Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman should never apologise for his characteristic courtesy, which is welcome on both sides of the House. I will tell him what we hope to achieve through the commission: we hope to move to a position in which human rights are once again completely accepted. In this country, “human rights” has become almost a boo-phrase, which is ridiculous. They are the basic rights to which we and all democracies adhere, but in various actions inside the courts and outside, human rights have been abused and this Government will put an end to that.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? Is not an important right the British people’s right to a final say, and, with 80% saying in opinion polls that they want the Supreme Court to have the final decision, is it not right that we should consider how that can be done?
Damian Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is precisely because of the strong feelings that we have set up the commission, which will report in a few months’ time. I hope that then we can have a well-informed debate about how we will take forward human rights in this country, preserving what is essential while avoiding the terrible abuses that have grown over the past few years.
Chris Grayling
That matter is being dealt with by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office. We are continuing to review it. We regard domestic violence as a particularly serious offence. It does untold damage to the lives of women. The Government will continue to work to find ways of reducing the likelihood of people suffering from domestic violence.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
T8. Does the Minister agree that the British people have lost confidence in the Human Rights Act, with many seeing it as a charter for criminals? Will he consider bringing forward a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities?
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to repeat that we have set up a commission to look at this important issue and that we want to get back to a position where human rights are taken to be one of the basic values of a democratic society, rather than having human rights abused in such a way that the whole concept has fallen into disrepute.
Data Protection in the Areas of Police and Criminal Justice (EU Directive)
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
No. Let me turn to the substantial content of the proposed directive and the policy issues that are raised. We want to see a system that allows police and judicial authorities to continue to protect and serve the public effectively and which also allows individuals to be confident that their privacy, safety and freedom will be safeguarded. The Government believe that these two objectives are not contradictory, but may be achieved in tandem, by creating a data protection framework that is founded on the principles of necessity and proportionality.
In the light of this position, there are legitimate concerns regarding the content of the directive. The United Kingdom believes in a principles-based approach that allows the necessary amount of flexibility in processing data. In some areas, the proposed directive seems far too prescriptive to meet this requirement.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) could put the question on costs better than I could.
Mr Slaughter
I accept what the Minister has said—that the matter is at an early stage and we should not press him on those points. I am very happy to be patronised by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and whether he is asking by himself or by proxy—
Charlie Elphicke
I am proud to be the proxy for my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the generosity with which he has taken interventions and for the great courtesy that he brings to the House.
My concern is that we will end up with a free-of-cost subject access request. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Tony Blair, who wrote in his book, “A Journey”, that freedom of information requests and such costless information requests are one of the biggest mistakes and that one should be very careful about them?
Mr Slaughter
I must get around to reading that book, because it is quoted to me so often in these debates and exactly the same point is made. I am sure it is a very good read.
I conclude by quoting one paragraph from the proposed directive which sums up its laudable intention:
“When personal data moves across borders it may put at increased risk the ability of individuals to exercise data protection rights to protect themselves from the unlawful use or disclosure of that data. At the same time, supervisory authorities may find that they are unable to pursue complaints or conduct investigations relating to the activities outside their borders. Their efforts to work together in the cross-border context may also be hampered by insufficient preventative or remedial powers, inconsistent legal regimes. Therefore, there is a need to promote closer co-operation among data protection supervisory authorities to help them exchange information with their foreign counterparts.”
That neatly encapsulates the two principal aims of the proposals, as set out in the impact assessment: dealing with the fragmentation of data, when it prevents cross-border law enforcement, and allowing individual citizens to control their personal data. Those are proper aspirations, and we are prepared to give the directive the benefit of doubt at this stage, but I do await with interest, as I always do, the rest of the debate and, indeed, the Minister’s response.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I represent what are probably some of the most Eurosceptic electors in the country, but they feel passionately about one issue: the need to ensure that Europe works when it comes to dealing with international crime. We see at first hand the problems of people-trafficking and people-smuggling, particularly the disgraceful exploitation of women who are carted secretly over our border and slipped into such places as Soho.
