Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I was quite enjoying that, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of the anti-Westminster mood around the country, and he has spoken of anomalies in the way our country is governed. I welcome his support for a peoples-led convention, which the Lib Dems, the Labour party and other parties all support. Why does he think the Conservatives are so against that proposal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have been saying for a while that Government policies would lead to a prison crisis, and they have. The wrong sort of offenders are being sent to the wrong sort of prison. That is not just our view but that of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). When Michael Wheatley absconded last month and allegedly committed further offences, the Justice Secretary said that he would bring in new rules to prevent such occurrences from happening again. Today, the media are reporting that two men—one a killer, the other serving an indeterminate sentence—have absconded from Spring Hill prison. The police have warned the public not to approach the pair. Why is the Justice Secretary finding it so difficult to keep the public safe?

[Mr Speaker]

This is a matter of particular interest to me as that prison is in my own constituency, as the Secretary of State might know.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We may be going slightly off track, Mr Speaker, but may I just point out that the Work programme is doing about twice as well as the predecessor programme that we inherited from the last Government?

[Mr Speaker]

That is totally irrelevant to the Third Reading of the Bill.

[Sadiq Khan]

I wish the Justice Secretary was right, but he is not.

Imagine that shambolic record being repeated in a privatised probation service, with someone’s chances of being rehabilitated being better if left to their own devices than if they go through £600 million of supervision by the likes of G4S, Serco, A4E and Capita. By the way, for those who believe that G4S and Serco will have nothing to do with the privatised probation service, that is not necessarily the case. On 19 December, the Justice Secretary said that the Government had left open the possibility of either supplier playing a supporting role, working with smaller business or voluntary sector providers to support their objective of achieving a diverse market. Once more, there is smoke and mirrors from the Ministry of Justice, more hiding the real facts. G4S and Serco could still be involved in the probation service.

The best way to pursue plans that lead to massive changes of this kind and affect public safety are through piloting and testing to see if something works before rolling it out, rather than a big bang. Perhaps the Justice Secretary should also consider asking probation trusts to take on the extra supervision rather than ignoring them and opting for big private company involvement instead. That is precisely the kind of piloting and testing that his predecessor planned and which the Justice Secretary cancelled in his first week in his job in a fit of pique, when he announced that his own gut instinct trumped evidence and statistics. Does the House really think, without any evidence whatever, that a privatised and fragmented probation service will be able to deliver the provisions in this Bill? The Justice Secretary has nothing to point towards to support this—not the Peterborough scheme, as he claims, which is a totally different model. That is comparing apples with pears.

It is a double risk because at the same time as supervision is extended the institutional landscape responsible for supervision will be radically overhauled. This will see the Government abolishing local probation trusts, commissioning services on behalf of local areas direct from Whitehall, splitting responsibility for offenders based on a non-static risk level between public and private organisations and handing over to big multinational companies supervision of serious and violent offenders, and all at breakneck speed without any evidential base: a monumental gamble with public safety.

Of course we support attempts to reduce reoffending; we support extended supervision of those in custody for fewer than 10 months; we support attempts to provide through-the-gate support for those leaving prison; we support attempts to get more charities, voluntary groups and small and large businesses involved—but we do not support reckless, half-baked plans without any evidence that they will not put public safety at risk. We cannot support something that undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system, and we will not support ideologically driven leaps in the dark.

It is simply wrong for the Justice Secretary to argue that those who are concerned about his plans are against reducing reoffending just because we are against his particular half-baked and reckless proposals. We happen to believe that his plans are precisely that, and those concerns are shared by experts, staff, the chief inspector and even his own officials.

