites and suppressing newspapers would be a little bit happier if one country withdrew. If Britain—one of the original authors of the document—withdraws, I suspect that many others will withdraw, and the human rights of the whole continent will be significantly damaged as a result. I urge the Government to think carefully about this issue before they go any further.

The Prime Minister was quick to quote Magna Carta, but then bizarrely went to Runnymede to make a speech saying, in a sense, that he would ignore Magna Carta and withdraw from the European convention. He did not seem to realise that most of Magna Carta has been overturned by subsequent legislation anyway, and I think it is only the section on the right to trial by jury that remains. There was also a fundamental misunderstanding about Magna Carta defending the rights of free people. Unfortunately, the statutes of the time defined free people as those who had been given their freedom by the King. The vast majority of the population—the peasantry—was not given any rights at all.

In St Stephen’s, there is a wonderful painting of King John reluctantly putting his seal to Magna Carta. All the barons are saying, “Do it,” but a peasant is lying on the ground saying, “There is nothing in this for me. This is between the barons and the King.” The principles set out in Magna Carta—I would urge people to visit the Magna Carta exhibition at the British Library—descended through the law in many other ways, on the basis that irrational Government should be held to account for what they do and that everybody should be given rights to stand up for what they believe in, with the rest of society being required to allow them to do so.

I do not know what will be in this British Bill of Rights, if it comes about, but I am pretty horrified by the mood music surrounding it, which is about damaging our civil liberties and rights.

[Sadiq Khan]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, just as judges often made decisions that did not please all the tabloid media before the Human Rights Act was passed, it is possible that judges will make decisions that some newspapers do not find to their liking even after a Conservative Bill of Rights has been introduced?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is part of the balance in our constitutional process that Parliament is independent of the Executive and that the judiciary is independent of Parliament. Sometimes, the judiciary makes perverse decisions, and sometimes its decisions upset Ministers and lots of other people. That is the point of having an independent judicial system and of referring to the basic principles in the European convention on human rights—the right to assembly, the right to free speech, the right to know and the right not to be discriminated against.

I urge the Government not to go down this road, but to accept that the contribution made in the aftermath of the horrors of the second world war by the European convention on human rights and the wonderful document that is the universal declaration of human rights, with the work that Eleanor Roosevelt put into it, is part of a narrative of giving rights to everybody around the world, whatever their station. If this country, which prides itself on being the longest continuous democracy and having the longest lasting parliamentary system of government and judicial system, walks away from the European convention, every dictator and every person who is annoyed by international conventions will be a bit happier, and it will be a sad day for those who are standing up bravely for human rights against the most oppressive regimes in the world. Please don’t do it!

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that promotion, which is unexpected and undeserved on both counts. I always look forward to the future with optimism as far as those two matters are concerned. Extraterritoriality is an important issue. It has exercised those involved in a number of recent Court judgments, and it is precisely the sort of area where we might find a proportionate and sensible way forward.

I hope we will engage with the profession on these issues, because there is a great deal of knowledge and understanding about this issue. We tend to regard what happens in the Strasbourg Court as a bit of a sideshow, and that would be a mistake, whatever side of the argument we are on.

[Sadiq Khan]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election as Chair of the Select Committee, and I wish him well. He talked about potential reform of the Human Rights Act. Does he envisage, and is he optimistic about, there being additional rights, or does he think the Government intend to take away rights that are in the Act?

[Robert Neill]

That is the question the Government need to answer. The phrase “based on the convention” is important. I do not say that every bit of the convention’s wording is absolutely perfect in modern terms, but I think most of us would say that we want the principles that underpin the convention to be incorporated in any proposals. For what it is worth, my early urging to the Government is that the closer they stick to the convention’s wording in anything incorporated into British law, the better, because that would give us great clarity and security. Then we must look at the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) about the unintended consequences that were not always seen through in the Act, to do with extraterritoriality and related matters. I hope we will get assurances from the Minister on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

As I said, we compare very favourably internationally. We have one of the most generous legal aid budgets in the world, and that is after the cuts have come through.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It is a fact that the Government’s cuts to legal aid have denied thousands access to legal advice. The Government’s changes to tribunal and court fees are having an additional impact on women and other vulnerable groups. The number of victims of domestic violence receiving legal aid has fallen significantly, and the number of sex discrimination claims is down by 90%. Unless the Government genuinely believe that this is an indication of significant improvements to society—that it indicates less domestic violence and less sex discrimination—women are being denied access to justice. Will the Government agree to an urgent review of the impact of the changes they have made on women and other vulnerable groups?

[Mr Vara]

In that very long contribution from the right hon. Gentleman, it is regrettable that not once did he say that if he were Lord Chancellor, he would reverse the cuts we have made. That sums up where the Opposition are: they are happy to object, they are happy to write articles—[Interruption.] Yes, the right hon. Gentleman points to the public. I point to the public as well, and I say that nowhere did the right hon. Gentleman say that Labour would reverse the cuts we have made. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I do not know the exact occasion on which that principle was previously tested, but I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. She and I have discussed it, and I am happy to work with her to consider whether there is a loophole in the law that should be changed.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

In 2010 the prison riot squad was called out to prisons 118 times, which was too many. Last year it was called out 223 times—a 90% increase—and that is with 18 fewer prisons than in 2010. That is a disgrace. We have fewer prisons with fewer staff, and not enough work or training for inmates. We have record numbers of deaths in custody, and prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults have surged. We heard a lot in 2010 about a rehabilitation revolution. Where did it go wrong?

[Chris Grayling]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what is actually happening. The number of prisoner qualifications is up, as is the number of hours worked in prisons. On the size of our prison estate, we will go into this election with 3,000 more adult male prison places than we had in 2010, and we have done that while bringing down the cost of the prison estate to sort out the mess left behind by the previous Government. The Labour Government brought about a crisis in our prisons that led to them having to let offenders out early because they ran out of space in our prisons. I will take no lessons from Labour about how to run our prisons.

[Sadiq Khan]

Evidence, if it was needed, of a man completely out of touch. Most judges, lawyers, probation staff, prison officers, victims, court staff, and people denied access to justice believe that the right hon. Gentleman has been the worst Lord Chancellor since Lord Shaftesbury in 1673—the two of you have a thing or two in common, so you should check him out. In a poll commissioned last month, 82% of people in the legal sector said that they were more likely to vote Tory if the Justice Secretary was replaced. Why does he think the figure is not higher?