We see drug running, international organised crime, gun running and all the rest of it—that is, some of the most serious international crimes, on which we absolutely have to have co-operation. I therefore strongly support measures to ensure effective international co-operation. However, we have to ask whether this directive is on the side of international co-operation to tackle crime. Is it on the side of law enforcement, or is it on the side of the villain and protecting the villain’s rights? Is it yet another villain’s charter by proxy, emanating from the European Union?
For me, the balance shows the right intent—that we should co-operate—but what we have from the European Union is the wrong way of going about that. We need to give our law enforcement agencies the strongest possible tools to fight crime and the serious international gangs, and so on. However, I am worried because, having listened to this debate, it seems to me that we do not need to opt in at this stage. From the discussion and debate so far, it seems that we could take part in the negotiations, reserving our position, and decide to opt in later. We have the possibility of co-operating bilaterally. Up to now, we have co-operated quite successfully, and to date we have managed to data-share. Why will that suddenly come to a crashing halt if we have a right of privacy and a right not to data-share for criminals and villains, whom we should be fighting with all the data at our disposal?
I am concerned about the lack of attention to detail. Let us look at the checklist analysis that has been provided in the Vote Office, which no Minister has signed. It is a basic thing, but no one paid sufficient attention to detail to ensure that it was signed. Let us look at the Order Paper. The first thing we knew, late last night, was that this motion would be on the Order Paper in the form that it is. Why do Ministers not reach out to Back Benchers, to make the case and to win friends and influence people? The one example given by the Minister—the example of the Romanian—seems a stronger argument for reforming the European arrest warrant than for supporting this directive.
My principal concern, and the principal concern that my constituents will have, is this. Of course we should have international co-operation, and of course we should combat international crime, but are our Ministers going to make the case passionately in Europe, on a line-item basis? Are they going to show that attention to detail, when they will not even accept an intervention from Members on their own side, which in my case was going to be helpful? I am concerned that we should be making sure that we are not frit when we put the case in Europe—that we are strong and trenchant, and that we ensure that our European friends focus on the necessity of ensuring that our law-enforcement agencies are sent into battle not with one hand tied behind their back, but with the full support of all European nations to ensure that we deal with the scourge and evils of international crime.
Many workers in my constituency work tirelessly on the front line for the UK Border Agency. Paragraph 30 of the impact assessment says that the UKBA is seriously concerned, because although people would normally be charged a tenner for a data request, under this proposal it will be completely free. That means that people could be bombing them in all the time, at great administrative expense and effort—for the UKBA, in this case. The UKBA receives 22,000 such requests every year. At the moment, the charge of a tenner wards off ever more requests. Indeed, the UKBA says that the charge should be higher, in order to ward off more vexatious requests. Its preference is for
“an increase in the fee limit to above the present £10 level.”
The UKBA is not going to be happy that the Europeans come along and say, “Actually, it should all be free.” We need Ministers to go to Europe to make the case passionately to our European colleagues that we must ensure that we do not give a blank cheque to anyone who wants to be vexatious in order to protect the so-called privacy of potential villains and criminals. We must send our law enforcement agencies into battle with our strong and passionate support, so we can deal with the great evils of international crime.
The one area on which my constituents support the EU is in respect of co-operation, but we must also ensure that our criminal justice services are not under threat of prosecution, as suggested at paragraph 50 of the impact assessment. I am deeply concerned that the overall impact of this will be substantially negative, even if it is difficult to be specific about that. I hope that Ministers will make a strong and passionate case for taking away the bad things in this directive and ensuring we keep the good things. I urge the Minister not to be frit. Instead, he must be strong and trenchant and win the day.
EU Criminal Policy
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
Of course, what we are considering is guided by the opt-in principles in the Lisbon treaty under the relevant protocol. The emergency brake, as a final reserve position, then underwrites everything. For example, if we opted in to something at the beginning of negotiations, found ourselves outvoted by a qualified majority vote and the Government then came to a view that what had emerged was unacceptable, the emergency brake would remain available to us to prevent that criminal legislation from applying to us.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
To make it absolutely clear, will the Minister confirm that the EU criminal policy outlined in the document would not apply to the UK in any way, shape or form unless or until the UK chose to opt in?
