Leveson Inquiry

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right. Many of us want to make sure that we have a thriving press into the future, particularly a thriving local press, and he will be reassured to know that I will be meeting members of the local press later this week to make sure we achieve that important objective.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, when the Leveson inquiry was set up on 13 July last year, it was to be in two parts. We have had the first part, but there is no indication when the second part will take place. Will Lord Justice Leveson chair that second inquiry, or will another chair be selected to deal with the relations with the police and the investigations of the Metropolitan police prior to the inquiry?

Police Pensions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Let me begin this important debate by paying tribute to the bravery and dedication of police officers across the United Kingdom. They do a unique job that is without parallel in the public sector. We are rightly proud that our police service is the best of the best. The Minister and I saw for ourselves very recently such acts of bravery when we attended the police bravery awards evening, organised by the Police Federation.

The whole country saw the danger that officers put themselves in every day to keep our community safe when two young unarmed and exceptionally courageous officers, Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes, lost their lives in the line of duty. Thanks to the police and other stakeholders, there has been a 40% reduction in crime over the past 15 years. It was police officers who, along with the Army, were responsible for the safety and security of the magnificent Olympic games this summer after we were all let down by G4S. As we hold this debate in the warmth of Westminster Hall, police officers are out saving lives, helping people in towns and villages to escape the rising floodwaters.

As this is the first debate with the Minister since he has taken over his new portfolio, may I congratulate him on winning his asylum appeal and moving, after seven long years with the immigration brief, into policing? He must be missing the UK Border Agency terribly, but I can assure him that we will keep him very busy with policing issues.

I am also pleased to see so many right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House here today. They will forgive me if I take a limited number of interventions because time is short, but I promise that I will acknowledge their presence at the end of my speech.

The Government’s proposal to increase the pension age to 60 is wrong. The Winsor review found that the average age at which police officers currently retire is around 50 to 51. Some police officers may want to continue to serve and work beyond that age, but it is unfair and unjust to mandate them to serve until the age of 60.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate. May I make two brief points? First, is it not distasteful to change a contract of employment halfway through and, secondly, given the special nature of the work that these brave men and women do, should we not be careful about expecting them to defend us on the streets at the age of 60 plus?

[Keith Vaz]

I have a quick answer to both questions, which is yes and yes, and I cover them both in my speech. If we expect police officers to stay on until the age of 60, it is a matter of fact that some will find their roles harder as they become older, as people like me know. Those officers will have to be relocated to back-office positions, which are precisely the functions that the Government are urging forces to cut while maintaining front-line numbers. The consequence of these proposals for police officers and forces will be seriously damaging.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene and for the time he spent with me recently meeting people in Corby. He will know that this is an issue not just for police officers and their families, but for all of us who want to show our hard-working police officers that they are valued. Does he agree that, at a time when there are 20% policing cuts and, now, a steep rise in pension age, morale in the police force is really being undermined, and we must not let that happen?

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with my hon. Friend. May I welcome him most warmly to the House and congratulate him on his election? I will be turning to police morale later in my speech, but he is right—it is a crucial issue in respect of these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Keith Vaz]

Among the Government’s proposals are changes to the contribution rate. At the moment, a contribution rate of 10.5% of gross pay secures a contribution with a value of 24.2%. Under the proposed changes, a much higher contribution rate of 13.7% of gross pay will secure a contribution with a value of just 14.3%.

Police officers have told me that the proposed rate of 13.7% is simply too high and is not even-handed when compared with other public service workers. In fact, the rate is so high that there is a significant risk of opt-outs, including by new recruits who will not be able to afford to join the pension scheme. The Winsor review, upon which these proposals are based, also proposed lower starting rates of pay. Taken together, the two elements will have a devastating effect on recruitment. In addition, current pension contribution rates are already increasing. They increased in April and future increases are expected in 2013-14 and 2014-15, to meet Lord Hutton’s recommendations of an average contribution increase of 3.2%, which effectively means a 3% pay cut for officers.

Every single police officer in the 134,000-strong force will be affected by these changes. I have spoken to many officers, both in my constituency and here at Westminster, who are extremely anxious about them. When this debate was announced, I asked officers to contact me with their stories. I expected one or two to reply. In just seven days, I have received upwards of 120 e-mails, phone calls and letters from concerned officers across the country. Not one of them agrees with what the Government have suggested.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know that this is a very short debate. My police officers have shared similar views with me, but a particular issue that has been raised is the disproportionate effect of these proposals on women police officers—the right hon. Gentleman named two brave women police officers earlier—who have had career breaks, and on coming back they will find that, under the new system, the years they have served will not add up to the pension that they hoped for when they started in the police.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and she is also right to raise the specific issue of women police officers, which has not been raised in the debate so far. I agree with what she said.

Apart from all those representations that I have received, the e-petition for a debate on this issue was started by Sergeant Nigel Tompsett of the Suffolk force, and it now has more than 100,000 signatures. This debate today in Westminster Hall is not an alternative to a debate on the Floor of the House on this issue; I hope that it is a curtain-raiser for such a debate.

The pension reforms need to be seen in context. They are part of a wider picture of sweeping reforms to the landscape of policing. In comes the National Crime Agency and out goes the Serious Organised Crime Agency; in comes the college of policing and out go the police authorities; and then in come 41 newly elected police and crime commissioners as well. Those are, in my view, the most significant changes to be undertaken since Sir Robert Peel laid the foundations for modern policing nearly two centuries ago. At this moment of seismic change, it is clearly wrong to destabilise the very people we expect to implement the changes.

Morale in the police force, as we have heard, is at an all-time low. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, told the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that this was a very difficult time for many in the service. His predecessor, Lord Stevens, through a survey of 14,000 officers and superintendents conducted by the London School of Economics, found that 95% of police officers do not feel that they have the support of the Government, and that 56% of those surveyed had recently contemplated leaving the force. It is because of measures such as these that officers who risk their lives for our communities feel short-changed and undervalued. The proposals will drive gifted and experienced officers out of the service.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will give way for the last time.

[Mr MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind. Does he agree with the Scottish Police Federation, which feels that control over the pensions of police in Scotland should be given to the Scottish Government, rather than be under the control of Westminster? The police in Scotland fully fund their own pension anyway.

[Keith Vaz]

I have not spoken to any Scottish officers and none have made such representations to me, but the Minister has heard what the hon. Gentleman said and I am certainly happy to talk to them after the debate.