[Chris Grayling]

In the last Justice questions before the election, all I get from the right hon. Gentleman is abuse. Do you know why, Mr Speaker? Since he has no policies and ideas, all he can do is resort to abuse, and that is all he ever does.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We continue to work to expand education in our prisons, and I am pleased that this year we expect a significant increase in the number of prisoner qualifications. Great work is done by our education professionals in our prisons. We will look to expand and develop that as far as logistically possible.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary was warned about the risks of the appointment of Paul McDowell as chief inspector of probation, but he arrogantly ignored them. Despite the clear conflict of interest, he defended his decision at the Dispatch Box when I raised the matter. He has shown a clear error of judgment. At a time when an independent inspector is needed the most, we do not have one. Will he confirm that the taxpayer will now be left with a further bill of £70,000 for his error of judgment, with the former chief inspector free to join one of the private companies that are now running probation?

[Chris Grayling]

I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s comments are an insult to a fine public servant, who has taken a brave decision this week. I am not of the view that someone should be denied the opportunity to apply for a job because of the possibility that in the future their wife’s company might win contracts and she might be promoted. I regard Paul McDowell as a fine public servant who has done a good job for this country. I hope he will return to a new post somewhere else supporting our public sector in the future, because he deserves it. He has done a very good job.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I am sure that the whole House will want to send its commiserations to the family of my hon. Friend’s constituent who has lost his life. Naturally, the police investigation is ongoing so I cannot comment on that individual case, but we are awaiting Royal Assent to the Bill to which he alluded, and as soon as that comes through we will be able to take things forward.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We already know how little the Justice Secretary thinks of our international human rights obligations, given that he wants to repeal the British Human Rights Act and walk away from the European convention on human rights. What is the Ministry of Justice’s motivation for signing a £5.9 million contract with a country whose justice system is widely condemned for the use of torture—which is what a sentence of 1,000 lashes amounts to—and of execution by beheading?

[Chris Grayling]

We have not signed a contract. Under this Government and under the last one, our Departments have worked with other Governments around the world to try to encourage improvements and best practice in their justice systems. I believe that that is the right thing to do. We should try to influence countries to move their justice systems in the right direction, and we will continue to do that.

[Sadiq Khan]

I look forward to hearing about the best practice for beheading.

We have a prisons crisis here, with the chief inspector of prisons being sacked. The chief inspector of the probation service has resigned. We have judges criticising Ministry of Justice policies on a daily basis, we have had disks containing sensitive information lost by the MOJ, and the legal profession is boycotting the summit to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, at which the Secretary of State is the keynote speaker. Why does he think that those who work in and use the justice system think so little of him?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman cannot even gets his facts right; I am not the keynote speaker at the global law summit. It is being run independently with a number of key people from around the world, including the wife of a former Labour Prime Minister. The reality is that a leading figure in the justice world said to me last week, “Do you know, I may not agree with your policies, but at least you’ve got some; the other party hasn’t got any.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

We have disposed of 14 prisons, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that when we disposed of Ashwell, Latchmere House and Canterbury prisons recently, we raised nearly £31 million. In general, we have a “new for old” policy. We are closing down old and inefficient prisons that are expensive to run, and creating new prisons that are better for prisoners and prison officers.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Since May 2010, 18 prisons have closed—some of which, as the Minister accepts, remain unsold, at substantial cost to the taxpayer—and one third of prison officers’ jobs have been cut. That has led to what the chief inspector of prisons has described as a “political and policy failure” resulting in increased overcrowding, violence and suicides. The highly regarded chief inspector was doing his job of telling the truth about the Government’s prison crisis, but he was effectively sacked by the Justice Secretary.

If we are to rehabilitate offenders effectively, we need prisons that work and chief inspectors who are able to do their jobs properly, without fear or favour. What does the Minister think the chief inspector meant by “political and policy failure”, and will he confirm that non-sycophants can apply for the vacancy created by his departure?

[Andrew Selous]

I have a very good relationship with the chief inspector, whom I meet regularly.

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what a real prison crisis looks like. A real prison crisis happens when 80,000 prisoners are let out early—many of whom, including terrorists, go on to commit further offences—and when it is necessary to spend £75 million on locking up prisoners in police cells.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is precisely what we are trying to stop. My hon. Friend makes the valid point that those opposed to essential developments in our country are able to use judicial review, on technicalities, to try to prevent them from going ahead or to delay them. It does nobody any favours that that can happen. It uses up huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it wastes the time of essential projects and project teams, and it must change.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I find the Justice Secretary’s answer interesting, because there is a widely held view that one of the reasons why this Justice Secretary is so hostile to judicial review is that it means the unlawful decisions he makes can be challenged in court. In the past few days, he has been held to have acted unlawfully in relation to his decision to ban the sending of books to prisoners. Does the Justice Secretary accept the decision of the court and, very simply, will he now acknowledge that it was a stupid policy and that he acted unlawfully?

[Chris Grayling]

Let us be absolutely clear: I took no decision to ban the sending of books to prisoners. I simply unified across the whole of the prison estate the rule that existed under the previous Government, in almost all of our prisons, not to allow parcels to be sent into prisons. Once again, we hear the hypocrisy of the Opposition.

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman briefs his Back Benchers and the right-wing media that he is banning books, but when he has been found to have acted unlawfully he says something very different in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

We know this Justice Secretary is obsessed with repealing the Human Rights Act 1998, walking away from the European Court of Human Rights, making it very difficult to bring a claim for judicial review, and making access to justice almost impossible for people with limited means by ill-thought-through deep cuts to legal aid. When the highly respected, legally qualified and knowledgeable former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), talks about politicians who risk “eroding” Britain’s legal framework for the sake of populism and short-term political gain, who does the Justice Secretary think the former Attorney-General is referring to? Why does he think that a highly respected and knowledgeable colleague has views so different from his own?

[Chris Grayling]

What I know is that I am pushing forward the policies that the public want. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to them might explain the fact that his party’s ratings have been sliding persistently in the polls over the past two years.

Prison Communications

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement, the contents of which are truly shocking. What he has outlined is a very serious breach of confidentiality involving MPs and their constituents. I welcome the speed of his response and today’s statement after first hearing about this issue only six days ago. I also thank him for his phone call to me this morning.

The ability of a Member of Parliament to maintain confidential channels of communication with his or her constituents is fundamental to their role as a Member of this House. Interception of MPs’ telephone calls has been governed by the Wilson doctrine since the 1960s, which, as the Justice Secretary has said, is made clear in prison rules and policy, so any breaches of confidentiality must be taken very seriously indeed.