Mr Blunt
I hope that I can return later to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and give him a full answer.
As I said, there are some potential concerns about the detail of the principles. Ineffective implementation of a European Union policy should not in itself trigger consideration of the use of criminal law. We also agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that it is primarily for member states and their Governments to ensure that citizens can have confidence that they live in a Europe of freedom, security and justice. The European Union’s primary role should be driven by stopping serious cross-border crime.
The Government welcome the further caveats that the European Scrutiny Committee considers should be placed on the communication. The first relates to the European Union not seeking to harmonise extra-territorial provisions across member states. The Government believe that requiring member states to take extra-territorial jurisdiction must be considered on a case-by-case basis, having particular regard to the conduct to be tackled and its impact. We have accepted that it is appropriate to require member states to be able to prosecute their nationals who commit certain child sex crimes or human trafficking offences anywhere in the world. However, we have not accepted European Union rules on extra-territorial jurisdiction based on the nationality of the victim of crime.
The Government also agree with the Committee that we should be cautious about European Union criminal law that seeks to define aggravating and mitigating circumstances. We accepted some aggravating factors in the context of child sex offences or human trafficking. We consider those factors to form part of the agreed minimum sanctions, and, therefore, to be permissible.
The Government are unaware of the previous use of the term “Euro-crimes”, or, indeed, its origin. It is wholly misleading. I want to state clearly that no one will ever be prosecuted under a so-called Euro-crime. The European Union can set only the minimum elements of an offence. Each will have to be implemented in the domestic law of the member states. Hon. Members will understand why the Government view the term as singularly unhelpful. For European officials to use a shorthand internally to refer to crimes about which member states have agreed to establish minimum standards is one thing. For that term to find its way into official documents is another example of jargon that allows misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
Charlie Elphicke
I am listening carefully to the Minister. I am slightly puzzled. It seems as though there will be some minimum EU standard for, for example, illicit drug trafficking. However, do not we already have criminal laws in this country that apply to such matters? What would a European dimension add?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend is correct. However, when it is decided that the principles that we are considering merit the European Union’s taking action—as we have done with child sex offences and human trafficking—we will want to take the opportunity to opt in to EU legislation. That is why we will continue to make the judgment case by case. If it were decided, in the case to which my hon. Friend referred, that there was merit in acting at European Union level, we would doubtless do so. Of course, there could be cases where we felt that our standards were adequate but that our interests were being damaged in other parts of the European Union because drug trafficking was happening that affected our interests, and was not being properly policed. There are therefore circumstances, particularly with cross-border offences, in which there is merit in considering the matter.
The European Scrutiny Committee also asked for the Government’s view of the third sentence of the communication, which states that a
“EU Criminal Policy should have as an overall goal to foster citizens’ confidence in the fact that they live in a Europe of freedom, security and justice.”
The Committee took exception to that as being implausible and unwarranted because the European Union’s role is “helping” member states to stop crime. We agree and note that article 84 makes it clear that the European Union has only a supporting role in crime prevention. It cannot harmonise member states’ laws, except to the very limited extent in articles 82 and 83, which permit setting only minimum standards.
Our aim is to try to ensure that, when the European Union legislates on criminal law, there is convincing evidence that the offending activity constitutes serious and cross-border crime, and that there is consensus that the nature or impact requires common action. I therefore conclude by reiterating our view that it is essential that European Union criminal legislation is proposed only when necessary and proportionate.
It only remains for me to reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). Of course, the views of the devolved Administrations are taken into account in opt-in decisions that the United Kingdom then makes.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a privilege, as ever, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). My concern is about this kind of extension of the whole European project. We see it creeping on further, out of taxation and all the other measures with which we are familiar, into the criminal sphere. I find this policy document highly objectionable in many areas. First, I find objectionable the statement that
“EU Criminal Policy should have as overall goal to foster citizens’ confidence in the fact that they live in a Europe of freedom, security and justice”
That is not the point of European criminal policy. Rather, it should be the criminal policy of each individual member state. The EU, by trying to say that its policy is somehow about these principles and that citizens look to it for the execution of those principles, is overstretching and overselling. It is also misreading the situation, given that it is so far removed from people and has done so little to instil confidence.