We have to recognise the unique role, responsibilities and restrictions that apply to police officers. Each sworn constable is an independent legal official, not an employee. Police officers are required to deploy force, put themselves in the way of harm and make discretionary ethical judgments. Failing to carry out their duties, whether on or off duty, leaves officers open to the charge of misconduct in public office. As Nathan McLean, a police officer in Greater Manchester, put it to me:

“Each day when I go to work I understand that I may not return—yet I, like thousands of other police officers across the country, wear the uniform with pride and just get on with it in order to protect the public.”

Regulations provide for restrictions on the private lives of police officers, and despite being faced with the most wide-ranging reforms to pay and conditions in 30 years, police officers, unlike other professionals, do not have the right to strike or take industrial action. Police officers joined the force, and accepted these unique restrictions and limitations, on the understanding that they would be fairly provided for in retirement.

All those who represent our police service need to be consulted on the changes, and listened to very carefully. We are fortunate in this country to have robust representative organisations in the form of the Police Federation, led by Paul McKeever, and the Police Superintendents Organisation, led by Derek Barnett, along with people of outstanding ability, such as Sir Hugh Orde, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and the recently retired chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor. I urge the Minister to ask them questions, to talk to them, to listen to them and to act on their advice.

Before I conclude, I would like to leave the House with some of the individual concerns of ordinary policemen and women who have contacted me. PC Gareth Spargo of South Wales police said:

“I increased my mortgage to pay for treatment so my wife and I could have children. Now my pay has been frozen for 2 years and I am paying an extra £100 a month in contributions....I love being a police officer and I joined in the knowledge that I was never going to be a rich man. I did however expect the terms that I joined under to remain constant for the duration of my service”.

PC Jason Ford told me:

“I have been spat at, punched, kicked, beaten with a wooden bat, been confronted with knives, swords and guns...my police pension has kept me going through some very difficult times, it is a little bit of light at the end of a very long tunnel”.

PC Matthew Ransom, of Kent police, contacted me to say:

“My mortgage was to be paid off in the last month in the job, leaving my lump sum to be used for university fees, or assistance in getting my boys on the property ladder. I cannot do those things now I have to do another 10 years’ service, contributing more and receiving the same or less in pension. How can this be fair?”

In addition, PC Turnbull from Bolton has made representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi).

In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the colleagues who have come here today to participate in the debate. They include the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for St Albans (Mrs Main). We have heard from the leader of the Welsh National party, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford). My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is here, as are my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), my own Member of Parliament the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). If I have left anyone out I am sorry. I did leave out the two Parliamentary Private Secretaries because I did not know which side they were on and I would not want to drag them into my side of the argument. And, of course, there is the Scottish National Member, whose constituency I cannot pronounce, who also spoke.

These are, of course, times of austerity, and the police are not the only organisation being asked to deliver more for less, but the reforms are wholly disproportionate. There is an alternative lower contribution rate within the Government’s 28% cost ceiling but, very disappointingly, it was rejected not by the Home Office but by the Treasury. I ask the Minister to reconsider that decision.

Finally, the Government must honour the existing pension arrangements of serving police officers, under section 2 of the Police Pensions Act 1976, and any new pension scheme should be applicable only to those who join for the first time. It is time for action to back up the words of praise we lavish on the police service whenever our communities are under threat. We need to act now and change the proposals before it is too late.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for initiating the debate and for the kind remarks he made about me at the start of his speech. I can confirm that I am already nostalgic for the UK Border Agency. I entirely echo his remarks about the tremendous service that police officers give to their communities and the whole country. As he said, he and I attended the police bravery awards a few weeks ago. It was the first time I had attended, and I was struck dumb by the courage and heroism shown by all the winners. Even more importantly, I know from my own experience as a constituency MP, as well as from other experiences I have had as police Minister, how that kind of service is provided on a daily basis across the country.

This afternoon, I would like to clarify the Government’s approach to public service pension reform as a whole, as well as what it means for police officers. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, these are difficult economic times and we have to take difficult decisions, but we have equally made it clear that we are committed to reaching a fair outcome for police officers, and I hope to explain why I believe that that has been achieved. In the course of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman enjoined me to listen to the comments made by a number of organisations.

I should start by reminding the House of the context for pension reform. From the outset, we have been candid about the need for a fundamental review of public service pensions and of how they are funded and maintained. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor invited Lord Hutton to chair the independent public service pensions commission. As a member of the previous Government and a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Lord Hutton was well placed to undertake an independent and comprehensive review. He did a thorough job and made a compelling case for change. As he set out in his findings, the costs of public service pensions have increased over recent years, mainly because people are living longer, and the increasing costs have fallen largely to the taxpayer.

The Government are committed to providing good occupational pensions for public servants, but we must do so in a way that is affordable, sustainable and fair both to those workers and other taxpayers. That means, across the public services, moving to the career-average pension model in place of final-salary schemes. That also involves increasing the contributions that workers pay for their own pensions and raising the retirement age. The Public Service Pensions Bill, which is currently before the House, sets out the high-level framework for those reforms, with work force and scheme-specific details to be implemented through regulations in due course.

To put all that in context, the latest figures from police forces show that, in the 2011-12 financial year, across England and Wales more than £2.8 billion was paid out in police pensions. Such pensions are paid to retired officers who have a legal entitlement to receive them. I hope that gives Members a sense of the scale of the issues and finances involved.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a specific point about police pension contributions. It is true that police officers pay among the highest contributions in the public services. That is because the pension is significantly more valuable than most others, as it should be.

As part of his report, Lord Hutton commissioned a comparative analysis of the benefits that workers get out of pension schemes based on what they contribute themselves. He found that, aside from those in the armed forces, who do not contribute to their pensions, police pensions are more valuable than most, as they are generally drawn from an early age and paid for longer in retirement. That is even taking into account the relatively high contributions paid by police officers.

I was struck by the verdict of Police Mutual, an independent financial adviser that specialises in services for the police. Its assessment, in response to the increased contribution rate, states that

“the Police Pension Scheme remains one of the best financial investments you are ever likely to make.”

People should listen to Police Mutual, because it knows whereof it speaks.