The Bill will now return to the other place. I hope colleagues there will insist that their clause—to ensure that probation privatisation should not happen without both Houses having the opportunity properly to scrutinise the Government’s detailed plans to change the structure of the probation service—is reinserted in the Bill. I see no reason why the other place should back down. The concerns reflected in the clause it inserted are as important now—if not even more so—than they were last summer. Scandals involving private companies have increased, and more evidence has come to light about concerns from the chief inspector of probation and from the Ministry’s own internal assessment of the risks. It is thus only right and proper for the Government to submit their full and detailed plans to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and not rush things through. We cannot afford to take reckless gambles where public safety is concerned. The Government’s plans risk doing exactly that, which is why we cannot support them.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman will be talking to the Secretary of State. That will be a very important part of the discussion.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I commend the Justice Secretary for the cool, calm way in which he answered these questions today, in contrast to the way in which he spoke to the media about the case last week. The position is clear: in 2007, Britain specifically opted out of the charter of fundamental rights being enforceable when the Lisbon treaty was signed. There is no ambiguity about that, as even Mr Justice Mostyn agrees. In his judgment, after quoting the relevant protocol, he said:

“To my mind, it is absolutely clear that the contracting parties agreed that the Charter did not create one single further justiciable right in our domestic courts.”

Labour sought and successfully negotiated an opt-out from the charter. I commend the cool, calm way in which the right hon. Gentleman has explained the timeline and the judgment in 2011.

The right hon. Gentleman has explained why he did not appeal the judgment in Luxembourg in 2011, but he has also heard the concern about the confusion that that could cause in the judiciary. Will he publish the relevant legal advice so that all members of the judiciary can be made aware that there is no confusion, and that the charter is not enforceable in the UK courts? Will he also confirm that he understands that the concern relates to a ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which arbitrates on matters relating to the EU, and not by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which deals with the European convention on human rights? For the avoidance of doubt, I am willing to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the UK’s opt-out from the EU charter of fundamental rights, which we negotiated, remains in place?

Defamation Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

First, may I make it perfectly clear to the ignorant person who tweeted about me this afternoon that I have, in fact, declared my interest in relation to this matter on the amendment paper?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Derbyshire county council case, while Lord Keith held that the council should not be able to sue, he confirmed that corporations should be able to sue to protect their trading reputation? The heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that this is about inequality of arms. He thinks rich, very large and hugely well-resourced companies are bullying less resourced individuals, but the same criticism could be made of immensely rich private individuals who bring claims. Robert Maxwell used his millions—perhaps they were other people’s millions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch my eye and make his own speech in due course, but we do not have all that long for this debate and we have got the gist of his point.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thank you for rescuing me from that speech, Mr Speaker.

First, we are not saying corporations cannot sue at all. We are saying, “If you’ve suffered serious financial loss relative to the size of your company, you can sue.” Also, directors can sue, which is especially relevant to a small company suffering harm.

All in all, we believe that the provisions in Lords amendment 2 are measured and sensible, and modernise our existing defamation laws in a proportionate manner. They enjoy wide support, too. They are supported by the Libel Reform Campaign, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, chaired, as we have been reminded, by former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Mawhinney.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 26, page 4, line 39, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘three’.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 27 and 42.

Amendment 28, page 5, line 4, after ‘proceedings)’, insert

‘and such disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security’.

Government amendments 43, 44 and 29.

Amendment 30, page 5, line 36, leave out from ‘that’ to end of line 37 and insert

‘the degree of harm to the interests of national security if the material is disclosed would be likely to outweigh the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice.’.

Amendment 31, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

‘(6A) The third condition is that a fair determination of the proceedings is not possible by any other means.’.

Amendment 32, page 5, line 38, leave out ‘two’ and insert ‘three’.

Amendment 33, page 5, line 40, leave out from ‘proceedings’ to end of line 41.

Government amendments 46 and 47

Amendment 34, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

‘(7A) Before making a declaration under subsection (2), the court must consider whether a claim for public interest immunity could have been made in relation to the material.’.

Amendment 70, page 6, line 22, at end insert—

‘or proceedings at an inquest conducted by the Chief Coroner or a High Court judge.’.