The document also says—this is more in line with where things should be—that
“the EU can tackle gaps and shortcomings wherever EU action adds value.”
I take a pragmatic position on this. I do not think that one should say, in a knee-jerk reaction, that the EU should have nothing to do with anything, or that we should embrace everything it says as messages and tablets from heaven written in stone that we should accept, honour and obey. We need to look at things on a case-by-case basis.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. Within the bundle of documents before us is the draft insider dealing and market abuse regulation. That is an area in which I worked before entering the House. Does he agree that with cross-border activity such as market abuse, which in the 21st century can be committed anywhere in the world and have an effect on another territory, there is an argument that the EU has a role to play in setting out sanctions for such behaviour?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend helps me to move to my next point. The policy applies not just to market abuse. It also applies to
“terrorism, trafficking in human beings, sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.”
The list is packaged in the manner of “Do you like hospitals?” or “Do you eat food to live?”. It has been put together with breathtaking cynicism and in a way that would make even a push poller blush. We know what this is really about. It is about starting with something that everyone can accept so that they say, “Oh, yes, that’s a good idea,”. That puts the principle in place before things are moved forward. The document says, “We then want to move forward into other areas,” as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton just said.
Let us look at the issue of market abuse. Why can we not have the market abuse rules in the criminal law of our own nation? Why do we need to have minimum standards across European law if we do not necessarily want to opt in? We are being told that there is no such thing as—
Charlie Elphicke
In a moment.
We are being told that it is a misdescription to talk about a Euro-crime, but on page 9 the document states, under the heading, “What is the possible content of EU minimum rules on criminal law?”:
“The definition of the offences…Regarding sanctions, EU criminal law can require Member States to take effective, proportionate…criminal sanctions for a specific conduct.”
So if we touch on the issue of definition of the offence, and add on criminal sanctions, there is a risk that what we are actually talking about is, in effect, or could be seen as, a form of Euro-crime. I hasten to add that I do not necessarily regard that as a bad idea.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If we were to have this co-recognition of crimes and action, would it not make more sense to do it with New York rather than with Brussels, because there is much more international financial trading in New York and London than there is in Europe?
Nicky Morgan
I will be brief because I know that time is limited. My hon. Friend asks why we need to have rules in the UK if we already have rules across Europe. The point is that, as I understand it, the proposal would bring the rest of the EU’s rules on market abuse up to the standard that we already have in this country. New York already has those standards. This is an improvement, bringing the rest of Europe along with us.
Charlie Elphicke
The European Union is doing this anyway. The central issue is whether we opt in. This is really a shadow debate for the whole issue about opting in. The letter sent by the Home Secretary to some colleagues on 21 December 2011 talks about the whole issue of the opt-ins. There are 133 directives, regulations and so on where opting in could take place.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to the central issue. Is not the central issue that raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox)? If we are going to criminalise people in this country, or indeed in any other member state in the EU, by law, then those who have passed those laws need to be accountable to the citizens to whom they apply, and that is not the case in relation to the European Commission or the other EU institutions, which are not accountable, in any real sense at all, to the people of this country.
Charlie Elphicke
I completely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and that is my central point too. It is not for the European Union to start defining crimes; it is for individual nation states to do so.
There are areas where we should consider opting in. For example, I intervened on the Minister and talked about the issue of drugs. Let us look at the measures in the list provided by the Home Secretary. On one side, it talks about co-operation between customs authorities and business organisations on combating drug trafficking. Good. That is what we should have—cross-border co-operation. As the representative of Dover, I know that that is really important and makes a difference. Another 1996 justice and home affairs measure that was proposed, concerns
“the exchange of information on the chemical profiling of drugs to facilitate improved cooperation between Member States in combating illicit drug trafficking.”
Good. Yes, we should do that.
However, the dividing line for me is the 1996 JHA measure No. 750, which concerns
“the approximation of the laws and practices of the Member States of the European Union to combat drug addiction and to prevent and combat illegal drug trafficking.”