While I am on that subject, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) that the new scheme does not have a service requirement, so female officers will not be disadvantaged for taking career breaks.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for bringing that information to the House’s attention. Police Mutual may have a vested interest, because it deals with such financial affairs and might benefit in some way. I do not know the organisation’s position, but the organisations that have spoken to us are clear that their members will be affected. The Minister is new to his position, and he is not responsible for this. He did not write the Winsor review. He has just become the Police Minister, and he has to work with the police for the two-and-a-half years at least that he has this job. Will he agree to meet the representatives—the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, the Association of Chief Police Officers and others—again to discuss one more time the effects that the changes will have on their members? If he agrees to do that, he will get a better impression of what is going on.

[Damian Green]

I constantly meet not only police officers in my constituency who wish to discuss this but, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect, the fed and the supers. This item is clearly on that agenda, and I am happy to reassure him that I will continue to discuss it. I will come on to what the federation said in a second.

We have maintained throughout the process that police officers deserve to be treated with respect and even-handedness. We have worked hard with partners in policing to reach a fair outcome that recognises the particular nature of a police officer’s work. That is why we asked Tom Winsor to reflect on Lord Hutton’s findings and consider some of the issues in the context of his independent review.

Firearms Controls

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue; I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in this subject.

In the early hours of the new year, I was greeted in my constituency by the shocking news that four people had lost their lives in a shooting in the close-knit former mining community of Horden. They were Susan McGoldrick, 47, her sister Alison Turnbull, 44, and niece Tanya Turnbull, 24, as well as the gunman, Michael Atherton, 42, who turned the gun on himself.

Following the shooting, I called for a calm and measured response, but the high emotions at the time were not conducive to constructive debate. In the months that followed, I had the opportunity to meet family members on a number of occasions. They have acted in a considered and dignified manner throughout, and looked for practical improvements that will hopefully avoid such tragic circumstances, and such a tragedy, befalling another family.

A public debate on firearms licensing is still needed, and the time is right for the public and Parliament to consider whether the current level of protection is adequate. It is said that Britain has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, but we should not be complacent. Current firearms laws consist of 34 separate pieces of legislation, which is complex and difficult to navigate for the police and the public. The Home Office’s official police guidance is more than 200 pages long. The rules are difficult to interpret, and their application can vary greatly across the 43 police forces responsible for issuing firearms licence certificates.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He will know that it is two years since the Home Affairs Committee published its report on firearms control and suggested that the 34 pieces of legislation be codified. Does he agree that it is now time to bring those pieces of legislation together, and make it clearer for people who have applied for and received licences, and for those who seek to get one?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; it was delivered with some authority and I completely agree. The Home Affairs Committee investigation and report into firearms control urged the Government to codify and simplify the law, introduce one licensing system to cover all firearms, and strengthen the current safeguards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot do that. We have to deliver the whole justice system as efficiently as possible. Because of the financial catastrophe that overtook the country under the last Administration, in which he played a prominent part in the Treasury, the provision of all court and prison infrastructure has to be examined so that we can deliver offender management considerably more effectively than the last Administration.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the new drug-free wing at Pentonville prison, which aims to cut reoffending. May I put to the Minister what I put to the Lord Chancellor when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning? The key to ending reoffending is to help prisoners once they leave prison. That support is vital.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

This is a major issue. The measures agreed under the Brighton declaration will make a big difference once implemented. More cases should be resolved at the national level, which should mean that fewer cases are considered by the Court. Where cases go to Strasbourg, the Court should be able to focus more on the important cases and do so more quickly.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Dispatch Box. I hope very much that his temporary promotion will be made permanent in the imminent reshuffle. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) mentioned the backlog, which is now 152,000 cases. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it important to have a fast-track system through the European Court for national security cases?

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. With the Brighton declaration, we have ensured that fewer cases go to Strasbourg and that those cases that can be handled at the national level are held and dealt with at the national level. That means that fewer cases will go to Strasbourg and that the important ones—we hope that only the important ones will go there—will be dealt with a lot quicker.

Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I do, and I was going to deal with that matter after raising a number of specific points of concern.

I am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for its report, which states that

“there is now the possibility of establishing a comprehensive data protection framework ensuring both a high level of protection of individuals’ data in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and a smoother exchange of personal data between Member States’ police and judicial authorities, fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.”

The report then adds:

“The Commission concludes that the practical difficulties encountered by a number of Member States in distinguishing between rules for domestic and cross-border data processing could be solved through a single set of rules covering data processing both at national level and in a cross-border context”.

The aim might be laudable, but the solution appears to say that, in order to avoid confusion, principles of subsidiarity should in fact give way to an overarching system controlled centrally. One consequence of that that the Minister has already alluded to is an extension of the scope of data processing to include domestic processing for the purpose of policing and judicial co-operation. In other words, the directive will regulate the passing of data between purely domestic organisations, such as neighbouring county police forces, and I share the Minister’s concern in raising that.

In the area of data protection, the draft directive is stronger and, I think, should be broadly welcomed. It includes: new rights of access and information for data subjects, such as the identity of the data controller, the purpose of the data processing and the period for which the data will be stored; a right for data subjects directly to demand the erasure of their personal data by the data controller; an obligation on data controllers to inform supervisory authorities and data subjects of data breaches, informing the former within 24 hours of discovery and the latter without undue delay; and an obligation for data controllers or processors to appoint data protection officers. The incorporation of human rights legislation—the Human Rights Act 1998—into UK law by the previous Labour Government has improved the right to privacy and to protection from intrusion into family life, but we still have some way to go.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said so far, but will he look in particular at the issue of Europol and how this exchange of information affects our obligation to it?

[Mr Slaughter]

I am happy to do that, and I am even happier to note the support from my Back Benchers—the almost unanimous support—[Interruption.] No, 50% might be a better figure.

The key to the balance that I have talked about is the drafting of the directive within very prescribed bounds to restrain the opportunities for data sharing, thus the controls for in-country transfer, to which the Minister has referred, are restricted—if one accepts what the draft directive says. As currently drafted, it covers data transferred between two UK regional police forces with no cross-border elements, but that will apply to the UK only when such processing is pursuant to an EU measure on police or judicial co-operation, and that is indeed what the draft directive states.

I just worry that sometimes the intention is not carried out in practice, and I cite—on a perhaps analogous subject—from the same Guardian article today this note of caution:

“Last week the European parliament ratified plans to allow airline passenger records, including credit card details, for all transatlantic flights between Europe and the US, including in and out of the UK, to be handed over to the US department of homeland security to be stored for 15 years.”

