Modern-day Slavery

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pauline Latham]

Perhaps the hon. Lady feels that she did not do so, but I disagree with her on that.

As I have said, slavery takes a huge number of forms. I do not want to focus on international trafficking, although, having recently returned from Burma, I know that the Burmese fear that, following the opening of their borders, an increasing number of young girls will be taken to Thailand for trafficking. We should bear it in mind that they may end up in this country as well, and I think that the police and border agencies should look out for young girls coming here from Burma. Over the last few years, I have been made aware of slavery, trafficking, and the fact that people are groomed.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), a former Minister, spoke at an event that I organised recently in my constituency, along with Sheila Taylor, an old friend of mine from Derbyshire who set up and used to work for Safe and Sound Derby but is now a member of a committee that advises the Government, and members of CROP —Collective Response of Parents to Child Sexual Exploitation—who work with victims. I also invited the parents of children attending two secondary schools, both of which have between 1,300 and 1,500 pupils. The parents were very white and middle-class; the area that I am talking about is very much a leafy suburb. What shocked me was the small number who turned up to hear those very impressive speakers. Allowing for the fact that each of them might have had two children at one or other of the two schools, I think that there was probably a potential for 1,500 to turn up, but fewer than 20 did so. One or two teachers came along.

I think there is an attitude of, “It doesn’t happen here, does it? It happens in inner cities, it happens abroad, it happens anywhere but in leafy suburbs.” I set up this event because I had spoken to a constituent whose husband had been trafficking some children, particularly her daughter’s best friend. He had been working with these children, grooming them. He has been to prison, but is now out and is still trying to see these children. So this happens all over the world, including on our own back doorstep. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) talking about a brothel on the street where he had lived more or less all his life and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) talking about the terrible problems he had had in his constituency.

Derby was one of the first areas to deal with this issue and it had Operation Retriever. A lot of men were grooming women and taking them off to Birmingham and other places, but these men have all been prosecuted and some have gone to prison. The men were from the inner city, but the children they were trafficking were not—again, they were often from very respectable backgrounds. There is a big problem with parents thinking, as they do about grooming and the internet, that their children are not going to be caught up in this. There is an obligation on every one of us in this House to try to make people aware of what might be happening on their back doorstep.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend made the point that this is all around us and she talked about the internet. If we turn to the adverts section in the back pages of our local paper, we will find sex for sale adverts. Should we not heed the words of Detective Inspector Hyland, who says that we should all take action in our local communities to challenge editors of local papers when sex for sale adverts advertise brothels, which are very much linked to trafficking? We can all take steps to try to rid those papers of such adverts.

[Pauline Latham]

That was an interesting contribution and I will now look much more carefully at the Derby Telegraph, as I was not aware of it having adverts for sex. I will look very carefully when I go home this weekend to see whether my local newspaper is part of this selling of sex. If it is, we should be challenging our local editors and saying that they should not be perpetuating this industry.

I do not know how many people are aware that Barnardo’s is working hard to come up with specialist foster placements for children who have been trafficked. It is important that we use as many agencies as we can to help these children, who are mainly, but not exclusively, girls, and give them a proper life after they have come out of this terrible situation. I commend Barnardo’s for the work it is doing. We could probably engage with and help to fund other organisations to help with that work.

I am pleased that the Government are making the effort to introduce this modern slavery Bill, because every day we see things in the national newspapers, and on national and local television, about different situations where girls, in particular, have been trafficked. It is often large groups of men who are grooming these children and moving them along to other cities. I know that the children in Derby were taken to Leeds and Birmingham—they were taken all over the country. They did not know where they were, because they did not know the geography of the country, and they could not escape because they were terrified.

I feel strongly that the Government are working hard to put in place measures to stop this happening, and I look forward to getting the Bill before the House. Every one of us has a duty to speak out about this. I am pleased that we have heard from quite a lot of speakers, but of course it is difficult to get many speakers to participate on a Thursday afternoon. I am sorry about that, because this is such an important subject. I congratulate the Minister on the work he is doing. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister is behind this, as is the Home Secretary, and that everyone is working together to rid this country of this evil.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the National Crime Agency is working closely with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, indeed, has been involved in an important operation in Cambridgeshire in the past few weeks. Evidence is being taken by the Centre for Social Justice as part of our preparations for the modern slavery Bill. We are focusing on provisions that relate to enforcement by policing and law enforcement agencies, but we will clearly keep operational matters under review.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On the basis of figures about UK citizens receiving consular advice for alleged trafficking and the fact that very few seem to be brought to justice overseas, is the Minister giving proper attention and resources to ensuring that UK citizens who ply this evil trade abroad are properly brought to justice?