New clause 2—Proceedings in which section 6 proceedings are not applicable—

‘(1) Section 6 proceedings will not be applicable in proceedings where the outcome could result in, contribute to, or impede efforts to challenge the—

(a) imprisonment; or

(b) continued detention

of a party, whether in the UK or overseas.

(2) Section 6 proceedings will not be applicable in proceedings—

(a) relating to conduct which may amount to commission of the following domestic and international wrongs—

(i) genocide;

(ii) murder;

(iii) torture;

(iv) slavery;

(v) cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;

(vi) child abuse; or

(vii) other matters that the court regards as breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

(b) where there is a real risk that non-disclosure of that material or information may result in the wrongful imprisonment of an individual in the UK or overseas or the death of an individual overseas.’.

Amendment 1, page 4, line 29, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 2, page 6, line 25, leave out clause 7.

Amendment 3, page 7, line 4, leave out clause 8.

Amendment 4, page 8, line 1, leave out clause 9.

Amendment 5, page 8, line 25, leave out clause 10.

Amendment 6, page 8, line 30, leave out clause 11.

Amendment 7, page 9, line 16, leave out clause 12.

Amendment 22, page 10, line 4, leave out clause 13.

Amendment 23, page 11, line 17, leave out clause 14.

New clause 7—Notifying the media of CMP applications and media rights to make submissions—

‘(1) Rules of court relating to section 6 proceedings must make provision—

(a) requiring the court concerned to notify relevant representatives of the media of proceedings in which an application for a declaration under section 6 has been made;

(b) providing for any person notified under paragraph (a) to intervene in the proceedings;

(c) providing for a stay or sist of relevant civil proceedings to enable anyone notified under paragraph (a) to consider whether to intervene in the proceedings;

(d) enabling any party to the proceedings or any intervener to apply to the court concerned for a determination of whether there continues to be justification for not giving full particulars of the reasons for decisions in the proceedings; and

(e) requiring the court concerned, on an application under paragraph (d), to publish such of the reasons for decision as the court determines can no longer be justifiably withheld.’.

New clause 8—Ensuring closed judgments can become open when secrecy is no longer required—

‘(1) Rules of court relating to sections 6 and 7 proceedings must make provision—

(a) enabling any party to the proceedings or any intervener to apply to the court concerned for a determination of whether there continues to be justification for not giving full particulars of the reasons for decisions in the proceedings; and

(b) requiring the court concerned, on an application under paragraph (a), to publish such of the reasons for decision as the court determines can no longer be justifiably withheld;

(c) ensuring applications under paragraph (a) are not granted more than once in any 12 month period;

(d) enabling the court to deny a paragraph (a) application if the court views it as an abuse of process; and

(e) ensuring that all closed judgments undergo a paragraph (a) determination every five years, even in the absence of an application under paragraph (a).’.

Amendment 35, in clause 7, page 6, line 29, leave out from ‘that’ to end of line 30 and insert—

‘any of the conditions in subsections (4) to (6A) of section 6 is no longer met.’.

Amendment 36, page 6, line 33, leave out from ‘that’ to end of line 34 and insert

‘any of the conditions in subsections (4) to (6A) of section 6 is no longer met.’.

Amendment 37, page 6, line 41, leave out from ‘whether’ to second ‘the’ in line 43 and insert

‘any of the conditions in subsections (4) to (6A) of section 6 is no longer met.’.

Government amendment 48.

Amendment 38, in clause 8, page 7, line 18, at end add

‘and that damage outweighs the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice’.

Amendment 39, page 7, line 20, leave out ‘consider requiring’ and insert ‘require’.

Amendment 40, page 7, line 22, at end insert

‘sufficient to enable the party to whom the summary is provided to give effective instructions on the undisclosed material to their legal representatives and special advocates.’.

Government amendments 50 and 65.