If these proposals are to go ahead, they need to do so in such a way that there are the tightest possible controls on the exchange of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I intend to speak very briefly. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) made an eloquent and thoughtful speech, which indicated that we ought to spend much more time discussing justice and home affairs issues on the Floor of the House. I would like a debate on the European arrest warrant, because it has created enormous problems for the British judicial system. However, we have only an hour and a half and there are probably only about 30 minutes left, so I will be brief and raise only one point with the Minister, which is about the operation of Europol.

Last Friday, the European Commission had a meeting to which it invited the Chairs of the Home Affairs Committees of all the EU countries to discuss the future of Europol. I am concerned about how the directive might affect the way in which the Europol databases operate. I support what the Government are trying to do. They are clear that the reason why they want better data sharing among our EU partners is to combat Europe-wide crime. We have to share data if we are to deal with the organised criminal gangs that exist in the EU in so many areas of criminal activity, including drugs and human trafficking. However, we need to be careful about who gets the data and what use they make of them. That is why I am such a strong supporter of Europol. Anyone who has visited it will know that it has a particularly British dimension. The information that we give that organisation is kept very much under our control.

The Minister mentioned the case of a Romanian who came to this country and whose criminal record tracked him back to Romania. I would have thought that Europol should provide that assistance. It does not necessarily have to be done through bilateral help. I raise with the Minister the case of the Albanian who worked in a hotel in the midlands and beheaded his manager after a row with him. Only after he had committed that terrible criminal act was it discovered that he was wanted in Sweden and Switzerland on other charges before he came to the United Kingdom.

In looking at data sharing, I am concerned that we do not have enough information about those who come into this country. The Minister described the case of the Romanian and I have described the case of the Albanian—this is not an attack on eastern Europe, but since we have mentioned the nationality of these people, we may as well be open about it. It would have been better if we had known about the offences committed by those people at the time of their arrival. I do not think that the directive would have ensured that that information was provided, although perhaps I am wrong. However, it is important to know the criminal background of those who arrive at our borders and who come to live and work in this country. That would be sensible data sharing, as opposed to data sharing after the event. I hope that in his winding-up speech—if he does not make one, perhaps he will write to me—the Minister will speak about the implications of the directive for Europol.

Finally, I pay tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chairman. They do a splendid job. It is important that we have more such debates on the Floor of the House, even though they might sometimes be an irritant to Ministers. As with pre-summit debates in the House, which seem to have gone by the board, it is important that we have as much time as possible to discuss directives that will have far-reaching effects in the justice and home affairs area of EU policy.

Legal Aid

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

Some 97% of funding to Citizens Advice will go as a result of the Government’s plans, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I am not just talking about the for-profit providers. The non-profit providers also provide important legal advice to people in our constituencies. I want to attempt to bust a myth that the Government are perpetuating. There seems to be the suggestion that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers earning fat cat salaries. In reality, publicly funded lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers, earn very modest incomes if funded by legal aid. The Lord Chancellor says that he does not want to hit women and children, but he does want to target fat cat lawyers. Why, then, is he making 53% cuts to social welfare legal aid?

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister. I worked for a number of years as a solicitor at a law centre. These cuts will affect some very poorly paid solicitors who work in law centres and who were previously doing work such as immigration before that was taken away. The profession will suffer because we will not be able to attract people and give them the expertise to do this kind of work.

[Karl Turner]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and one that solicitors and barristers have raised with me in recent days. There is certainly concern about attracting people into training contracts and even attracting people to study law as a result of the Government’s plans.

As I understand it, £350 million will be removed from legal aid as a result of the Government’s plans. The vast majority of that will be in social welfare law. In an attempt to bust the myth that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers, I spoke to some legal aid providers in my area today. I spoke with Keith Lomax, the senior managing partner of Davies Gore Lomax, which is based in Leeds. He represents the most vulnerable clients on such issues as housing, debt, welfare benefits and education, particularly special educational needs, and he told me that the Government’s 10% reduction in fees across the board was difficult for his firm to cope with. I was staggered when he told me that his hourly charging rate was £48.24. He charges the Legal Services Commission £3.78 per letter—hardly fat cat lawyers rates. The people who work for him earn very modest incomes—between £18,000 and £24,000 a year for fully qualified solicitors, he tells me.

Tim Durkin, the managing partner of Myer Wolff solicitors in Hull, runs a long-standing firm reliant on legal aid. Mr Durkin estimates that the cuts to his business in relation to child contact and residence applications will amount to about £300,000 per year. He describes that as simply unsustainable.

Max Gold, from the Max Gold partnership in Hull, reports to me that he has not been in a position to pay himself or his solicitors and staff an increase in salary for some six years. He says

“the Government are not living in the real world to describe legally aided lawyers as fat cats”.

In his view, the Labour Government were far from profligate when it came to legal aid. He says that the previous Government were not particularly generous in relation to publicly funded lawyers. However, he says that the previous Government at least understood the requirement to offer legal advice in areas such as social welfare law. Indeed, he also mentions immigration, which is particularly important, given that the other place almost accepted an amendment—it was defeated by, I think, 19 votes—a couple of days ago.

In 2000, there were 10,000 legal providers. There are now 2,000—a reduction of 8,000 firms in the last 12 years. Many closed their doors in the last 12 months. The impact of the cuts on legal aid providers is clear for anybody to see. Many firms that provide help mainly in family and social welfare law will have to withdraw from the market. The Law Society says

“firms already operate on the margins of viability…specialist firms and advice agencies…providing social welfare law services…are likely to be wiped out with catastrophic consequences for people in need”

of legal help. The Law Society says that it

“does not see how many firms can continue to operate in this environment.”

The current changes could reduce firms offering family law by as much as 60%.