Many of us will deal on a regular basis with constituents in prison—I remind the House that many of them have not been found guilty of any crime—as part of our duties as good constituency MPs. Often, our staff speak to prisoners on our behalf, as they do in other casework. I am sure that I am not alone in being shocked in hearing today’s news that some of those conversations have been listened in to and recorded.

That is why it is important, as the Justice Secretary has said, that we get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible, find out the extent to which it was taking place, and put in place a system that prevents a repeat in the future. I welcome the inquiry to be led by the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick.

I have a number of questions for the Justice Secretary. If he cannot answer some of them, I hope that either he or the chief inspector of prisons will respond in the near future.

Does this issue in any way contravene the Wilson doctrine on intercepting the telephone calls of MPs? In how many prisons has it taken place? The Justice Secretary referred to the PIN phone system in public sector prisons. What about private prisons? Will Nick Hardwick’s inquiry look into private prisons as well?

Is there any evidence that any of the information gained from the calls was fed up to senior officials in NOMS or passed on to any third parties? Can the Justice Secretary confirm that all remaining recordings and any transcripts have been destroyed, and that those that have not will be destroyed?

The Justice Secretary mentioned 32 current MPs. What about ex-Members of Parliament? Have they been informed that their conversations may well have been recorded and listened in to?

The Justice Secretary also mentioned the one incidence of a phone call between a prisoner and their solicitor being listened in to. As part of the inquiry, will Nick Hardwick look into whether other communications between prisoners and their lawyers may have been listened in to and recorded?

Is there any evidence that there has been any interference with postal correspondence between MPs and constituents or between prisoners and their legal representatives—the so-called rule 39A correspondence? The Justice Secretary rightly referred to the improvement of the audit trail post-2006. Can anything be done with regard to issues before 2006?

In conclusion, the Justice Secretary rightly reminded us why it is important for prisoners to be able to talk to family members, friends and others. He also rightly reminded us that, in facilitating prisoner phone calls, it is important that safeguards are in place, to ensure that prisoners do not abuse the system by, for example, contacting victims or continuing their involvement in criminality while still in prison. Of course, Members on both sides of the House agree with that. Today’s revelations are a worrying development and it is really important that we get to the bottom of what the Justice Secretary has revealed.

[Chris Grayling]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the measured way in which he has responded to the issue. Let me answer his questions in turn. The Wilson doctrine applies to intercept activity, so the routine monitoring of calls of this kind, while not within the prison rules, is not covered by the Wilson doctrine.

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an answer on the number of prisons. We have been able to identify the number of calls and MPs, but that has been done through telephone records, so I do not yet have information on the origins of the calls and the number of prisons. I expect we will see more information about that as the inquiry progresses.

I have as yet seen no evidence that information was passed on to anyone else. I do not believe that this was part of a concerted attempt to monitor; it was simply part of the routine checking of the process to make sure that nothing untoward was going on. Clearly, however, that is something I will ask Nick Hardwick to confirm.

I believe that all recordings have been destroyed—they are kept for only a limited period—but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any have survived, which I do not believe to be the case, they certainly will be destroyed.

Work relating to ex-Members of Parliament has not been done, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will ask that question and notify them. Until now, it has been a question of cross-referencing current Members of Parliament in order to identify issues.

On solicitors, I have asked Nick Hardwick to look at the full range of confidential calls. The reality is that occasionally mistakes will be made in a large organisation dealing with such issues. The total number of calls handled by the Prison Service over this period is about 16 million, so I will be up front with the House and say that occasionally mistakes will be made. I want Nick Hardwick to make sure that we have every possible safeguard in place to make sure that this cannot happen as a matter of routine.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about rule 39 mail. I do not have any evidence that such mail has been inappropriately intercepted. We keep rule 39 under regular surveillance and review. Although it is of paramount importance that it remains a conduit for prisoners to receive confidential material from their solicitors and to send such material to them, he will know that there have equally been suggestions over the years that rule 39 has been abused. I try to make sure that we continue to monitor it properly and respect its confidentiality, but governors are instructed to look at it if they have reason to believe—they must have such a reason—that rule 39 is being misused.

On the audit trail before 2006, we have looked at this practice from 2006. It may predate 2006, but the work that has been done with BT simply covered the period from 2006 onwards.

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern: in all aspects of what we do, it should be possible to have confidential conversations with constituents. Something has clearly gone wrong, and I need to rectify it. It goes back over many years, but it needs to be rectified now, and I assure the House that it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I remind the hon. Lady that the manifesto on which she stood at the last election referred in chapter 5, page 5 to legal aid cuts that would be made if Labour got into government. Perhaps she would like to ask the Opposition Front Benchers whether they intend to reverse the cuts that we have made.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that we disagree with the scale of the civil and criminal legal aid cuts that his Government have made. Has he read the serious recent criticism from a senior judge, Sir James Munby; a retired judge, Sir John Royce, about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked a simple question; and Emma Scott, the director of the Rights for Women charity? They have all expressed concern about the impact of the Government’s cuts. Is the Minister aware of their concerns and will he meet them? They are apolitical, serious experts who are genuinely worried about the impact of his cuts.

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I have read certain things. Has he read The Law Society Gazette of 24 September, following the Labour conference? The heading was, “Labour will not reverse legal aid cuts—Slaughter”. The reporter states:

“Labour’s legal aid spokesman has warned that the party cannot reverse the cuts of the current government if it comes to power next year.”

It goes on to say—I will be brief, Mr Speaker—that

“in a packed meeting organised by Justice Alliance UK in Manchester…Slaughter said he could not commit to re-establishing legal aid.”

It quotes the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) as saying:

“We’re not going to get in a Tardis and go back to before”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. Under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, there will be a much closer link between a prisoner, their place of detention, the area into which they are released and the plans for supporting them after they leave prison. Should they need or wish to move to a different area, they will need consent from the probation service and their local probation officer to do so. My hope and belief is that this will lead to much better post-prison support, and in particular post-prison support close to their natural home, rather than the kind of issues that my hon. Friend has experienced.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The independent chief inspector of prisons appointed by the previous Government is well respected by prison governors, prisoners, experts, the wider community and on both sides of the House. As the Justice Secretary will be aware, he is not afraid to make critical reports. At a time of huge turmoil in the probation service, with massive problems throughout the country, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the newly appointed chief inspector of probation, who has links to six of the 21 preferred bidders, has been so silent?