When one considers the approximation of laws and the issue of codification and requiring member states to treat everything the same way, one is rapidly moving into the area of a common criminal law—Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, the Euro-investigator, Europol and Euro-crimes. If we are to take that route, my point is simply that we should engage the country as a whole and have a proper, open discussion about what is going on, not try to spin it.
There are some cases where a common criminal law may be appropriate, particularly in the cross-border context; in others, we might conclude that it is not the right way to proceed. But to draw up a cynical list of everything that everyone would agree are the most heinous crimes known to mankind, in order to get the principle and then to extend it later, is something that we have seen with the European Union time and again. It is the fundamentally wrong thing to do, and it would be the wrong thing for us to do in terms of the opt-in or opt-out debate. I believe that when we have that opt-in/opt-out debate over the next two years, we should ensure that we include the country as a whole and have a proper, national discussion.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Trickett
Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post.
In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Surely having a right of appeal would just mean more cost and delay. The really important role that the coroner has had historically is to make a judgment and provide closure. Is not that the most important of the coroner’s responsibilities?
Jon Trickett
The two interventions have been revealing. Both interventions, and the Minister’s original speech, envisage more judicial reviews taking place in the absence of a proper and orderly appeals process. The problem with judicial review is that it is more expensive than the appeals system. It can take years and it is burdensome, bureaucratic and emotionally painful to the bereaved families. The average cost to an individual is £30,000. We are talking about people, such as families of service men and women, who may want to contest the decisions of a coroner. Under clause 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, there is a simple system that allows for an appeal to the chief coroner, which would create a precedent for the whole coronial service. Rather than that, the Government are resting their case on the fact that the appeal process will go through judicial review. That is not an appropriate way in which to handle a very sensitive service.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being typically generous and kind. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. Sometimes it is used as collateral challenge, but it is not a form of appeal. It is used when there has been a procedural irregularity. The key message must be that the whole point of the coroner system is to get closure so that people can move on with their lives. A person has to get leave to apply for judicial review, and they must show that there has been some procedural irregularity or proper grounds for that kind of action to be taken.
Jon Trickett
The British Legion, which is closer to any of the service families than we are, says that it would prefer an appeals system. The hon. Gentleman has to say why he thinks that he understands better the needs of bereaved families than the British Legion. I suggest that he does not understand better, and nor do I. It is better to defer to the judgment of the British Legion.
Robert Flello
Let me begin by adding my praise to INQUEST, the Royal British Legion and a host of other organisations, which are almost too numerous to mention, that have been behind the campaign to ensure that the Government finally saw sense on refilling the post of chief coroner—not appointing someone to the post, because it was filled. Somebody was appointed, but then, shall we say, let go. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the work that he did, which is much appreciated.
I am extremely disappointed that, having been told time and again, and shown the error of their ways, the Government waited until the 11th hour—or not quite the 11th hour: it was probably around half past 7—finally to change their mind. However, they then behaved like a small child. Having been found out, they now want to kick the toys around spitefully. Section 40 can be introduced over time, in a measured way, using pilots. However, simply saying, “Okay, have the chief coroner, but you can’t have appeals,” looks petulant and leaves the Minister and the Ministry of Justice looking stupid. [Interruption.] Allow me to rephrase that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean for a moment to say that the Minister looked stupid; however, the stupidity of the actions stands out.
INQUEST has said as recently as today that it envisages that section 40 would
“remain on the statute book until, at a time to be agreed in the future, the provision would be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section l82 of the Act so a full pilot and review of the appeals process could be undertaken by the Chief Coroner.”
That is totally sensible. It continues:
“This would enable a properly costed, informed decision to be taken about rolling out a new avenue of appeal across coroners courts in England and Wales. Terms of the pilot and review would be decided between the Chief Coroner and the Ministry of Justice and, under our proposal”—
the proposal put forward by it and RBL—
“an appeals process would not come into effect for several years.”
All that is eminently doable, and to say otherwise is frankly wrong. INQUEST continues:
“An appeals process overseen by the chief coroner would offer families a route to resolve poor decision making.”
That relates to the interventions from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—[Interruption]—who is probably tweeting at the moment.
Robert Flello
I have got his attention—marvellous.