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need to look at this complex issue both domestically in the UK and overseas. That is why we are working with other Governments and our embassies to strengthen support services for victims and to prevent these appalling crimes from occurring. The National Crime Agency has a focus on looking internationally and co-ordinating its work with overseas law enforcement agencies, so ensuring that where there is evidence, those involved in these pernicious crimes will be brought to justice.

Immigration Bill

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, tribunals do accept, and have been accepting—we have seen examples of this—information that has come forward after the original application was made prior to the appeal. The figures that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion quoted related to family visit appeals. We have already removed the ability to appeal on a family visit visa. It takes less time and is slightly cheaper for people to reapply and, if they have further information, to put it into the appeals mechanism. Of course, we need to ensure that the system is operating properly, and we will be looking to ensure that, through the operation of the ability to challenge administrative error, we ensure that people are making decisions fairly on the basis of the decision that is put in front of them.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that this Bill will enable the system to become effective, as well as humane. How will it impact on human trafficking, not least in relation to those who are human trafficked and are dealt with more as criminals than as they should be—victims?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend will know that we are looking at the whole question of how we deal with human trafficking, or—let us call it what it is—modern slavery. Next year we will introduce a Bill to deal with modern slavery, with a particular focus on dealing with the criminal gangs who undertake this activity. The launch of the new National Crime Agency gives us an even greater ability to deal with those gangs. I want to ensure that we not only start to reduce but end this horrible crime of human trafficking—modern slavery.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). In his excellent, detailed speech, he made an interesting political point about the importance of the Government setting out their philosophy on the future of justice and home affairs in the European Union. I am very enthusiastic about the economic progress of the European Union, but I have always been more cautious about justice and home affairs. That caution is in part based on my long experience as a common lawyer in the law of England and Wales, and I am glad that the Government have decided to opt out of what we used to call the third pillar.

Some of the differences between our jurisdiction and those of the other member states are sometimes a little over-dramatised. In this country, we rightly place great emphasis on the charging process and on the process that follows, from charge up to and including trial. One of the great differences in our way of proceeding in criminal matters is to be found following the decision to charge and during the detention of the defendant. In other member states, the process is often much more inquisitorial, with a heavy degree of judicial involvement in the investigation. It can involve a wholly different way of dealing with criminal proceedings from that of England and Wales, and indeed of Scotland.

That underlines the fundamental issue that we have with many of the proposals that emanated from the justice and home affairs pillar. Notably, one proposal that we rightly decided not to opt into related to access to lawyers. In this jurisdiction, we believe that access to lawyers is fundamental once a subject is charged and being interviewed formally in a police station under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, if we read the EU directive carefully, we see that the proposal applies to the investigative stage as well. I could not support that, and neither could the Government, bearing in mind the potential consequences for the admissibility of evidence in a trial and the burdens that it would place on the investigating authorities, which would have to ensure that lawyers were present at the early stages of the criminal process. That is why a process of opting in en bloc would have been wholly wrong. It would have embraced far too many aspects of justice and home affairs that are completely alien to the way in which we conduct criminal proceedings here.

I want to address what is probably the most politically contentious issue, the European arrest warrant. I shall remind the House of some further statistics relating to the arrest and surrender of people under the warrant. Between April 2009 and April this year, just over 4,000 people were surrendered from England and Wales to another EU country, of which only 181—or about 5% —were United Kingdom nationals. In reverse, 507 people were surrendered to the United Kingdom from another EU country in that same period, of which just over half were British nationals.

It is clear from looking at those statistics that the European arrest warrant is undeniably an important tool for the efficient administration of justice. We must have a debate on the consequences of subjecting the regime to the jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court, but it would be wrong, and foolish in the extreme, to ignore the reality of the hundreds of victims and their families who are looking to the authorities to act swiftly to bring individuals to justice. And it does not stop there.

I have mentioned the arrest warrant, but it is right to point out that, in a large number of other measures, there exist helpful schemes of mutual recognition that will assist prosecutors—for example, when they are seeking to adduce evidence of previous convictions, where admissible, in certain trials. The mechanism will be much improved by which serious convictions recorded in other EU jurisdictions could become relevant for the consideration of juries in England and Wales. That is a good thing.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is bringing a lot of wisdom and experience to this issue. Given that we want to stand alongside the victims to ensure speedy and effective justice, does not the figure of 5% of British nationals that he mentioned give rise to concern? Let us take as an example the case of Andrew Symeou, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned. The present arrangements have done no service to the victim, given the length of time taken up by the process, and the fact that the charge was based on flimsy evidence and that the authorities had plainly got the wrong man.