[Chris Grayling]

May I put it on record that I regard the current chief inspector of probation as a man of the highest integrity and of great professional expertise who has started to make a positive contribution to the probation arena. I recognise the issue raised earlier by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). I indicated that I would make further comments to the House in due course. We are only at the stage of preferred bidders. As I said earlier, there are many people in public life who are married to other people in public life. We should be extremely careful before we start to damn them because of that situation, or we risk losing some extremely able people from our public life.

[Sadiq Khan]

Maybe the Justice Secretary can reassure us. Has the chief inspector of probation at any time raised concerns with him or his Ministers about the Transforming Rehabilitation programme? If so, what were they?

[Chris Grayling]

The chief inspector of probation has done a detailed piece of work on the Transforming Rehabilitation programme, and that report will be published shortly. He has highlighted a number of areas we are addressing. The report will set out in detail some issues, many of which preceded the current reforms and go back many years, on how to improve performance on probation. As I said to the House recently, I have asked the chief inspector and all inspectors to come to my office immediately and tell me if they identify anything in the reforms that gives cause for concern about public safety. They have not done so.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I, too, thank all those involved in the passage of the Bill through this House. I will keep my comments, like the Bill, short. Of course we all want to see even more people volunteering. We all want even more social action. We all want even more heroism from the great British public. The Bill, however, will not be the reason for any of that happening.

The Bill received great fanfare from the Justice Secretary. When it was first unveiled, he trumpeted to the press how he would slay “the ’ealth and safety culture”—his dropped “h”, not mine. The media were fed grand promises that the Bill would rid us of the compensation culture, but the reality set in almost straight away. It soon became obvious that the Bill would do none of the things the Justice Secretary claimed it would do. It was soon plain for all to see that it was simply a big public relations stunt. This was squarely in the “spin first, think through the details later” category of legislation.

Those who knew their stuff were quick to round on the Bill. For many, including some of the Government’s own advisers, there is simply no evidence of a health and safety or compensation culture. The Justice Secretary is developing a habit of ignoring, or not even seeking, legal advice on his pet projects, and sometimes he even shoots the messenger. The former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), advised that the Bill was “utter tosh”—another reason, no doubt, why he was sacked at the last reshuffle.

The Justice Secretary needs to know that any expert—solicitor, barrister or anybody else—worth their salt would have told him that his Bill would have little if any impact on the health and safety or compensation culture. That is precisely what happened when the Bill had its Second Reading, when the Government could not muster a single Member to make a speech in favour of it. The only Government Member who did speak was the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), the former Solicitor-General, who is in his place. He said:

“I have a horrible suspicion that if the Bill becomes an Act as it is currently drafted, it will be the subject of derision and confusion, or that even if that does not happen, it will fall into disuse.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1204.]

Today, I think he called it a silly piece of legislation, and I am sure he will be speaking shortly. In Committee, the expert witnesses whom the Government invited to give evidence in support of the Bill saw no benefit in attending, and some even made it clear why there was no point: the Bill would make no difference.

The Bill will change little, but we will not oppose it today. We tried in Committee to make something of it, and it will now fall to the other place to attempt to give it purpose, but with prisons in crisis, probation in meltdown and access to justice under threat, it was always the wrong priority for a Government devoid of ideas. It exposes the Justice Secretary’s skewed priorities: he got his favourable media hit, and the rest is irrelevant. This treats the House with utter disrespect. Precious legislative time that could have gone on meaningful measures to change people’s lives for the better has been wasted. Nevertheless, he will receive one major accolade: his Bill will join that select club of the most useless pieces of legislation ever—not an honour of which to be proud.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

These reforms are going exactly according to plan and no test gate was due to start in June. We are on time and the teams on the ground are making good progress. I and my colleagues have visited the trust’s successor organisations, and members of my team are going out to hear what is happening on the ground. This is a nine-month process of delivering change in the public sector, before we reach the point of a change of ownership. We are trying to ensure that the new system is bedded in well, and so far I am happy with the progress being made. There is, of course, still work to be done, but good progress is being made.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

As usual, the Justice Secretary has his head in the sand. He was warned against his plans to privatise the probation service, but he ignored those warnings. Preferred bidders were supposed to be announced this week, but now he tells us it will be before the end of the year. There were supposed to be dozens and dozens of private companies, charities and voluntary groups bidding for the contracts, but there are not—in some areas, only one company is bidding for a contract. Staff—both those who respond to surveys and those who do not—are complaining of chaos at the probation service. Morale is at a record low and experienced and dedicated staff are leaving. Given that, are there any circumstances in which he would put a stop to the botched privatisation of the probation service?

[Chris Grayling]

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is plain wrong. He needs to stop listening to the trade unions; of course the trade unions still think this is a bad idea, but in reality our reforms are bedding in well and we will deliver the changes necessary to provide support and supervision to people who get none at the moment. The Labour party has no answers about how it would deliver that.

On competition, the right hon. Gentleman’s facts are plain wrong. I think we have 86 bids, with an average of four bidders in each area and a good mix of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors,. I am completely confident that we will shortly deliver a really innovative approach to rehabilitation, despite the blind opposition of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)]

I love doing things that are enormously popular and I also like doing things that are right. Magistrates’ sentencing powers are being reviewed and I will be able to come back to the House at its very early convenience, I hope, with some ideas.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has previously said, and he said it again today, how proud he is of his prison reforms. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that suicides are up 69% in a year. More people died in prison last year than ever before. Self-harm is up 27% since 2010. Serious assaults are up 30%. The riot squad has been called out 72% more times than it was in 2010 and one in five prisons are now rated as “of concern”, double the figure 12 months earlier. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that four reports by the chief inspector of prisons have been pretty damning; the reports on Glen Parva, Doncaster, Isis and Wormwood Scrubs. What will it take for the Secretary of State to accept that we are in the midst of a prison crisis?

[Chris Grayling]

As always, the right hon. Gentleman paints a very partial view of what is going on in our prisons. Our prisons are less overcrowded than they have been at any point since 2001. They are less violent than they were under the last Government. More work is being done in our prisons today than under the last Government. The number of prisoners going through education is rising. Today we have an excellent report on Chelmsford prison, which I visited last week. Two weeks ago, we had an excellent report on Parc prison in south Wales.

There are staff shortages in parts of our prison system but across the prison system we have a dedicated staff working hard and doing the right job. I take very seriously the issue of suicide in our prisons. We saw a rise in numbers earlier in the year. We saw a fall in numbers across the summer. We may see a rise or a fall in future. These things are difficult to track. We work very hard to tackle what is a real problem.

[Sadiq Khan]

This is classic, head-in-the-sand syndrome.

“The Government cannot pretend any longer that there is no crisis in our prisons.