As INQUEST says, this is about
“poor decision-making by coroners before and during the course of the inquest so that any legal questions on these points could be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Currently, the only avenue of appeal for bereaved families about the decision-making of coroners and their conduct of an inquest is through judicial review which, as well as being expensive and complex, will often result in lengthy delays and adjourned inquest hearings while the issue is dealt with by the High Court.”
Let me give a quick example. Sheila Taylor bravely came to this House and spoke at a meeting with INQUEST on 20 October, following the tragic death of her son Mike, in April 2007. She says, among many other deeply poignant things:
“The Coroner’s Office didn’t inform us that we had a right to be present at the post-mortem. That had already been done before we were informed of Mike’s death, which made us suspicious. Was there some sort of cover-up? Had he been murdered? Had he been given the wrong drugs? The Coroner’s Officer was so rude in response to our questioning that we had to get our solicitor to speak to him on our behalf. We decided we needed a second toxicology report, but that caused a delay of 8 weeks before we could hold the funeral. You can imagine how upsetting that was.”
We can also imagine how upsetting it is for a family who have something that they are not happy about—indeed, something they have deep concerns about—but for whom the only avenue currently open is the judicial review approach, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said. Families such as the Taylors have to decide whether they want their son’s funeral delayed even further and the coroner to take even longer to look at their case, while they go through the expensive and lengthy process of judicial review. It does not need to be like that.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I was tweeting. In fact, I was looking up the difference between judicial review and section 13 applications under the previous arrangements and section 40 appeals under the current arrangements, and it struck me that there was not much difference between the two. I wonder whether we are actually talking about a slightly illusory right of appeal.
Robert Flello
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go and use a fully sized computer to conduct some proper research, rather than using a small hand-held device in the Chamber, which is probably not allowed by “Erskine May” in any case.
The Government have previously referred to cost, but—this has been said several times already, but I shall say it again because it is so important—the whole cost issue is a nonsense in many respects. Answers to parliamentary questions, responses to freedom of information requests and discussions with the Ministry of Justice have shown that the Government have not analysed the current costs of judicial reviews of coroners’ decisions or made any attempts to ascertain what the future costs might be, and have thus been unable to make any comparison with the section 40 appeals process.
If section 40 remains on the statute book, things can be done properly, carefully, steadily and slowly. There is no need for them to be done tomorrow. There is no need to say, as the Minister has, “We want to ensure that all this can be done quickly, so we must omit section 40.” I am sorry, but that is wrong, and I suggest that he should read the Act again.
I do not know whether the Minister suddenly thought “We are going to lose at the other end of the Corridor”, or whether there was a moment on Remembrance Sunday when he stood thinking about the ultimate sacrifice that people had made, and about the small sacrifice that the House could make by doing the right thing. Whatever the reason for his decision, however, I know for certain that he will not want to upset the Whips today, and that he therefore will not tell the House that he will not press the amendment that would remove section 40. That is a tragedy.
No doubt the Government will win the vote despite the brave stance of many Government Members, but notwithstanding that victory and notwithstanding the removal of section 40, which I am sure will happen, I ask the Minister to ponder this: he may win the vote, but he will have lost the moral and ethical argument. He will also have lost any chance of being viewed positively by the—sadly—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bereaved families out there, and those who represent them, who know that section 40 is the answer. He has done the right thing in regard to the chief coroner, for whatever reason, and I now ask him to do the right thing in this regard.
Sentencing
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(12 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he will be aware that the maximum discount that can be given on a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity goes up to one third, but if there is overwhelming evidence against the individual, the maximum discount is only 20%. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that, because I know he still practises in the criminal courts.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The motion expresses the shadow Minister’s disapproval of the 50% discount, but the Green Paper that was published in December 2010 canvassed the possibility in paragraph 216 on page 63. Here we are at the end of May, and only now are the Opposition raising the matter. Is it possible that this is just opportunism?
Sadiq Khan
The consultation ended on 4 March this year, and we made our concerns clear back in December. I shall deal with the timeline in a moment, because it is relevant to the spinning that has taken place over the past seven days.