[Mr Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for the campaign that they have rightly pursued on behalf of that Enfield resident.

I made the point earlier about the distinction between our system of justice and certain others. Ours seeks to use proper evidence to identify individuals who are suspected of committing crimes, and then to proceed against them. We have to look at that in the context of other systems in which the investigation process is far too long and in which evidence that we would not regard as strongly probative can be used to launch an investigation that can result in someone being incarcerated for an inordinate period of time. The amendments to the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which will amend the Extradition Act 2003, are vital in this context. I was delighted to see that one amendment provides that, in the absence of a prosecution decision, a court would have to consider that factor before allowing extradition. In fact, it would be barred where there was no clear prosecution decision to charge or try the individual concerned. I believe that the sort of monstrous situation in which Mr Symeou and others have found themselves can in large measure be avoided.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the hostility towards traffickers is not unfairly transferred to the victims of trafficking and that steps we are taking across government, particularly with the Ministry of Justice, will ensure that those victims of trafficking are not prosecuted?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising an issue of concern. If people have been forced into criminal activity as a result of their trafficking experience, consideration is given to discontinuing the prosecution. However, we often need to make sure that victims make their trafficking situation known, and the Crown Prosecution Service has issued comprehensive guidance on the steps that should be taken to make relevant inquiries.

Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice should not lead to that. The European arrest warrant in itself, of course, enables people to be extradited rather more quickly than under the previous arrangements. What is crucial with regard to the measures that I have outlined today, and those that I will outline in the amendments that will be tabled to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, is that we should give British citizens the protections and safeguards that will enable the European arrest warrant to be operated in such a way that it overcomes the problems that Members have identified in the past.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Will Ministers meet Andrew Symeou and his family—constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is away with the Justice Committee—and ensure that the EAW safeguards pass the Symeou test to ensure that UK citizens are not thrown into European jails for months on end on the basis of such flimsy evidence?

[Mrs May]

Yes, I would be happy to do that. Home Office officials have looked very carefully at the Andrew Symeou case to ensure that our proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill meet the concerns resulting from it. I have discussed the measures with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and, as I have told him and I am now happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), we would be happy to meet the family to go through them.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) will have to wait a moment, because the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has been jumping up and down more persistently.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question follows on from the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw). I hosted a meeting of health academics from Turkey, who experienced difficulties in visiting the UK because of delays in securing a visa for the visit. Given the economic opportunities flowing from Turkey, will he join my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and me in seeking an expedited service for this economic priority nation?

[Mr Harper]

Our overseas visa and entry clearance services have delivered a very good performance, with over 90% of visas issued within 15 days. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise a specific example—and it sounds as if he does—in which there was a longer delay, I would be grateful if he gave me the details and I can investigate matters with the UK Border Agency.

Alcohol: Minimum Unit Price

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These are extremely important matters and I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, but if we can have pithy questions and pithy answers, that would be helpful.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is not media reports or the balance of representations that matters, but the weight of evidence, which includes the impact on the 2.6 million children who live with a hazardous drinker and the 705,000 who live with a dependent drinker. For the sake of the hidden harm to those children, can we follow not the loudest voices, but the increasing evidence from Europe and, recently, Canada showing that affordability, consumption and reducing harm are inextricably linked?

[Mr Browne]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his vigilant championing of the interests of children in households where such disadvantages blight their upbringing. I take seriously the point he makes. There is a range of concerns. There is a serious issue—Labour Members and others might wish to mull this over—about whether someone on a relatively high income who drinks a bottle of wine every evening should be treated differently from someone on a low income who drinks a much cheaper bottle of wine every evening. The second person could face a dramatic increase in the price of a bottle of wine under minimum unit pricing, whereas the first person, with the higher income, will almost certainly be buying a bottle of wine that is already above the minimum unit price. These issues must be considered as well, because it is reasonable for a Government to consider the impact on all parts of society.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. In the deferred Division on the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2013, the Ayes were 288 and the Noes 225, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 223, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Tax Credits Up-rating, etc. Regulations 2013, the Ayes were 286, the Noes 228, so the Ayes have it.