[Sadiq Khan]

Let me begin by making it absolutely clear to the House where the Opposition stand on the issue of closed material procedures in civil proceedings. We accept that there may be rare examples where it is preferable for a CMP to be used because there is no other way a particular case can be heard. Our position has been influenced to a large extent by the views of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Mr David Anderson QC. He has written two memorandums on the proposals in the Bill and has given evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He has said that

“there is a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims, both for judicial review of executive decisions and for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP—for all its inadequacies—should exist.”

We are persuaded.

There may be rare examples where it is preferable for a CMP to be used because existing tools used by the court—for example, public interest immunity, redaction, confidentiality rings and in-camera hearings—may not be sufficient to allow sensitive intelligence material to be disclosed in court, meaning there may be no other way a case can be heard. However, we do not give unqualified support and shortly I will deal with some of the conditions we consider must be attached to the extension of CMPs, conditions which David Anderson said were important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has created a precedent, but I do not know whether it will ever be followed.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I only wish that I had received a good answer from the Justice Secretary. He has been busy in recent weeks chasing headlines with general statements on everything from Titan prisons to spartan prisons, and from gay prisoners to smacking children. May I ask him about the specifics? I note that his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), could not answer earlier, but then he did not do the media appearances. When will the first Titan prison open, where will it be and how much will it cost?

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, I do not; no, I could not; and no, it would not be right for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is a decent fellow, to seek to embroil me in partisan politics. That would be unworthy of him, and I feel sure that he would not knowingly behave in an unworthy way.

[Sadiq Khan]

May I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on the sheer audacity of his speech? His criticism of the House of Lords is breathtaking. Only six months ago, he and his party were saying that—I paraphrase—the House of Lords was so perfect that it did not need any reform, yet here he is today, arguing that it is so inept and incompetent that it cannot be trusted with this issue, despite all the Lords’ experience and the impartiality that the Conservatives claim comes from being unelected. You really could not make it up.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about his coalition partners. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Liberal Democrat Members should not be yelling at the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) intervened and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is replying. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is an aspiring statesman—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, perhaps he thinks he is a statesman already, and he should behave accordingly. Let us hear Mr Sadiq Khan.

[Sadiq Khan]

I have already told the House what the Deputy Leader of the House thought a few months before he had the burdens of high office. Only two months before he became part of the Government and part of the Executive, he said that programme motions are

“imposed by the Executive to prevent debate”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 819.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

If that is the case, why is the success rate 78% higher for those who do receive advice before they go to appeal? We have said from the outset that we agree that savings need to be made to the legal aid budget. If we were in government, we would be making cuts as well, but our values and connections with ordinary people mean that our priorities would be very different. Figures from the Ministry of Justice say that by the end of this Parliament, criminal legal aid provided largely by well-paid QCs, barristers and solicitors will be cut by 6%, whereas family legal aid will be cut by 29%, but social welfare legal aid, which is delivered by CABs, law centres and small voluntary organisations, at which some of the lowest-paid advisers and lawyers work, will be cut by 53%.

[Mr Speaker]

The question mark is about to come upon us, is it not?

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the Minister explain why the cuts are being made to the most vulnerable instead of to areas where cuts can be made more fairly?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Questions to Ministers should be about the responsibility of office-holders for public policies. It is no good the hon. Gentleman nodding at me; his question was out of order, and it is about time that he learned that fact.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has previously endorsed the long-held convention that issues of party funding should—as he has just said—be resolved by cross-party agreement when that is possible. He has told us that the Committee on Standards in Public Life will report shortly: in fact, it will report next week. Is he concerned about the objections from the chairman of the Conservative party to the £10,000 cap proposed in the draft report, and is he worried about the possibility of a situation similar to that which arose in 2007 when the Conservatives walked away from the opportunity to secure a cross-party agreement? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would help if there were not so much noise from Whips on the Treasury Bench, so that the Chair could hear what was being said. Questions must be orderly. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer that which is orderly, and not that which is not.