Even their own backbenchers say the system is shambolic.

Mr Grayling’s priorities, regardless of his budget, must be the security of the public and prison officers—and the welfare of inmates.

His department’s failing on all three.”

Those are not my words. They are from an editorial in The Sun. The House should bear in mind that the Secretary of State was appointed by the Prime Minister to appeal to the red tops. What has gone wrong?

[Chris Grayling]

I will think that I have a problem in our prisons when I am forced through bad planning, as the last Government were, to release tens of thousands of prisoners weeks early to commit crimes that they should not have committed. I will know that I have a problem when I have to hire thousands of police cells when we do not have enough space in our prisons. The truth is that we have space in our prisons. They are less overcrowded. We are increasing education. They are less violent than they were under the last Government. We face challenges given budget pressures but we are doing a much better job than they did.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It is customary, after a reshuffle, to welcome to their places the new Ministers who have been promoted by the Prime Minister. I appreciate that there were a couple of days when the Ministry of Justice was without Ministers and I appreciate that the new ones are part time and unpaid, but I am surprised that they are not here to share the glory of this five-clause Bill. In their absence, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on his new role, and welcome my good friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) to his new role. It is pleasing that there were finally some willing takers to take up the opportunities in the Ministry of Justice and I wish them luck in their jobs. They will need it over the next 10 months.

So here we are, on the final Monday before the summer recess, in the fifth year of this coalition Government, discussing a five-clause Bill which has been variously described as “complete gobbledygook”, “a turkey” and my favourite one, “the gallinaceous love child” of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Government Policy. Perhaps the most painful of all insults comes from the ConservativeHome blog. The editor of that site put the Bill on the list of those that should not be in the Queen’s Speech. That is how much the Conservative activists think of the Bill. It is hardly a glowing list of endorsements that herald its arrival.

In his own puff piece for the Bill on ConservativeHome, the Justice Secretary wrote:

“SARAH has taken a while to bring to the fore, and she is now getting ready for her debut in the world.”

Given the rather flat reviews that SARAH’s debut has so far received, I cannot help but wonder whether she should ever have seen the light of day.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

If the right hon. Gentleman takes that view of the Bill, why is he not going to oppose it? And why have Labour MPs been told that they are on a one-line Whip, which means that they need not be here?

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman should give me a chance to complete my speech. Then we can discuss what we are going to do. He has been here for many Parliaments and he will know that we take the opportunity where we can to improve Bills, even five-clause nonsense Bills, in Committee. I look forward to working with him to improve the Bill during the remaining stages of its passage through the Commons.

I have referred to the fact that the Bill has only five clauses, and I accept that we should not necessarily judge its quality by its length, but if we strip out the first clause, which sets the scene, and the fifth, which deals with extent and commencement, it is only a three-clause Bill. It is so small that the short title is almost longer than the Bill itself. Does the content really warrant a Bill of its own?

It goes without saying that we all support those who volunteer. We want to see even more people contributing their time to good causes and to the vibrancy of civil society and communities throughout the country. We do not want to live in a country where there are unnecessary barriers in the way of those who want to donate their time to helping in the local community, nor do we want to live in a society where people feel unable to help out in an emergency because of a fear of litigation. But the premise of the Bill is built on sand. The Justice Secretary has stated:

“All too often people who are doing the right thing in our society feel constrained by the fear that they are the ones who will end up facing a lawsuit”,

and he repeated that in his Second Reading opening speech. One might think that such a sweeping statement would be followed up with some concrete examples of where that has happened, or perhaps some statistics to back it up, but no. Instead we are given generally wishy-washy scenarios where people and organisations might—I stress the word “might”—be put off by fear of litigation.

[Chris Grayling]

How does the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain the 30% increase in three years in personal injury claims?

[Sadiq Khan]

I am pleased that the Justice Secretary asks that question because the Ministry of Justice has confirmed that the number of civil cases is going down, not up. It would be worth his spending some time looking at his own statistics. He spent a great deal of time during his speech talking about all the progress that he has made in reducing the number of personal injury cases. Either his reforms are not working or the statistics from his Department are wrong. He must decide which it is.

During his 30-minute speech he gave us no hard facts, no proof and no evidence. We know he has previous when it comes to lack of evidence. We have seen the meltdown in probation that has come about because of his Government’s reckless and half-baked probation privatisation—all done, again, without any evidence, let alone testing or piloting; nothing to show it would work or would not risk public safety. The Justice Secretary said at the Dispatch Box that he trusted his instinct ahead of hard statistical evidence—the same instinct that brought us the Work programme and that delivered a prison crisis has now brought us SARAH.

The Justice Secretary tried to give the impression that there was a problem, and he referred to the impact assessment. I can imagine the fear in his officials’ eyes when they were told to go and find some evidence—any evidence—to support the aims of his Bill. But the Justice Secretary should have been worried when all they could come back with was a survey—a survey—from 2006-07, when the ink was not even dry on the Compensation Act 2006. How can he use as evidence a survey done when the 2006 legislation, which many people think deals adequately with the problems that he says he wants to solve, had barely come into force? In fact, there is plenty of evidence out there, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) said, that contradicts the Government’s claim. A Cabinet Office report from 2013 shows not a fall but a rise in volunteering, confirmed also this week by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Volunteering is going up, not down.

[Mr Hurd]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and both sides of the House should celebrate that. It is in part the result of significant Government interventions to remove barriers and reform Criminal Record Bureau checks, and to invest in the opportunities to volunteer, not least the National Citizen Service. This is another milestone on that journey of removing barriers. Yes, volunteering is rising, but still, 20% of volunteers do 80% of the giving. There is so much potential to do more, but far too many people are put off by the risk of being sued, and this Bill aims to create a greater sense of reassurance on that fundamental point.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am grateful for that intervention because it means that I can refer to the evidence on the barriers to volunteering. The biggest obstacle is a lack of spare time—60% of respondents said that this applied to them a lot and 23% said it applied little. Where does the Bill give people who want to volunteer more spare time? The second biggest reason given by the survey was bureaucracy. Where does the Bill deal with bureaucracy? Other barriers to people coming forward to volunteer include work commitments; looking after children or the home; looking after someone elderly or ill. The hon. Gentleman will know, if he is really honest, that this is a Bill without a cause. Fear of litigation is a very small factor—I think only 1% in the most recent survey referred to that.

[Mr Hurd]

Can we just be clear that the position of the Labour party is that all is well with the 2006 Act, and that there is not a significant issue in the voluntary sector about the risk of litigation and the concern about managing that risk?