In the deferred Division on the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2013, the Ayes were 289, the Noes were 224, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

New Clause 18

Sanction for and trial in relation to drink driving

‘Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended such that the time period stipulated as punishment for an offence under section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with alcohol concentration above prescribed limit) is two years and such that the said offence shall be triable either way.’.—(Mr Burrowes.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 120, in clause 41, page 45, line 44, in clause 41, at end insert—

‘(3A) In section 3ZB of the 1988 Act (causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers), after (c) insert—

“(d) section 5A of this Act (driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with concentration of specified controlled drug above specified limit).”.’.

Amendment 2, page 46, line 31, in clause 41, at end add—

‘(8) The Secretary of State shall have responsibility to ensure that within 12 months of Royal Assent an assessment has been made by the Home Office on the impact of this section on equipment, training and resources with particular regard to published impact assessments from the Home Office, Department for Transport, Department of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service.’.

Amendment 89, page 46, line 34, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(1A) In section 4(1) (“Fear or provocation of violence”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.

(1B) In section 4A(1) (“Intentional harassment, alarm or distress”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Amendment 90, page 46, line 36, in clause 42, at end insert—

‘(6) In section 6(3) (“mental element: miscellaneous”) for “abusive or insulting” in the two places where it occurs substitute “or abusive”.’.

Government amendment 84.

[Mr Burrowes]

Both new clause 18 and amendment 120 concern sentences for driving over the prescribed limits for drugs and alcohol and both seek to fill a gap in sentencing. There are 220 traffic cases each year in which individuals die on our roads owing to a driver who has been impaired through drink or drugs.

On the subject of filling gaps, I pay tribute to the Government for filling the gap in drug-driving offences. The new offence will not require proof of impairment. Owing to the imminent arrival of roadside drugalysers, it will become an offence that sits alongside drink-driving. It will be possible to rely on proof that someone is over the prescribed limit, whether for alcohol or drugs, rather than relying solely on proof of impairment.

Here I must declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. I must confess that I recall many prosecutions that did not succeed because of ambiguities and complexities relating to proof of impairment. The filling of that gap might not have been welcome to some of my clients of old, but it will be welcome to victims of offences of this kind, and it will be welcome to those who believe that it is in the public interest to ensure that drink and drug-driving offences are prosecuted properly.

However, I am also concerned about another gap. The purpose of new clause 18 and amendment 120 is to draw attention to it, and to ensure that, in one way or another, we fill it. Without the new clause, the maximum custodial sentence for driving after consuming excess alcohol, or indeed drugs over the prescribed limit, will still be six months’ imprisonment. Statute has properly provided that, if carelessness or dangerousness is proved, greater penalties will follow. The last Conservative Government recognised the need to ensure that drivers who caused death while under the influence of drugs or drink should be more heavily penalised. We now have on the statute book the offence of death caused by careless driving while the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years.

In 2011, the number of drivers tried for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs was 27, and the number of those convicted was zero. Rather than relying on the good work of the last Conservative Government, we need to ensure that it is followed through in practice. When it comes to the sad and tragic cases of people who die as a result of the actions of drivers, particularly drivers who are under the influence of drink or drugs, there must be a penalty that exceeds the fairly minimum penalty of a six-month sentence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I believe that in Northern Ireland there are already rules, regulations and laws that address this issue specifically. There has also been a campaign aimed at dealing with drink and drugs. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it might help the Government to contact the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, where policing and justice are a devolved matter? Might they learn something about how these matters can be handled?

[Mr Burrowes]

The amendments are intended to enable the Government to conduct a proactive review, which should, indeed, involve looking at what happens on the opposite shore. We all want to tackle the profound consequences of death caused by drivers under the influence, and ensure that they receive the appropriate penalty.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I, too, must make a declaration. I was a criminal barrister who both prosecuted and defended.

As my hon. Friend says, the maximum custodial sentence for a first offence of drinking and driving is six months. It is the same for a second, third and fourth offence. Does he agree that drink-drivers who pose a threat on our roads should receive longer sentences, and that their cases should be sent to the Crown court where there can be multiple convictions?

[Mr Burrowes]

I remember briefing my hon. Friend on many occasions. He was a great advocate in courts in Enfield and Haringey, and he continues that advocacy in the House. He has made an important point. There is a parallel between dealing with drink-driving cases and dealing with, for example, cases of criminal damage. Where there is a succession of criminal damage cases, later cases can receive a higher penalty and can be committed to the Crown court; indeed, there are categories of criminal damage that attract a higher penalty and the attention of the Crown court. The Government should look at whether that principle, which is already in statute, should be applied to drink-drive cases that have the most serious consequences.