The Government’s impact assessment, which accompanies the Green Paper, estimated a 67% decrease in income for law firms in rural areas and a 59% decrease in urban areas. That is simply unsustainable. It will not be economically viable for those firms to continue offering services on such tight margins. The Legal Action Group believes that legal aid will cease to be viable as a nationwide public service, with an overall decrease in civil legal aid to 900 firms, down from 2,000. My concern is about the potential for advice deserts to emerge as a result of those reductions. The impact on access to justice is therefore clear. If no service is available, our constituents will be left to paddle their own canoe. Some 75,000 children and young people are set to lose legal aid. Some 6,000 children under the age of 18 and 69,000 vulnerable young adults aged 18 to 23 will lose access to legal aid in their own right as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

The Government claim that advice will be available elsewhere, from places such as the Free Representation Unit, jobcentres and Age UK. That claim has been disputed by the Advice Services Alliance. The Free Representation Unit represents clients in tribunals, but it does not cover the initial advice stages of, say, a welfare claim. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated:

“Unfortunately we do not have the resources to provide direct advice to people who are claiming benefits”.

Age UK has said:

“Our concern is that while it is true that both Age UK nationally and our partners in local Age UKs and Age Concerns do provide some help and advice with welfare benefits it is most often not at a level comparative to that provided through legal aid.”

The Government’s defence until now has been to talk about the telephone advice service. However, that is not the answer to advice deserts. Face-to-face legal advice is crucial. Fortunately, the Government suffered a defeat on this issue in the other place yesterday evening. I would respectfully urge the Government to take that on board. The Ministry of Justice predicts between only 4,000 and 10,000 additional mediation starts, despite withdrawing legal aid from 255,000 cases. It has simply not made a proper assessment.

The impact on for-profit and non-profit providers will be substantial, but it will be most keenly felt by those who rely on their services. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the proposals

“have the potential to disproportionately affect female clients, BAME clients”—

that is, black and minority ethnic clients—

“and ill or disabled people, when compared with the population as a whole”.

Despite that evidence and advice, the Government seem to want to plough on regardless. At a time when unemployment is rising and pressure is increasing on squeezed families, it is wrong for the Government to withdraw support for legal advice.

Opposing the legal aid cuts is not done due to narrow interest or to ensure that lawyers’ bank balances stay buoyant. It is about ensuring that people have not only these important rights but the means with which to exercise them. The Government must listen to the experts and base their cuts on the evidence. The Justice Select Committee, on which I serve, has said that the full cost implications of the Government’s proposals cannot be predicted. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider these cuts and not to take a gamble with justice.

Many eminent judges—not least Lord Hope, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Hale—have also voiced their concern, along with academics and professionals, telling the Government time and again that there will be an increase in court administration due to the increased number of litigants in person, but that advice has been completely ignored. The Lord Chief Justice has echoed those concerns.

The opposition to the cuts in social welfare legal aid is, for me, about protecting the vulnerable and allowing access to justice. Of course, we are living in a time of austerity, and this must also be about saving money to the taxpayer, but there are alternatives. The early intervention provided for debt, employment, education, housing and family law matters through a mixture of voluntary and private sector organisations offers value for money. I shall not bore the Minister with the statistics produced by Citizens Advice, but it has provided Members with a helpful report that shows, pound for pound, the advantages of providing early advice. Unfortunately, however, the Tory-led Government have ignored crucial advice from, among others, the Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council of England and Wales, and the Law Society.

The Lord Chief Justice has stated that the proposed reforms of public funding for civil cases will damage access to justice and lead to a huge increase in people fighting their legal battles alone. It is obvious to anyone that litigants in person will delay court time. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is in his place. He sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and he must know from experience the advantage of having a solicitor advocate or a barrister representing a client in court, as opposed to someone representing themselves.

The chairman of the Bar Council, Michael Todd QC, has told me today that

“legal aid barristers, working across a broad range of practice areas, are public servants, overwhelmingly operating in the public interest. Over a number of years, many members of the Bar and the junior Bar in particular, have found it increasingly difficult to sustain a financially viable career on legal aid work, which poses a grave threat to access to justice. Successive fee cuts and now the threatened removal of whole areas of law from the scope of legal aid means that many vulnerable people will be denied effective access to the Courts. It also means that many highly skilled and publicly spirited Barristers will be forced to leave the profession with a particularly heavy impact on female and BAME practitioners. That cannot be in the public interest”.

The Lord Chancellor needs urgently to take on board the defeats that the Government have suffered in the other place, and to look again at the real impact of these legal aid cuts before overturning those amendments in this place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Although some very good work is being done in prisons at the moment, and although there always have been one or two prisons in which a fair amount is happening, we will not be able to provide work for all prisoners for quite a long time. Our aim is to get a much higher proportion into work, and for that reason employees in prison will be volunteers. That is welcomed by private sector partners who like to have a say in their work force, and who want a properly motivated work force consisting of people who are trying to get themselves into a better state to go straight when they leave.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor will know that 51% of those who enter the prison system have a drug dependency. What programmes to assist them will he have in place to enable them to undertake this work?

[Mr Clarke]

Actually, an even higher proportion than that have abused drugs in the month or two before they arrive in prison. We are currently opening the first drug rehabilitation wings in prisons, and we hope to have drug-free wings, too. We are upping the effort to deal with the drugs problem, which is a very large cause of the criminality of many of the people in our prisons. Obviously, it should be given a much higher priority than it has sometimes had in the past.

Police

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that I think is the mistake of the Labour party of equating the quality of the front-line service purely with numbers. I shall address precisely this issue later, and if he feels that I have not done that I will be happy for him to intervene on me again.

On capital funding, I have carefully considered the consultation responses and have decided to top-slice the Home Office police capital allocation to support the establishment of the National Police Air Service. That service will give all forces access to helicopter support 24 hours a day, 365 days year, in contrast with the current system in which some force’s helicopters are grounded for days at a time while being repaired. It will mean that 97% of the population of England and Wales will remain within 20 minutes’ flying time, and it will save the police service £15 million a year when fully operational.

The plan for the National Police Air Service has been led by Chief Constable Alex Marshall and has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police service’s operational leaders and the vast majority of police authorities. The funding proposal I have set out is the right way to ensure that this key national service is established on a sound basis. Each force will face an equal percentage reduction in the previously indicated level of capital grant; this is the most transparent and equitable means of providing for the capital requirements of what will be a national service. All forces will benefit from the savings.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome what the Minister has done on the helicopter issue, especially in using the powers to mandate South Yorkshire, but what about unexpected events? Last Saturday, the English Defence League marched through the middle of Leicester at a cost to the police authority of £800,000. Where does it get that money from at a time when budgets are very tight? It cannot prevent people from marching unless there are reasons to do so, but that puts it under huge pressure.