[Sadiq Khan]

If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will come on to what the Justice Secretary should have done and pray in aid experts in that regard.

As I said, volunteering is going up, not down. If the health and safety culture is stifling volunteering, perhaps the Justice Secretary can explain the increase in volunteering. As I have said, there is no evidence to support the problem that he describes. There is no great health and safety beast suffocating the life out of those doing good deeds, petrified into inaction at the prospect of having to fork out compensation after being sued. Even if there was, the Bill provides no real substantive solutions anyway.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I think that many of us are of the view—I am a little surprised that this is not in the Bill—that certain volunteers, particularly in cave and mountain rescue organisations, and even the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, are put in situations that are probably far too difficult and dangerous. In certain situations, for example when people seem to make a specialism of going on to mountains when they know there will be bad weather, the Government should be doing more to protect those volunteers.

[Sadiq Khan]

If the Bill was really about social action, responsibility and heroism, those sorts of measures would be in it, but clearly it is not.

Let me remind the House of the conclusions of the Government’s own inquiry, which the Justice Secretary referred to, but not fully. Lord Young of Graffham, in his 2010 report, concluded:

“The problem of the compensation culture prevalent in society today is, however, one of perception rather than reality.”

There we have it, from the Government’s mouth: it is a perception, not a reality. The report goes on to highlight:

“One of the great misconceptions, often perpetuated by the media, is that we can be liable for the consequences of any voluntary acts”.

The report then refers to advice given to people in the winter of 2009 about not clearing snow from the front of their houses in case someone slipped and sued them. The Lord Chief Justice said that he had never come across someone being sued in those circumstances, yet the Justice Secretary has wilfully reported that old chestnut in articles he has written before today. I am happy to give way if he would like to intervene and list the occasions since 2010 when such incidents have occurred. No? Well, there we have it. His silence is telling, as he knows there are no such cases.

If the Justice Secretary’s point was that the threat of litigation is putting people off clearing snow, the Bill will do nothing to address that. In fact, the MOJ’s own statistics show that the total number of money claims in civil courts has been following a downward trend in recent years, rather than going up. In any case, the Bill deals with cases that have already reached the courts, so nothing in it will reduce the prospect of being sued. It will not reduce, as he describes it, the “stress and strain” if someone is sued.

Instead of preparing this Bill—the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked this question—the Secretary of State’s energies, and those of his officials, would have been better spent rebutting some of the myths about negligence and health and safety. That would have been a better way of tackling the fear of litigation, given that the likelihood of a negligence claim is pretty small. In fact, that was the advice of Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls. In a speech entitled “Compensation culture: Fact or fantasy?”, he argued that the perception of a compensation culture

“is not however as grounded in reality as had been suggested.”

He also suggested:

“All of this may also require a substantive educative effort on the part of government, the courts and the legal profession to counter-act the media-created perception that we are in the grips of a compensation culture. It may also require greater public legal education.”

Perhaps that education should have begun with the Justice Secretary.

I have already welcomed the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to his new post and congratulated him on his promotion. I am sorry that he is not here to share the joys of the Bill with his line manager, because in his previous job at the Department for Work and Pensions he understood exactly the importance of exploding myths about health and safety. In January, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on health and safety, he said that

‘it is very important that health and safety is taken seriously in the workplace and in public areas. Right across the Christmas period, I went public about the need to ensure that Christmas was not spoiled by stupid comments, and stupid local authorities saying, ‘We shouldn’t do this or that’—throw snowballs, or have Christmas trees in certain areas—‘because of health and safety.’ That is wrong, and it has nothing to do with health and safety; it is an insurance risk.’—[Official Report, 13 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 579.]

I hope that although the Minister is absent today he will be able to import some of his common sense into the current MOJ team. After all, as drafted, this Bill will not help. The Government are seeking to legislate to deal with how we perceive risk, real or otherwise. If he were serious, the Justice Secretary would tackle the misconceptions about the risk of being sued, but that is a trickier task that he has chosen to duck.

In introducing this Bill, the Justice Secretary said a lot about how it will protect the responsible employer. That prompts this question: where are the dozens of examples of courts having had a case before them where an employer has done the right thing and an employee has not, and yet they have found for the employee? There are no examples of such cases. He talked about members of the emergency services not going to someone’s rescue in case they breach health and safety rules. Will he tell the House what representations he has received from the fire, ambulance, police and coastguard services in support of that contention? Silence again.

I would like to pick up an important legal point. The Bill seems to conflate health and safety and negligence cases. The former are usually strict liability and the latter are not. That confuses civil liability with criminal liability.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I think I know how the right hon. Gentleman will respond to this point, but, for clarity, I am going to put it anyway. There have undoubtedly been cases, have there not, where policemen have said, for example, that they were not prepared to pull an apparently drowned victim out of a pool for fear of not being suitably qualified to do so? Is he saying that some measure other than this Bill will try to prevent that in future? Such cases clearly do exist, as they are widely reported to a horrified public.

[Sadiq Khan]

I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he was not in the Chamber when I referred to the Master of the Rolls. We need to make sure that employees who do not know the position are educated and told the position, and that those who are not properly trained are properly trained. Debating a three-clause Bill today, and even passing it in the next few months, will not make a jot of difference. We need to make sure that the public and those who work in the emergency services are better educated and know what obligations and duties are placed on them, without the risk and fear of litigation.

Let us be clear: this Bill is targeted at negligence and not at health and safety at all. When the Justice Secretary claims, as he does, that his Bill will

“finally slay much of the ‘elf and safety’…culture”,

he must be honest about the fact that he is being disingenuous, to say the least. If this Bill were really about health and safety, he would be telling the House about the conversations he has had with the Health and Safety Executive and its views on the necessity for such legislation. Again—I think for the seventh time—I will happily allow him to intervene on me to update the House on those conversations with the Health and Safety Executive. Silence again.

We will use the Committee stage of the Bill to scrutinise in more detail its ramifications, both intended and unintended, because it might end up having the opposite effect to that which the Justice Secretary wants. A single act or omission is all that is needed to be negligent. That act or omission might be so serious, causing injury, pain or even death, as to outweigh any amount of good behaviour. He likes talking about hypothetical situations, so what about this one? You are the parent of a child. Would you want them to go on a trip knowing that if they are injured owing to a fault on the part of the school, youth club or scouts, they will not get compensated? The Bill creates the impression that this is the Government’s intention. Or this one: the chairman of a local football team cuts corners when vetting volunteer coaches working with children in the belief that he is protected by the law because in providing coaching for children, he is, to quote clause 2,

“acting for the benefit of society”.