We have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of culpability and consequences in death by careless driving and dangerous driving. We have recognised that there needs to be a particular way of dealing with penalties that is aligned to the consequences, rather than looking at culpability alone. My amendments seek to take that a stage further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) would be here in the Chamber supporting me if he were not in a Committee. He has fought a valiant and successful campaign as a result of the tragic case of one of his constituents who died as a result of someone driving carelessly. The issue of impairment must be dealt with properly and that will now happen. He and I share the concern that the new offence of drug-driving needs to address the issue of fatalities, which was where the campaign that led to the new offence began. It would therefore be ironic if we were left with a Bill that does not deal with cases where dangerous driving cannot be proved independently but people who are plainly under the influence of drugs or drink have killed someone, and they can—perhaps through the hard work in years gone by of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and myself as defence solicitors and barristers—get to the point where there is a lesser plea of drink-drive with a six-month penalty.

Sadly, that has already happened. We have heard that 27 people were tried and nil were convicted on this charge. I am concerned that in those cases there was a plea bargain to the lesser charge of drink-drive.

The explanatory notes to the Bill make another important point. It is stated about schedule 18:

“Paragraph 2 amends section 3A of the 1988 Act so that if the person had a controlled drug in the blood or urine in excess of the specified limit for that drug, the person could be charged with the more serious offence in that section of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.”

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee, and I sought clarity from the Minister about this point, which had been raised in correspondence with the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Justice dating back to March 2012 and in the campaign I mentioned earlier that sought a higher penalty in cases where it was not possible to prove careless driving. Unfortunately, now, a year after that correspondence began, we are in the final throes of the passage of the Bill.

This point has been made not just by me; this was not just a hobby-horse of mine—it is not about me wanting to make a point and send out a press release. It was made by Chief Superintendent David Snelling, who was an excellent commander of the Met traffic division, and it also came to the fore as a result of the campaigning efforts of my constituents, the Galli-Atkinson family, who lost their daughter as a result of dangerous driving and who saw a gap involving fatalities in drink and drug cases that are not prosecuted as they should be, so we do not end up with the sentences that the dead victims and their families deserve. They make their point based on the practical reality of cases that actually arise, and that is also the basis of my amendments.

The gap is in hit-and-run cases where a driver who is over the limit on drink or drugs crashes into another car or a pedestrian and kills, and then leaves the scene. In situations where fatalities occur, such cases are not infrequent, as—it will not surprise Members to learn—many people who know they are over the limit will do their best to evade prosecution, so they will leave the scene. They get hunted down and arrested, and when they are found to be over the limit the prosecution begins and the investigation continues. A prosecution for a failure to stop carries a limited penalty that does not reflect the gravity of the situation, and I have previously sought amendments to extend the penalties in that regard.

The prosecutor is left with the option of prosecuting for death by careless driving, but the problem is that there is no witness. In these cases, often the only witness is dead; there is nobody left. The steps are then traced back and the scene is marked out. The marks on the road might allow people to come up with a prosecution that shows that careless driving took place, because there are signs of speed, swerving, braking and so on. But it may well be that none of that is available, as perhaps it was a wet day and very little could be shown. Little corroborative evidence may be available beyond the fact that the person has died because of that vehicle and that driver, and all we have left is the fact that the driver was over the limit.

Sadly, all the prosecutor can perhaps do is prosecute for driving with excess alcohol or driving over the prescribed limit for drugs, which carries a maximum sentence of six months. Clearly that is not acceptable, given the gravity of the situation. Over the years, Parliament has recognised that where a death occurs as a result of driving it needs to be dealt with, and quite properly so. So that sets out the gap I am seeking to fill through my proposals.

The issue is whether there can be independent proof of careless driving and whether that must be sought out. In Committee, I asked the Minister what he thought of the situation and asked him for clarification. I said:

“I want it to be made clear…that it will not be necessary for the prosecutor to independently prove careless driving as the standard of driving, and that the effect is that someone’s being over the prescribed limit for drugs or alcohol will be sufficient for the prosecutor to be able to make the decision to charge them with a serious offence.”

He replied:

“My understanding is that it will not be necessary. I hope that I have clarified the point.”––[Official Report, Crime and Courts Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2013; c. 394-95.]