[Nick Herbert]

First, I note the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the National Police Air Service, which is important given his position as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. This move is a significant step forward and shows that police forces can collaborate to improve the quality of service and reduce cost. On events that occur in police force areas and incur particular costs, there are established procedures under which police forces can apply to the Home Office for special grant. Forces and authorities are aware of the criteria for such grants and we will always consider such applications very carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I will give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me for the second time. Has he seen the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by Dame Helen Ghosh? We were pushing the recommendation that we had made in a previous report that there should be a catalogue—Dame Helen kept referring to it as an Argos catalogue, but something more up-market would be more appropriate—[Interruption.] I will not refer to John Lewis, for obvious reasons. The catalogue in question, which would be approved by the Home Office, would ensure that police forces did not procure separately, but obtained the best possible national deal.

[Nick Herbert]

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that is effectively what we are doing. We are passing new regulations—we have just introduced the latest raft—which require forces to buy certain goods and items of equipment together. The savings that they are making are accumulating, and, as I have said, will eventually reach £200 million a year. I shall be happy to provide the Home Affairs Committee with an update on that, because I think it is a good story which shows that forces can make savings by working more effectively together. I note that the Opposition have conceded that savings can be made in that area. Those savings, too, are in addition to the savings identified by HMIC.

The third way in which the police can find savings beyond those originally identified by HMIC is through transformation of the way forces work. HMIC said that savings of £1 billion a year could be found if the high-spending forces simply reduced their costs in a range of functions to the average of that spent by a similar force. However, if all forces achieved the efficiency levels of the best forces nationally, that would save a further £350 million a year. Why should not all forces be as efficient as the best?

Outsourcing can also play a major role in effecting this transformation. The Government have been supporting Surrey and West Midlands forces and authorities in a joint programme exploring the value of business partnering. Broad areas of service can be covered, including a range of activities in, or supporting, front-line policing such as dealing with incidents, supporting victims, protecting individuals at risk and providing specialist services. This is not about traditional outsourcing; rather, it is about building a new strategic relationship between forces and the private sector. By harnessing private-sector innovation, specialist skills and economies of scale, forces can transform the way they deliver services and improve outcomes for the public. Every police authority in England and Wales bar one could join in, should they choose to do so. Under its own steam, Lincolnshire is about to sign a £200 million contract over 10 years with G4S. That contract for support services is available to the other forces named on the procurement notice.

These are highly significant developments that open up the possibility of new savings across policing. The published potential value of the Surrey and West Midlands contract is between £300 million and £3.5 billion. I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition believe that such business partnering is the right way forward for policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke passionately about their local areas. Notwithstanding the debate over police numbers, I think we all recognise the huge amount of work being done at a local level. I shall start with a couple of local issues, before moving on to the wider national issues.

On the situation in Leicestershire, we will sadly see a reduction in the police grant of almost £4 million. When I spoke to Chief Constable Simon Cole this morning, he talked about a very complicated formula that first gave us the money but then took it away because of the damping element. He, like every police force, will struggle to meet the ambitions that he and others have to achieve the reductions that the Government have put in place.

Last Saturday’s events, when the English Defence League marched through Leicester, remind us that police authorities struggle not only because of the reductions but because of events occurring that cannot be predicted. I want to pay tribute to Simon Cole and to Leicester’s mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, for how they handled that march. The EDL is not welcome in Leicester, but it was given the opportunity to march because we believe in the fundamental principles of freedom of speech. The fact is that the 2,000 police officers who came out on to the streets will cost £800,000. With the possibility of an EDL march in Leeds, the people of Leeds—in the end, it is the taxpayer who will pay—are going to have to pay another large sum. When I intervened on the Minister, I know he said that applications for a special grant can be made, and we will ask him to help us with these costs, because these are not costs of our making; we had to police that demonstration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington alluded to the recent riots, which reminded me that local police forces have been left with a shortfall. I have figures for the Metropolitan police. I am told that costs under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 will be £198 million, with a further £78 million for operational policing costs; yet the Home Office will pay only £100 million and £52.7 million for the policing costs, so there is a shortfall of about £20 million for the Metropolitan police. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance to areas such as Birmingham, and to a lesser extent to Leicester, where there were disorders rather than huge riots, but most particularly to London, that help will be forthcoming from the Home Office, as the Prime Minister promised when I put the point to him during his statement just after the riots. He said that the Government would meet the costs of all the extra issues that arose as a result of the riots; I can give the Minister the Hansard extract if necessary.

I do not want to talk about numbers, as the issue has been well rehearsed eloquently by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, particularly by the shadow Home Secretary and the Minister. What I want to talk about is procurement, as this is an area in respect of which there will be common cause. IT procurement costs the public £1.2 billion annually. The Minister has told us that the Government are keen to ensure that savings are made. Forces currently have 2,000 separate and bespoke information and communication technology systems that are serviced by 5,000 different members of staff.

The National Audit Office recently published a report on the use of mobile phones, and I declare an interest in having a BlackBerry, although I am not certain that I use all its features. However, in my conversations with the BlackBerry people, they assure me that the BlackBerrys they have given to South Yorkshire police, for example, have resulted in savings of £6 million. This is not rocket science. It was a recommendation of the Select Committee in November 2008 when we said that sufficient funding should be

“made available as soon as possible to enable all frontline officers to have access to”

hand-held devices. We talk about waste and procurement; that would have saved a huge amount of money. We still face a situation in which police officers of different police forces are buying these services from different suppliers and are operating different devices.

I understand that the system in South Yorkshire—I am sure the Minister will be familiar with it—allows the individual police officer to access the police national computer, the warrants database, the electoral roll, command and control, case study records, intelligence briefings, crime tasking, electronic witness statements and shift briefing. That is the sort of thing we need to give our police officers so that they do not spend their time dealing with the bureaucracy of which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke. We are all against bureaucracy; who wants the police to be filling in lots of pieces of paper?

If we look at new technology—I do not know whether a mobile phone is described as such these days—I believe this is the way for us to go forward. Nineteen forces have mobile phones for fewer than 50% of their officers, and according to the National Audit Office only one in five use it effectively. We give out the equipment, but perhaps do not train officers as effectively as we should.