Points of Order

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and let me level with him: when he asked his question in DCLG questions, it was not clear to me—perhaps it should have been; perhaps the fault was mine—that the question was framed around the Minister acting in his ministerial capacity, with reference to the relevance of the ministerial code. It was because I thought as I did at the time that I ruled as I did. However, since then the hon. Gentleman has come along with, from my point of view, further and better information. I am grateful to him for explaining the point, and I hope he will accept my response in the spirit in which it is intended. It is always a dangerous enterprise to joust with somebody who has written a book about how to be a Back Bencher.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

And a good one as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, and a good one as well, as the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) helpfully points out, albeit from a sedentary position.

Points of Order

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to a question I asked earlier this afternoon about provisions relating to individual voter registration, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there had been no change from the current position in relation to the civic duty. However, the individual electoral registration White Paper, published on 30 June, stated quite clearly on page 20, paragraph 63:

“It is currently an offence to fail to comply with a request for information from an ERO, or to give false information to an ERO…While we strongly encourage people to register to vote the Government believes the act is one of personal choice and as such there should be no compulsion placed on an individual to make an application to register to vote.”

It goes on to say that from 2014,

“it will therefore be a personal choice whether to respond to the ERO’s request to complete an IER application form.”

I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister is a very busy man, but it is quite clear from his answers that he either does not understand his own policy, or has inadvertently misled the House and caused huge confusion. The Government’s proposals mean that those who fail to respond to a household enquiry can be prosecuted, but not those who choose to return an individual application form, thereby diminishing the civic duty. I ask you, Mr Speaker, for guidance on how we can persuade the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify his remarks, because the consultation ends this Friday.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. He will understand that this is not a matter for the Chair. All hon. and right hon. Members take responsibility for what they say in this House. However, what he has just said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and is of course on the record of the proceedings of the House.

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

Our justice policy should be about protecting the public, punishing and reforming offenders, being on the side of the victim and bringing crime down. That underpinned our record in government, which led to a 43% fall in crime, reductions in reoffending and serious improvements in youth offending rates. However, the Government demonstrate that that is not what matters in their approach to crime and justice. Instead, it is about cutting cost, despite the impact it could have on communities across the country.

The Government have seen sense and taken heed of opposition to cost-driven proposals to reduce sentences by 50% on early guilty pleas. A coalition of victims, the judiciary, justice groups, the Sentencing Council and victims groups rightly questioned the motivation and effectiveness of that policy. Let us be clear: the policy had been agreed by the Cabinet. I asked the Justice Secretary during the Opposition day debate on sentencing whether the Prime Minister agreed with him. His response was:

“This was an entirely collectively agreed policy”.—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 672.]

It is therefore no good No. 10’s distancing itself from it. In oral questions last month, the Justice Secretary said that the policy would survive the consultation. Of course, some Government Members voted against our motion—although some had the sense not to—which opposed the proposal on 23 May.

Will the Justice Secretary outline why the Prime Minister ditched the proposal when the Government were so wedded to it only a matter of weeks ago? When was the decision made to change the Bill’s title from the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill, as it was called up until late last week, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and—I like this—Punishment of Offenders Bill? What did he hope to achieve by tinkering with the title?

We know from the impact assessment that was provided with the Green Paper that removing the option of remanding offenders in custody for certain cases could save £50 million and 1,300 prison places. I note that that proposal remains. Will the Justice Secretary outline the view of the Magistrates Association on the proposal and say whether he believes that the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers support the policy?

In the past 13 months, we have seen broken promises on minimum and maximum sentencing, prison building and knife crime. Today the Justice Secretary proposes a new offence of a mandatory custodial sentence for knife possession in aggravated circumstances, with a minimum sentence of six months. Even that proposal is less than that promised to the electorate in the Conservative manifesto, which stated that

“we will make it clear that anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence”.

That is still a broken promise, and tinkering with the Bill’s title will not change that.