I would settle for that and move on. Indeed, I would probably have a press release saying, “I welcome the fact that the Minister has recognised that drivers who are over the limit and kill will get a higher penalty, which amounts to a maximum 14 years.” I would rest easy that the campaign has been successful, the victim’s voice has been heard, and the chief superintendent and police on the ground have recognised that gap and say, ”That is good. That has been dealt with.”

However, I then received correspondence from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), in what we might term “Yes Minister” language, saying that there “may be confusion”. That is what has led me to table new clause 18 and amendment 120. It was clear in the Bill Committee that we would have confusion, so today the Minister has an opportunity to be brave and to fill the gaps that I have had a go at filling through a couple of options.

One option, new clause 18, would make drink-driving or driving over the prescribed drug limit an either-way offence—one capable of being committed to the Crown court and then attracting a maximum sentence of two years. The other option is amendment 120, whereby those on licence, disqualified drivers and uninsured drivers who kill in this way will face a heavy penalty of two years. That simply adds to the list in respect of drink-driving.

I have to put my lawyer’s hat on, because I appreciate that people may have concerns about new clause 18 opening up all drink-driving cases to a Crown court trial; I recognise the expense and the vagaries of jury trials, and that that is not wholly satisfactory in itself. I am perhaps being generous in how I am presenting new clause 18 and it perhaps needs to be refined. Perhaps it should be simply specified in relation to fatalities. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham suggests making specific provision about repeat drink-driving offenders. There is certainly a role for making only those high-end cases liable for a committal to Crown court, in a similar way to what happens in the criminal damages cases I referred to earlier.

Another way around that would be to deal with magistrates’ maximum sentencing powers. Perhaps the Government will respond to the calls from the Magistrates Association to extend their powers to a maximum of two years. Youth courts have a two-year custodial sentence power, so perhaps we should have equity for adult courts. That would be much more cost-effective and would avoid cases all going to the Crown court and we lawyers being paid more up there—although we must appreciate the legal aid restrictions in that regard. The issue could then be dealt with in a magistrates court in a proportionate manner. That option is also open to the Government.

I recognise that there are reservations about amendment 120. As a lawyer, I am not keen on extending strict liability cases too readily and the amendment would certainly effectively extend a strict liability scenario to drink and drug-driving-related cases. Nevertheless, my amendment is clean cut. It does not extend the powers of the Crown court to all drink-driving cases but relates specifically to fatalities. It deals with the issues that have motivated my amendments and merely adds to the list of offences. Members of the public might ask what the difference is: if someone takes the risk of driving while uninsured, disqualified or without a licence, they are pretty careless to do that and should accept the consequences, and the same applies to those who are over the prescribed limits. My amendment would retain the statutory defence for drink-drive cases and would therefore have less of a strict liability nature.

The Government need to fill the gap. I am trying my best to do that and have provided two options. There might be more and I have no doubt that the Minister can tell us about any others. I look forward to seeing how the Government will do it as this is a real problem that should not be ignored. The fact that there were 220 deaths in a year but only 27 people were charged with causing death by dangerous driving while impaired in the same period makes the point very clearly. Large numbers of impaired drivers who kill are, for one reason or another, avoiding prosecution for the more serious offence and are probably ending up being charged with the lesser drink-drive offence.

In conclusion, I spoke to Ministers before tabling the amendments. I welcome the commitment from Transport Ministers that if I can provide evidence that proving carelessness is problematic, the Department will review the case for amending legislation. The statistics I have given are evidence and I put the burden of proof on the Government. I ask them to review the issue and seek to prove the point. We are very much in the end game on this Bill. Some might say we should have done that earlier to avoid getting into such a situation, but I urge the Government to recognise that we have a problem and to fix it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

It is a great pleasure to contribute, albeit briefly, to the debate. It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who made an extremely powerful case about the complexities of the situation. At the heart of the matter is the fact that, as we all know, people kill other people on the roads yet seem to receive remarkably light sentences. His points about people abusing drugs and alcohol before going on to kill someone were powerful.

There was a case in my constituency that was not drug or alcohol-related but demonstrated an anomaly. Many other people are trying find a solution to this, and I shall introduce a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject later in the spring, but today, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I speak on behalf of the Opposition on this collection of amendments. The Bill has been called a Christmas tree because of the number of different issues that have been tacked on to it. This selection of amendments feels a little like a series of tinsels and baubles and some fairy lights, but when those are all put together, they create the Crime and Courts Bill.