Under our current system, if a guilty plea is entered at the first reasonable opportunity, there is discretion for a sentence to be reduced by up to one third. The later in the process the guilty plea is entered, the smaller the reduction becomes. There is a discount of a quarter if the plea is entered once the trial date is set, and a discount of a tenth when it is entered at the door of the court at the time of the trial. As I said earlier, there is a discount of 20% if the plea is entered at the first opportunity but there is overwhelming evidence against the defendant.
I accept that a sentence discount represents a tension between the delivery of justice and the improving of efficiency in the legal system, but that tension can potentially bring benefits to victims who are spared the trauma of a long period in court. Up until now, the system has always sought certainty that the right balance is being struck. If the sentence reduction is too great, it threatens to undermine the principles of sentencing and public confidence in the system. Worse still, it may mean that justice is not being served.
The Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle” proposed a maximum discount of 50% for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity. No. 10 and the Lord Chancellor would like us to believe that they are in full consultation mode and are simply “flying a kite” about changing the current practice. I accept that there has been consultation on the proposal, but the Lord Chancellor’s decision to accept a 23% cut in his budget has led to a fixation with reducing the prison population. That fixation has overridden all other objectives, and shows just how out of touch the Government have become. They want to reduce prison numbers not because crime is being reduced or because fewer people need to be in jail, but quite simply because of money.
Sadiq Khan
I have been generous in giving way. The hon. Gentleman can have a third bite at the cherry after I have made some progress.
Sadiq Khan
If only the Justice Secretary was investing in alternatives to short sentences and in some of the important, aggressive and intensive work that is required instead of cutting some of those services around the country. I hasten to add that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has voted for some of those cuts. When the Justice Secretary talks about rehabilitation and community sentences—real alternatives—he should invest in them, too.
Charlie Elphicke
The shadow Secretary of State is talking tough on sentencing, but
“playing tough in order not to look soft makes it harder to focus on what is effective.”
Surely rehabilitation and education are the things that this House should be debating, not plea bargaining, as they will make the difference.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of dealing with some of the real problems of those who commit offences and are found guilty, and I am all in favour of aggressive intervention within prison—and outside it for non-violent offenders. The problem is that the Justice Secretary, by accepting the 20% cut to his budget, is taking away some of the resources and skills that are required, especially with possibly 14,000 probation and prison staff losing their jobs. That expertise, skill and experience is being lost, arguably, when it is most required.
I have said on many occasions—this has been prayed against me this afternoon—at the Dispatch Box, to the Justice Secretary directly and in the media that I am happy to work with the Government and the Lord Chancellor to make changes in our criminal justice system to help reduce reoffending, cut crime and make our communities safer, based on what works where evidence shows its effectiveness, but nothing in the plans will reduce reoffending or do justice. They are a recipe for disaster and they confirm how out of touch the Government are with the real world.
I do not want this debate to descend into one about whether people are tough on crime or soft on crime. It is about what works and what is the right thing to do. It is about understanding how our criminal justice system has the full confidence of victims, the families of victims, the judiciary and the general public, all of whom are integral to its effectiveness. It is about understanding the value of justice and about willingness to pay the right price for it. I ask colleagues on both sides of the Chamber to think very carefully about this when voting on the motion.
Public Disorder (NUS Rally)
Charlie Elphicke Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
I think we need to draw a distinction between those who were marching peacefully and the small minority who were clearly engaged in criminal acts. They must be brought before the courts in the proper manner, after which action can be taken by the relevant academic authorities.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It would be all too convenient to write this off as just the work of professional agitators, but serious allegations have been made about NUS stewards, on-air TV confessions by student union leaders and the handing out of “What to do if you’re arrested” leaflets, which would not need to be brought along to a peaceful demonstration, but I understand were handed out by the NUS. Will the Minister ensure that these allegations are properly investigated?
Nick Herbert
I am sure the Metropolitan Police Commissioner will have noted my hon. Friend’s views in respect of any allegations of criminal behaviour. Not only will the commissioner be reviewing the deployment of police officers in such circumstances, but, as he repeated to me this morning, he is determined to ensure that the perpetrators of the violence, wherever they came from, are brought to justice.