On indeterminate sentences for public protection, I have consistently questioned the Justice Secretary on how he will ensure the safety of our communities when considering which offenders should be released and when. Again, the impact assessment helpfully tells us that financial savings will be “sizeable”. From that, it is obvious that the focus is saving money, not what is in the public’s best interests. Today we find that the Justice Secretary is to undertake an “urgent review” of IPPs with a view to replacing them. Will he explain to the House why he needs another review when he has had 13 months, a Green Paper and a consultation that he has consistently described as an opportunity to review IPPs?

How does the Justice Secretary reconcile losing thousands of front-line, experienced prison and probation staff with the desire to increase the numbers of offenders diverted into specialist drug, alcohol and mental health facilities, and how does he reconcile that with more prisoners working, because they will clearly need more supervision?

The legal aid proposals have been roundly criticised across the board as devastating social welfare law—[Interruption.] Has the Justice Secretary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was too much noise when the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor addressed the House, and once again there is too much noise. Let me just say this to those who are making a persistent noise: stop it, or leave the Chamber, but do not for one moment suppose that making that noise you have the foggiest chance of being called to ask a question.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying a moment ago, the proposals on legal aid have been roundly criticised across the board as devastating social welfare law. Has the Justice Secretary seriously considered the alternative funding options proposed by, for example, Justice for All? Does he accept that his changes will have a huge impact on the viability of many law centres, citizens advice bureaux and high street practices up and down the country that do an enormous amount to provide access to justice for some of our most deprived citizens? The Prime Minister claims that the whole point of a Green Paper is to listen and to be ready to change one’s mind, so why have the Government made no substantive changes to their proposals on social welfare legal aid?

This morning the Prime Minister said that savings that would have been made by the 50% sentence proposals will be found elsewhere in the Ministry of Justice budget. Can the Justice Secretary explain exactly where those savings will be made and when?

We are seeing cuts to the police and cuts to prison staff and probation trusts, but where is the strategy to cut crime? The Government’s policies on crime and justice are a shambles. We have always known that we cannot trust the Tories on the NHS, but now it seems that we cannot trust the Tories on law and order either.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but on several occasions I have had to say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that questions must be about the policy of this Government, not a previous Government. I think we will leave it there. I call Lorraine Fullbrook.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I beg the right hon. Gentleman’s pardon. In dealing with that matter, I failed to allow him to make his contribution from the Opposition Front Bench, as he is, of course, entitled to do.

[Sadiq Khan]

I have a question for this Government. Given that the prison population is rising—it was 82,991 on 7 January and last week it stood at 85,454—and that, at the same time, this Government are closing prisons and slashing the prison building programme, what is the Minister going to do if the number of people who should be in prison exceeds the number of places?

Rehabilitation and Sentencing

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement on sentencing policy. The Ministry of Justice’s four-year plan on its vision page declares:

“We will provide a clear sentencing framework. It will punish those who break the law, and help reduce re-offending.”

I have no quarrel with that. It seems to me a perfectly sensible vision for a sentencing policy, entirely in keeping with the emphasis on punishment and reform that Labour followed in government, and which helped to cut crime by 43% between 1997 and 2010, both in times of growth and recession—the only Administration since the second world war who can boast such an enviable record.

I have a number of questions for the Secretary of State. First, will he confirm that he accepts that crime went down, as I have just said? So, on the core principle we are in agreement, and where the Government propose sensible measures to punish and reform offenders, we will support them. However, the statement that we have just heard and the Green Paper give rise to a number of questions and concerns. Will he confirm that the entirety of the Conservative party’s manifesto on law and order has been put in the bin? Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be tougher sentences for knife crime. People caught in possession of a knife would face a presumption of prison. Does the Secretary of State accept that he has now made a humiliating U-turn on that policy? The Prime Minister promised that there would be “honesty in sentencing”. Judges would read out a maximum and a minimum sentence to offenders in court. Does the Secretary of State accept that there has been a U-turn on that also? The Prime Minister promised increased prison capacity—another U-turn?