I am all for the Minister mandating collaboration. I know that the Home Office and central Government are reluctant to tread on the toes of individual chief constables, but police and crime commissioners are going to be introduced in November, and I hope they will have a leading role to play on procurement. We need to be in a position not to allow all 43 forces to buy their own equipment. The Minister was here for Prime Minister’s questions when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue that four police authorities were buying Hyundai police cars. Of course, my hon. Friend’s point was about British jobs given that they come from North Korea, but I saw the issue as being primarily one of why all our police cars are not the same; I wondered why, when I went to Kent, there was a different make of police car from those I saw in Leicestershire. This is a no brainer.

I am pleased with what the permanent secretary at the Home Office said. I was glad when she was not appointed the head of the home civil service—not because I do not think she is capable, as I think she is an extraordinarily capable woman, but because I think the permanent secretary to the Home Office is a big job to do. When she came before the Committee she talked about the so-called Argos catalogue—her choice of shop; I do not know whether Dame Helen goes there regularly. We have been pushing for a long time for a catalogue with nationally agreed prices from which everyone buys. Why the previous Labour Government did not do that, I do not know. My defence is that I was the Minister for Europe so I did not have a chance to be in the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) did a great job as a Minister, but this is a difficult task, as he will tell us.

[Mr Ruffley]

The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done much under his leadership to raise awareness of the efficiencies that can be delivered by police forces from existing budgets. When he talks about mandating collaboration, is he suggesting that the whole of England and Wales should be divided up and that every force should be mandated to collaborate with a neighbouring force or neighbouring forces?

[Keith Vaz]

It could be that; of course legislation allows that to happen. The Minister has told us what he did about helicopters with the National Police Air Service. As I remember, South Yorkshire did not want to share its helicopters but the Government said, “You have to share, because a helicopter is quite an expensive piece of equipment.” I do not care where it is done, and I do not think we should hang ourselves on a hook as far as who should say what, but it is common sense to be in a position where we can do this. I think Dame Helen Ghosh gets it, and that is why the Committee will interview her on a regular basis about her commitment to procurement. We want to see not just the kind of savings we have had so far, but much bigger savings.

Finally, let me speak about police pay and conditions. We all have huge admiration for the police. Tom Winsor will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee shortly, and I think the Minister needs to take the temperature of the Police Federation and ordinary police officers. He meets them every day and sees them on many occasions, so I cannot lecture him about this, but morale is very low and I think that Mr Winsor has gone too far. We need to be very careful when we deal with police pay and conditions. The previous Labour Government got it wrong—Jacqui Smith got it wrong and so did my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—when they did not allow the pay rise that the police ought to have been given when the arbitration committee decided that they should have that pay rise. This time, we should make sure that we carry police officers with us in making the massive changes that the Government are putting in place. That is vital because this is the biggest change to the policing landscape we have seen in this country since Sir Robert Peel’s time.

We should remunerate the police well, we should not be mean and vindictive to them and we should not get rid of the most experienced officers. That is something we are seeing in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned, where some of our most experienced people are being told they have to go. When I say in this House, I do not mean Members of the House, luckily, as I have been here a long time, but those who guard the Palace of Westminster. We need to value that experience. I hope that the Minister will look again at pay and conditions and will try to bring Mr Winsor under a little bit of control. We are dealing not with railways—I know Mr Winsor was the rail regulator—but with real people in real jobs who protect our constituents. They are the people we lionise in times of crisis, and we should reward them properly for the work they do.

Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Sentencing Council and the transparency and consistency of sentencing.

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue today. Public confidence in our criminal justice system rests on the principle that justice is dispensed independently by a judge in possession of the full facts of a case. It is normal to quote Magna Carta: we do not deprive people of their liberty

“without due process of law”

in this country. It is not the case in the United Kingdom, as it still is, unfortunately, in many parts of the world, that the Executive can order the detention and trial of people simply on the basis that they disagree strongly with the Government. Neither is it the case, as it is in some other judicial systems, that trials can be stretched out and rerun, until the “right” judgment is reached. Politicians do not sentence people in individual cases, judges do, and British Governments lose cases when they are parties in civil actions. I shall not go on, because we all know that those are the fundamentals of civil liberties and the rule of law in this country.

Independence is what we employ judges for, but alongside that fundamental truth lies an equally important principle—the discretion to do justice in individual case. Only judges see the full circumstances of each case, and they need the freedom to vary sentences in individual instances in accordance with the gravity of the offence. They have to bear in mind the circumstances of the individual offender and such mitigation as they may be able to offer. Sometimes the offence will be so aggravated that a higher than average sentence is required, as we saw, for example, after the riots in August. On other occasions, there will be significant personal mitigation, or relatively little harm caused to the victim, which means that a lower sentence than average will be justified. Just as we trust that our independent judges are the right people to make sensible decisions about the running of cases, so we generally trust them to apply the framework of criminal law across a range of different kinds of case of varying degrees of seriousness.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Clarke]

It is very early, but I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Keith Vaz]

On the point about gravity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted the sentences that were given yesterday to a group of four al-Qaeda inspired fundamentalists, who as the result of a Goodyear hearing will, in effect, be out of prison within six years. Does he consider it important to revisit the whole notion of Goodyear hearings in view of the fact that people who were going to cause mayhem in London have got away with being in prison for only six years?

[Mr Clarke]

I am not yet familiar with the full facts of the case, so I certainly shall not comment. There is also a matter of principle. The custom is growing that Ministers conduct a running commentary on sentences in individual cases as they proceed. I do not think that that is wise. I believe in the separation of powers. The right hon. Gentleman is a senior and respected Member of the House, but my understanding is that those people will be sentenced next week. I will check. When the sentence is actually imposed, we have a system whereby the Attorney-General can put in an appeal on the ground of leniency and ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider it. I will inquire more closely during the course of the debate, as the right hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned.

Public confidence would not be well served if individual judges gave widely varying sentences in similar cases. We have one body of law as determined by Parliament, and the punishment should fit the crime. Parliament imposing the law is the guardian of public opinion. We are answerable to the general public and the maximum tariffs set by the House have to be taken as a guide by judges in all cases.