Before turning to our amendment 2, I shall make a few brief comments on new clause 18 and amendment 120 tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). All of us have sympathy for the concerns that he raises, and we will have seen cases in our own constituencies where people’s lives and families have been devastated by drink-driving. It is disappointing that these amendments were not tabled in Committee. The hon. Gentleman and I spoke at length about various issues, and it would have been good to get some guidance from the Government about the implications of the discussion that he had with them. There are issues that merit further examination, but I am not sure whether Report stage is the right time for that. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about the implications of implementation.

Some issues will need to be taken into account in respect of the powers of magistrates. We all understand and have sympathy with the idea of flexibility in sentencing, but there may be concerns about what that might mean for the sentences handed out. I am not clear what the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate seeks to achieve with amendment 120. He might inadvertently remove the offence of careless driving and I am sure he would not wish to do that. Somebody who gets behind the wheel and is already over the limit through medication would drive carelessly in any case—

[Mr Burrowes]

The prosecution may want to push forward a prosecution for careless driving with limited independent evidence of standard driving, but the CPS guidance is clear that being over the limit does not in itself amount to carelessness. Relying on that to prosecute for carelessness is not good enough. That is the reason for my amendment, which expresses a concern that the Government need to hear.

[Stella Creasy]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is exactly why we needed to test in Committee the consequences of the changes that his amendment would make. That would have allowed us to hear a fuller explanation from the Government of the consequences. I hope I am proved wrong by the Minister and that he will give us an extensive explanation of the potential impact of the amendments. I would want clarification of the consequences where an individual involved in an accident might be over the limit through medication but would not be at fault for the accident itself. I welcome rather belatedly the bauble that the hon. Gentleman wishes to add to the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s response to it.

Amendment 2 reflects the Opposition’s concerns about the implications of the Bill for the laws on drug-driving. We welcome the proposals to make driving while under the influence of illegal drugs against the law. I am disappointed not to see in the Chamber the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), given the work that he has done on the issue on behalf of his constituent, Lillian Groves. We know that drug-driving will be a substantial offence. We know from the Government’s impact assessment that more than 2,000 people will be affected by the new provision.

As the Minister told the Committee, although it may not be on a scale comparable to drink-driving, it is important that we close the gap that drug-driving has created. However, there is no point in having a power if one cannot put it into practice. Amendment 2 requires the Government to ensure, through an impact assessment, that the clause can be enacted across the country. That will entail looking at the equipment, training and resources that the Home Office, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service have to enable them to implement the law.

Those concerns reflect the debates we had in Committee, when the Government were simply unable to explain what work they had done to ensure that the potential new offence could in fact be prosecuted. We had a number of questions about the logistics of rolling out this policy across the country. With that in mind, I want to ask the Minister a series of questions, which I hope he will answer when he responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

The Government will publish a revised impact assessment alongside our consultation on the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the limit for each, and we will revise it again, if required, before the draft regulations are laid before Parliament. As the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, they will need to be debated and approved by each House before they can be made and come into force. Given the requirement to consult on the draft regulations and then to have them approved, we are working on the basis that the new offence will come into force in the latter half of 2014, as I said a few moments ago.

On that basis, I would suggest that requiring a full evaluation of the impact of the new offence just 12 months after Royal Assent would be premature. However, I can assure the House that the Government will commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the new offence once it is in operation. The research will take account of the impact of the new offence on the police, prosecutors and the courts. The results of such research will be published on the Department for Transport’s website. A lot of the responsibility sits with the Department for Transport rather than the Home Office, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a definitive date when these matters can be considered in detail. All I can give is an assurance that this work is being undertaken and that opportunities will exist to consider such matters. I say this entirely in a spirit of openness, but I see no reason why we would not wish to give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to consider the progress the Government have made when we are in a position to bring forward proposals that will stimulate a debate and consideration of that type.

With that, I hope that Members will see fit not to press their amendments, and I commend Government amendment 84 to the House.

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the debate on new clause 18. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to the proposals as a “bauble”, but this is a serious matter and I am not sure that the victims, the police and the road safety charities behind the new clause would appreciate it being referred to as a bauble. However, I appreciate that her comments were being made in the general context of the Bill.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are currently considering the controlled drugs to be covered by the offence and the limits that should be set for such drugs for driving purposes. As a Government, we have taken a robust, zero-tolerance approach on illicit drugs through the drugs strategy. As we consider the detail of this policy, we will want to send an equally strong message that people simply cannot take illegal drugs and drive.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I particularly commend the provisions on drug-driving. Given the problems I have seen as a practitioner, I am aware of the difficulty of proving the offence. Has consideration been given to further extending provisions beyond controlled drugs to include the impact of psychoactive substances, not least legal highs? We know of the impact they can have in terms of impaired driving, so has consideration been given to broadening the nature of the offence in this provision?