Let us be absolutely clear. Every one of those pre-election promises to be tough on crime has been abandoned. They have been revealed for what they are: a bluff. A bluff on crime and a bluff on the causes of crime. Like so many of the heavily trailed announcements that we have seen in the past six months, this sentencing review is a wasted opportunity. Sentencing policy should be about dealing with offenders in the right way in order to protect the public, but this review has been about trying to reduce the prison population in order to cut costs.

When the comprehensive spending review was published recently, the Justice Secretary outlined his central aim, which was

“to reduce the total daily prison population by 3,000 by 2014.”

The prison population is about 85,000 today, so that would mean it being 82,000 in four years. In practice, however, because many people serve less than one year in prison, meeting that target would mean 10,000 fewer offenders in jail each year. That is what the sentencing review is all about.

Given the Government’s big claims about transparency, can the Secretary of State confirm that he will publish the detailed assumptions that his officials and the Home Office have made about crime trends to justify that target of 82,000? I do not subscribe to the view that there is a direct link between prisons and crime, but nor do I share the Justice Secretary’s belief that there is no link at all. Under Labour, more serious and persistent criminals went to prison for longer, and crime fell. The relationship between those two things might not have been simple and straightforward, and other factors, including an increase in police numbers, were at play, but there was a relationship.

The Justice Secretary, to justify his view that there is no link, is fond of saying that crime rates also declined internationally during that time, but that prison rates in many countries went down. Well, he is wrong. I have checked the figures for OECD countries, and prison populations rose almost everywhere. Although prison should always be the outcome for serious and persistent offenders, we believe that alternatives to custody should be used when they are a more appropriate form of punishment and reform. We accept that prison is not always the best place for offenders, and community sentences can be a better alternative in order to cut reoffending, but does he accept that, as a result of the changes that we introduced, the number of women in custody went down, and that reoffending rates for women, young men and first-time offenders also went down in recent years?

I welcome the announcement that the Government are seeking to build on important Labour innovations, such as the expansion of community payback. Further action on drug addiction is clearly welcome, and the steps outlined to deal more effectively with offenders with mental health problems, one of our society’s most pressing issues, are a vindication of the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to set up and start to implement the important Bradley review.

The current Justice Secretary aims at some of the right goals, but his total eagerness to please the Treasury by cutting the Ministry of Justice budget by 23% will make it very difficult and risky to turn those aspirations into reality. With the Home Secretary having also caved in to a 23% cut, the obvious question voters will ask is, how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party ever again claim to be the party of law and order?

The Secretary of State will recall the old care in the community model for mental health in the 1990s. As a former Health Secretary, he presided over it and will be aware of some of the real problems that it created. If proper resources are not invested in dealing with offenders outside prison, we could be in for care in the community mark II—this time with criminals.

Will the Justice Secretary explain, in particular, what assessments are being made of the likelihood that prisoners on indeterminate sentences, whom he wants to release, are no longer a risk to the public? What procedures will be put in place to monitor such people in the community?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the shadow Secretary of State, but he is getting towards the point where his questioning has been longer than the Secretary of State’s pithy statement, so he really does now need to bring it to an end. He can have another sentence, but he must then bring it to an end.

[Sadiq Khan]

As ever, Mr Speaker, I am grateful.

When the Justice Secretary was recently asked on BBC’s “Newsnight” how he would judge the success of his penal policy, his first response was that he “hadn’t the first idea”. That was a more revealing answer than he perhaps intended, because it exposed a certain complacency that is becoming the hallmark of this Government.

In conclusion, let me offer the Lord Chancellor advice on how to judge the success of his policy. Will it make communities up and down the country more or less safe? Will it result in crime going up or down? I tell the Lord Chancellor and those who support him that it is against those criteria that we will be holding him, his proposals and his Government to account.