The ramifications of this Bill are that children risk being more exposed to risk. Is that the Government’s intention in introducing it?

If that is not the Government’s intention, this three-clause Bill will not make any difference to the current state of play, as the former Solicitor-General made clear in his intervention. When assessing negligence claims, courts already take into account whether somebody is doing something for the benefit of society, as is recognised by the impact assessment of the Ministry of Justice. That is why organisations have insurance. Although they may be defendants in a claim, they would not be financially liable and their insurer would pay out.

That leads me on to another point. It is interesting that the impact assessment states:

“Insurers and other defendants may gain from slightly reduced aggregate compensation paid and this may feed through to lower insurance premiums.”

However, there is no attempt whatsoever to quantify that, and nor is there any undertaking from insurance companies that it will be passed on to customers—all of which leaves us questioning whether any of that will actually happen in practice, or will insurance companies just end up with higher profits? We all know, by the way, that those companies have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative party’s coffers over recent years.

The House must also steel itself for the inevitable last-minute tabling of a slew of Government new clauses and amendments. The Justice Secretary has a very bad habit of doing that. Such proposals get a cursory amount of scrutiny at best, but they are designed to get the good media hit he so craves and to raise a cheer from his beleaguered Back Benchers. We are very alert to the possibility of new things being added to the Bill at later stages.

Short though today’s Second Reading debate will be, given the paucity of Government speakers, it would be helpful if the Justice Secretary could provide a number of reassurances. Will he reassure us that the Government have no intention of watering down the duty on businesses, particularly small firms, to take out employers’ liability insurance, and that there are no plans to make individual employees take out their own insurance as an alternative to employers’ liability insurance?

[Chris Grayling]

Given that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to every aspect of what we are proposing, I am baffled that the serried ranks of Labour Bank Benchers do not plan to vote against the Bill.

[Sadiq Khan]

I appreciate that the Justice Secretary is demoralised because he has not been moved from the Justice Department. When the Prime Minister asked Cabinet members to volunteer Bills and the Justice Secretary put up his hand and said, “Please, sir, I’ll put forward a Bill,” he thought he would have moved on by the time it came to Second Reading, so I am sorry that he has to deal with this pathetic and embarrassing Bill. Given that it is the Justice Secretary’s Bill, we expected dozens and dozens of his MPs to be present saying what a wonderful Bill it is, but they are not piling up behind him to say so.

The Justice Secretary has claimed that years of work—that is what he said—have gone into this pathetic and embarrassing Bill. It confuses important legal concepts and it is not properly thought through, so it could have negative knock-on effects as a result. It lacks an evidence base and seeks to legislate on the back of myths. It will not do what the Justice Secretary claims it will. It is UKIP-friendly, but it is more like something out of “The Thick of It”. It does not seem to do anything that the current law—section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 —does not already do.

Members should not just take my word for it. Today’s briefing by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which was mentioned by the former Minister for Civil Society, who has now left the Chamber, says:

“NCVO does not expect this bill to significantly alter the current law, with similar provisions already made in the Compensation Act 2006.”

Therefore, the only people whom the Justice Secretary could pray in aid say that the Bill will not make a jot of difference. All three main aims of the Bill are covered by that existing legislation. In fact, the MOJ’s own impact assessment also notes that

“the courts are already very experienced in dealing with these cases”.

It is a sad indictment of this Government that this is the best they have to offer in the final year of this Parliament, when prisons are in crisis, probation is in meltdown and access to justice is under attack on a daily basis. If the Justice Secretary was told by the Prime Minister that he had to introduce a Bill in this Queen’s Speech, we would have thought that he might have chosen a better one. What about a victims’ law? He could have used this window to put the rights of victims and witnesses into primary legislation. Instead, we have the SARAH Bill—a turkey of a Bill, a vacuous Bill—which, without doubt, is the most embarrassing and pathetic Bill that the Minister of Justice has published since the Department was first formed.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I confess that I am no enthusiast for this Bill, but if I was ever to be persuaded to change my mind, the speech of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) would go a long way to doing so. It was a rather snide and unnecessarily cheap speech, if I may say so, but it pains me to say that I largely agree with its thrust.

[Sadiq Khan]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Particularly bearing in mind where I think the former Solicitor-General is going in his speech, is it not the practice for someone who has made a speech to stay for at least the next two speeches to hear other people’s contributions?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Actually, it is in order normally to hear one. I do not know the circumstances, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has made his point. The Secretary of State waited fully until the end of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am not sure whether he wanted to hear Sir Edward Garnier’s speech—that is not for me to decide—but the point has been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That was very interesting. I have absolutely no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to hear every word I am about to say, but he has other pressing public duties to attend to. No doubt, he will read the whole of this afternoon’s debate in the Official Report in due course.

One good reason for speaking in this debate is to give me an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) for his work as a Cabinet Office Minister, particularly on the voluntary sector. He worked extremely hard, with precious little thanks, and was content to do so, despite the fact that all he did achieved, sadly, very little public profile. At least on this occasion, we can thank him very much for all he did. I trust that it will not be long before he is back in government again.

As I said at the outset, I am not hugely enthusiastic about this particular piece of legislation. I am concerned that what the Secretary of State said does not reflect the long title, which states that it is a Bill:

“To make provision as to matters to which a court must have regard in determining a claim in negligence or breach of statutory duty.”

Most of what he said had to do with sending out messages. We all need to send out messages from time to time—sometimes to ask for help, and sometimes to ask people to pay attention to what we are trying to do. In so far as it went, his speech was no doubt well intended, but it did not, if I may say so, condescend to deal with the Bill as a potential piece of law. If we are to pass or make laws, they must be coherent. Although I entirely agree with all the sentiments that he uttered this afternoon about reducing the so-called health and safety culture, reducing the easy acceptance of the only answer to a problem being to sue and dissuading ambulance-chasing solicitors from doing this, that or the other, I regret to say that I do not agree that this particular Bill will achieve that.

I do not know how many people who are intent on bringing an action, if they are not lawyers themselves, think about pieces of legislation. Let us hope that I am wrong and my right hon. Friend is right, and that when the Bill is enacted, copies of it will be plastered all over doctors’ waiting rooms and other public places, so that no citizen will be tempted to bring a spurious claim.

I would be interested to hear how many High Court or county court actions would have been decided differently had the Bill been in force. It is perfectly true to say that the Compensation Act 2006 covers many of the areas of conjecture that are covered by the Bill. I am not persuaded that the Bill covers any new territory.