Different cases should attract different punishments. The question is how to ensure that our independent judiciary can make judgments that fit the facts of the case but are also consistent with each other: how to balance, on the one hand, the imperative of judicial freedom—such that they have the latitude to sentence according to circumstance—with, on the other hand, the need for a consistent approach across the system and in all our courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chairman of the Justice Committee. I agree with almost everything he said. Many lawyers are present, which is not unusual in the House of Commons, especially on a subject like this one. It is absolutely the right approach to highlight the importance of investing resources on prevention rather than at what happens at the end of the criminal justice system. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, that means early intervention—something that no Government seem prepared to do because it costs money up front, whereas at the moment, our system pays to keep people in prison at astonishing rates in order to punish them, but they often come out of prison and reoffend.

When the Solicitor-General winds up the debate—I understand that he is the Government’s spokesman at the end—I hope he will tell us whether Lord Justice Leveson is still chairing the Sentencing Council, even though he is also—[Interruption.] I am most grateful; the Solicitor-General no longer has to wait for the winding-up speech. We work quickly together, Madam Deputy Speaker, as he is my neighbour in Leicestershire, so we understand each other quite well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Telepathy is difficult for Hansard to pick up and it is not easy for other Members in the Chamber. It would help if we made that sequence a little clearer.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

To make it clear, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) meant that I, not Lord Justice Leveson, was his parliamentary neighbour. I say that in case that does not appear clearly on the record either.

[Keith Vaz]

In football terms, that was an instant replay. I am glad that Lord Leveson now chairs the important inquiry into the media. After that is completed, he will start the next inquiry. He must be an incredible chap to be able to chair the Sentencing Council and conduct all these other inquiries. I am glad that he is still there; continuity is important.

Let me go back to the intervention I made at the start of the Lord Chancellor’s speech. He said that the Government would be able to give us more information at the end of the debate on the case that I raised, which has been concluded in the courts. It concerns a group of four al-Qaeda-inspired fundamentalists who admitted planning to send mail bombs to their targets during the run-up to Christmas 2010. Their targets included the Palace of Westminster, the home of the Mayor of London, the Stock Exchange, and other buildings of that kind.

Those defendants participated in what is known as a Goodyear direction, which, as the Lord Chancellor and other Members will know, enables a trial judge to indicate the sentence that will be given if a defendant pleads guilty. I understand that the sentence that is indicated cannot be increased by the judge at the time when the defendants are sentenced.

[Rehman Chishti]

I have huge admiration and respect for the right hon. Gentleman. However, I dealt with Goodyear indications when I practised as a barrister, and I recall that a judge can refuse to give such an indication. He can say, “This is too severe. If the defendant wants to plead guilty, he can do so; otherwise he can stand trial.” A Goodyear indication can relieve a potential victim of the stress and the ordeal of giving evidence, but ultimately it is a matter for the judge: if he thinks that the sentence is too severe, he will not give a Goodyear indication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced prosecutor, and he knows much more about these matters than I do. Perhaps, given the charges that were levelled against the individuals in the case that I mentioned, the judge ought to have refused the application, but the fact remains that two of the defendants, Mohammed Chowdhury and Shah Rahman, were effectively told by Mr Justice Wilkie that they would be out in six years, because that was what was indicated by the sentence of twelve and a half years that he proposed to give them.

I have raised that case because it came before the court yesterday, because we are debating this issue today, and because I think we should consider the severity of what would have occurred had the matter been brought to fruition.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not want to rain on my right hon. neighbour’s parade, but I am afraid that I will not be answering questions of the kind that he has put to me when I wind up the debate. The matter is ongoing. It may well be that the judge has given a Goodyear indication, but he will be sentencing next week, and nothing that I shall say today, or that the right hon. Gentleman will say today, should in any way impinge on the judge’s discretion. The Goodyear direction system is there, and its conduct is circumscribed by fairly strict rules. While the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make any point that he wishes to make about particular sentences, I think that—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said earlier—we would be better advised to leave that particular issue until the sentence has been promulgated. All sorts of implications may flow from that.

[Keith Vaz]

I am very happy to take the Solicitor-General’s advice. What I have sought to do is ensure that the issue is looked at, as I hope it will be in future when the sentence is finally determined.

Let me move from the specific to the general. I do not want us to reach a point at which we have plea bargaining in criminal justice, because I think that that would be wholly wrong. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned the riots. I pay tribute to the way in which the criminal justice system operated throughout that period. I well remember going to Horseferry Road magistrates court at midnight and receiving a call from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who welcomed me. I do not know how he knew that I was going to be there, but somehow he knew that I was looking at the 24-hour courts. Although there was something of a gap because both the practitioners and the defendants had to be brought from police stations, the courts moved very quickly at a time when it was necessary for that to happen.

Although politicians are very wary of trampling on the jurisdiction of the judiciary, the public, and even the Prime Minister, made known their views on sentencing during the riots. The result was that the courts issued sentences that were, on average, more severe than for similar offences committed outside the period of the riots.

I also pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice for providing my Committee with so much information. I do not think that we have had so much transparency before, as regards figures relating to the riots being made available. I think it was the Lord Chancellor who told us, in a Select Committee evidence session, that 76% of people who appeared before the courts for offences committed during the riots had a previous conviction. He also told us that for adults, the figure was 80%, and for juveniles it was 62%. It is important, as we look at sentencing and transparency, that figures are made available to Select Committees and Parliament, so that we can have informed views on the issues that we are deliberating.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who has left the Chamber, raised the issue of rehabilitation in her intervention on the Lord Chancellor. One of the most important issues that the Lord Chancellor has raised during his time in office is that of rehabilitation. As the Chairman of the Justice Committee has said, there is no point in just sending people to jail; if one convicted criminal in four reoffends soon after completing their sentence, something is wrong with the way we deal with rehabilitation. Of course people have to go to prison to be punished in certain circumstances, but the prison authorities need the time and space to start the process of rehabilitation.

We have been looking at the roots of radicalisation and will publish a report on the subject on Monday next week. We feel it is very important that when people are incarcerated, those who are able to detoxify—that was the word used in the evidence given to us, and I use it again today—people who have been radicalised have time to do that. One cannot do that in a short period, or without resources; it has to be done over a period of time. We need to ensure that when those people come out, the experience has made a difference to their lives, because at the end of the day it is our constituents who suffer if that is not the case.

This is a good debate, and I hope very much that it will not just be about tougher sentences, because as we all know, 83 of the 134 prisons in this country are classified as overcrowded. If we are to make sure that when people come out, they do not reoffend, we need a criminal justice system that is fit for purpose and able, in the end, to do the one thing that we want it to do: help in the reduction of crime.