Legal Aid and Civil Cost Reform

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been hanging on almost every word of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for at least the past 13 years, if not for some time before that. Today, his statement was a little in excess of the usual required time, and I shall allow for that, of course, in the shadow Secretary of State’s response.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving me advance sight of his statement, and I note his apology at the beginning of it. One must admire the mind-reading ability of senior journalists at The Sunday Telegraph and The Times. It was a huge discourtesy to the House, but it provided the advantage of 24 hours’ notice of a statement to be made on the Floor of the House. I am grateful to both Patrick Hennessy and Simon Coates for their ability to do just that.

The Green Papers on cutting legal aid and reducing civil costs are among the most important that the Government have published to date. Legal aid is one of the pillars of the welfare state, and was set up by the Labour Government after the second world war. It plays a crucial role in tackling social exclusion, especially in hard times such as now. It ensures that everyone may have access to justice, regardless of their means. Under successive Governments, the legal aid budget has grown to the point where it now stands at more than £2 billion. That is not sustainable, especially in the current economic context.

I have six questions for the Lord Chancellor. The previous Labour Government had moved to cap the legal aid budget, and to reduce it. We also planned to turn the Legal Services Commission into an Executive agency. Do the Government have any plans to introduce legislation to achieve that aim?

In recent years, we brought the principle of fixed fees into civil and family legal aid cases, introduced means testing into magistrates and Crown courts, and on the very day that the general election was called we signed off on cuts to advocates’ fees in the higher courts. We took these decisions because we recognised the need to reduce the legal aid budget. It is worth reminding the House that many of our actions were taken in the teeth of opposition, from both the legal profession and Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. I am looking forward to hearing their contributions to this debate.

Let me be clear: had we been in government today, we, too, would have been announcing savings to the legal aid budget. That is a reality that we all have to acknowledge. The crucial questions are: where to make those savings, and how to spend the money that is left available. What equality impact assessment has the Lord Chancellor undertaken of the proposals? Our policy was—and is—to control the legal aid budget and get value for money for the taxpayer, while optimising services for people who need support the most. That is why we concentrated much of our investment on social welfare legal aid. Legal aid delivered has the power to change lives and save money. The housing possession court duty scheme, for example, saved thousands of people from repossession. It delivered a social and financial good. Are the Government committed to preserving that and similar schemes?

What balance do the Government intend to strike between civil and criminal cases? Can the Lord Chancellor explain why he is proposing more severe cuts in civil and family legal aid than in criminal legal aid? Can he say whether he agrees with the Attorney-General, who said that

“legal aid is no longer available for a large number of people who ought to be entitled to it”?

If so, in what areas does the Lord Chancellor intend to expand the provision of legal aid?

We will carefully consider the Green Paper on legal aid and the equally important paper on Lord Justice Jackson’s review of civil legal aid costs before we respond in further detail. I would note, however, that Sir Rupert Jackson argued against cutting the legal aid budget, and the Lord Chancellor has decided to ignore that view. In conclusion, the basic test that we will apply in both cases is whether the proposals will deliver a saving to the public purse while ensuring that no one is denied access to justice because of their means.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Sadiq Khan and John Bercow

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker––[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the House is excited, but we must hear the point of order.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have today debated the remaining stages of a Bill that were not discussed in Committee. The parts we were supposed to discuss today covered a reduction in the number of seats, a change in the way they are distributed, and abolition of local inquiries. We have also had two statements.

We have had no debate on clause 12, which covers Boundary Commission processes and which was not discussed in Committee, and we had less than two hours’ debate today. There were more than 12 speakers who were not called at the end of the debate. Clause 13 ––[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I understand his concern. He knows that the programme motion is a matter determined by, and in the hands of, the House; it is not a matter for the Chair. The Speaker is always keen to have the maximum debate on matters of concern. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and he has made his point with great clarity. It is on the record, and it will be heard by those on the Treasury Bench: whether it is heeded by others remains to be seen.