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is being very generous. I hope that my comments will be helpful. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill states in paragraph 17:

“Both the possible reduction in case volumes and the size of any compensation payments are unknown, but are likely to be small.”

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That is, no doubt, what the impact assessment says. Whether that justifies the bringing into law of the Bill, I rather doubt.

I spoke about the Bill before having read it on the Thursday of the Queen’s Speech debate. I teased the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government rather rudely by inviting him to provide a definition of “heroic negligence”. He heroically tried to provide me with such a definition, but he did not do so. That is not surprising, because I am not entirely sure that there is such a thing.

I was interested in what my noble Friend Lord Faulks, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, said on 9 June in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the other place. He said that the Bill will not change the existing overarching legal framework or leave victims without protection, but that it will provide reassurance and send a strong signal to the courts. To quote directly, he said:

“They will still need to look at whether a defendant met the appropriate standard of care in all the circumstances of the case.”—

I say, in parenthesis, that that is what they do already—

“Nor will it introduce blanket exemptions to civil liability. There is an important balance to be struck between encouraging participation in civil society and being mindful of the impact that careless or risky actions could have on the very people that the defendant was trying to help. The Bill is not about removing protection and leaving victims without proper recourse in those circumstances. However, it will give valuable and needed reassurance to a wide range of people and send a powerful signal that the courts will take full account of the context of a person’s actions when determining a negligence claim.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 132.]

I do not think that anybody in either House knows more about the law of negligence than my noble Friend Lord Faulks, who has 40 years’ experience at the Bar dealing predominantly with cases involving negligence and public authorities, such as fire authorities. Reading between the lines of what he said—he will contradict me if I have got this wrong—he does not have a huge amount of enthusiasm for the Bill. However, I may have misread what he said.

The Bill is more like an early-day motion than a proper statute. I say that because, as the Secretary of State admitted, it is predominantly there to send out a message—a strong signal. As I have had many opportunities to say in my 22, 23 or 24 years in this House, we should legislate not to send out signals or messages, but to make good black-letter law, so that the courts know what the law is and can apply it, and so that the legal professions know what it is and can advise the public on it.

My concern is that the contents of the Bill have been within the common law and the ambit of the court’s appreciation for years and years. In 1954, in the case of Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council, Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, spoke about the balancing act performed by the court when people intervene to help in an emergency, which relates to clause 4. He said:

“It is well settled that in measuring due care one must balance the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. To that proposition there ought to be added this. One must balance the risk against the end to be achieved. If this accident had occurred in a commercial enterprise without any emergency there could be no doubt that the servant would succeed. But the commercial end to make profit is very different from the human end to save life or limb. The saving of life or limb justifies taking considerable risk, and I am glad to say there have never been wanting in this country men of courage ready to take those risks, notably in the Fire Service.”

What Lord Justice Denning said is as true now as it was in 1954, as I know from the emergency services in my own county of Leicestershire, be it the police, the ambulance service or the fire service. There are plenty of brave people who will risk their own life and limb to save others.

I rather agree what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said about the last words of clause 4, which refer to an action taken

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

I suggest, and I think he agrees, that it is much more heroic to do something having had regard to one’s own safety or other interests, and to go on and do the brave thing—rescuing someone from a frozen lake, pulling them out of a burning building or whatever it might be—despite having thought about those interests. For goodness’ sake, if the Bill is to become law, the least we can do is to remove those last few words of clause 4. Even if it were difficult to work out in law what heroic negligence actually was, we would at least have made that clause a little better.

Nobody will be thanked, least of all a Government Back Bencher, for making a rude speech about a Government Bill, but from time to time, even on a hot day when I would rather be somewhere else, I find it necessary for this House to introduce a degree of common sense into a Bill before the other place gives it a thorough grilling. Far too often, the laws that we pass are the laws of the unintended consequence, and I have a horrible suspicion that if the Bill becomes an Act as it is currently drafted, it will be the subject of derision and confusion, or that even if that does not happen, it will fall into disuse.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take my remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. I really do share with him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the aims that the latter set out quite a few times— to prevent the abuse of the health and safety culture, to reduce spurious litigation and claims and so on. If I may say so, though, passing a Bill that has a hideous resemblance to an early-day motion rather than a proper Act of Parliament is not the way to do it.

I hope that the Bill will not be the subject of a Division this evening, because I cannot support it. If the Opposition seek a Division I will not join them in the lobby, because I found the manner in which the right hon. Member for Tooting made his speech unattractive, but that is a matter for him. We need to take the Bill away and give it a thorough scrubbing over the summer holidays.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman says I have given two examples. That is two more than the number of times he has repeated the same question, over and over again. I am sorry that he does not like the answer, but he will have to live with it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) was quite candid in his comments. I have to say that while I respect his distinguished career in the law and his legal brain power, on this issue I will respectfully disagree with him. What we are trying to do is consolidate the measures elsewhere in the statute book in one Bill. Also, as my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made clear, we are seeking to send out a powerful message to public: that when they do the right thing, the law will take them into account.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke in support of the Bill. As he rightly put it, we should judge the Bill by its content, not by the number of clauses. He asked whether it would be extended to Northern Ireland. That is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, as it is a devolved matter, but I will certainly be following with interest to see what progress is made by the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is comforting that he has put on the record his support for the measure.

We need to be clear that there is nothing in the Bill to stop an employee bringing a negligence claim against an employer. [Interruption.] Clearly the paymasters of the Labour party, the trade unions, have been lobbying it hard, as was abundantly clear from the way Labour Members spoke about their friends in the trade unions. The Bill is not designed to reduce standards of health and safety in the workplace or to leave workers without a remedy where they have been injured by the negligent actions of an irresponsible employer. It will, however, provide valuable reassurance to employers who have taken a responsible approach to safety, but end up in court when, for example, an employee suffers an injury that simply could not have been foreseen by any reasonable person. The Bill will send the powerful message that the courts will always consider the employer’s general approach to safety in the course of the activity in question before reaching a decision on liability.

The courts will, of course, need to consider in every case whether someone was acting for the benefit of society or adopting a generally responsible approach to the safety of others in the course of a particular activity. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) chunters away from a sedentary position. All I will say to him is “Where are your Back Benchers?”

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will give way, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question that I have just put to him. Where are his Back Benchers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I am intervening to ask whether the Minister can tell us the difference between the position created by the Bill and the position under the Compensation Act 2006. It is a simple question: what is the difference?

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. He was concentrating so hard on preparing his question that he completely ignored the question that I had asked. [Interruption.]