[Mrs May]

As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the Secretary of State for Transport and I are looking at what should be covered by this offence, taking into account the drugs that can be identified and the levels that should be set for them. The Department for Transport is taking expert advice on what it is possible to identify within the bloodstream and within people’s bodies at the time that tests are taken.

I know that legitimate concerns have been expressed about the impact of this offence on those who take controlled drugs on prescription—for long-term pain relief, for example—but we have no intention of preventing people from driving where they are taking medication in accordance with medical advice, so the Bill includes provision for a medical defence. We will also want to take into account views expressed in response to the required consultation on the draft regulations, but I believe we must take a strong stand against those who would put other lives at risk by driving under the influence of drugs.

The Bill also delivers on our coalition commitment to ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home. Few situations can be more frightening than when someone’s own home is violated. Faced with that scenario, a person will do what it takes to protect themselves and their loved ones. They cannot be expected dispassionately to weigh up the niceties of whether the level of force they are using is proportionate in the circumstances. If the intruder is injured, perhaps seriously, in such an encounter, the householder should not automatically be treated as the perpetrator where, with hindsight, the force used is considered to have been disproportionate. Clause 30 will ensure that, in such a context, the use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable, while continuing to rule out the use of grossly disproportionate force.

I know this change in the law will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years. I congratulate them on having successfully brought this issue to the attention of Parliament and the public.

Let me now deal with clause 38, which would remove the word “insulting” from the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was added to the Bill in the other place. I respect the view taken by their lordships, who had concerns that I know are shared by some in this House about section 5 encroaching upon freedom of expression. On the other hand, the view expressed by many in the police is that section 5, including the word “insulting”, is a valuable tool in helping them to keep the peace and maintain public order.

There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions. The Government support the retention of section 5 as it currently stands, because we believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios. We have always recognised that there are strong views in both Houses. Looking at past cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as “abusive” as well as “insulting”. He has stated that

“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”

On that basis, the Government are not minded to challenge the amendment made in the other place. We will issue guidance to the police on the range of powers that remain available to them to deploy in the kind of situation I described, but the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and doubly so since he was so kind about me in his speech. He speaks with great authority on all these issues, and although he tempts me towards the issue of appeals in relation to family immigration, I hope he will understand if on this occasion I rise to speak specifically to clause 37, which deals with drug-driving.

On 26 June 2010 my constituent, Lillian Groves, was killed outside her house. She was just 14 years old. The driver of the vehicle that knocked her down was driving a car that was not licensed in his name. He had no insurance to drive that vehicle, was driving at 43 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone, and a half-smoked joint of cannabis was found on the car’s dashboard. When the police found him he was not at the scene of the accident as he had gone some distance down the road.

I hope the House will not mind if I pause for a second to reflect on what Lillian might have done in the rest of her life, the people whose lives she would have touched, the children she might have had, and the contribution she might have made to our local town. It is not just the loss of her life, but the impact her death has had on her friends and, most particularly, her family. Lillian was taken to hospital and pronounced dead some hours later. Sadly, the blood of the vehicle’s driver was not tested immediately, and only after Lillian died did the police conduct a test. Cannabis was found in his blood. The family have never been told the level that was found although the Crown Prosecution Service told them that it was not sufficient to warrant a charge of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drugs.

The driver was sentenced to just eight months in jail. He served just four months and was released. He lives locally to the family, so for the rest of their lives they will be faced with the knowledge that every time they go to the local shops there is a danger that they will bump into this individual who has never spoken to them, apologised or shown any remorse at all for what he has done.

To my mind, those of my constituents, and I hope all Members of the House, that family did not receive justice in any sense of the word, and I want to pay tribute to Gary and Natasha—Lillian’s parents—and Michaela, her aunt. A number of Members, including the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the Home Secretary, have been kind to give me credit for the campaign I have run, but I do not feel that I deserve that at all as I am just doing my job. Those who deserve credit in this instance are Lillian’s family. They took a terrible situation that no parent would ever want to endure, and rather than be consumed by anger—as I fear many of us would be—they wanted to turn it into something positive and see a change in the way that we as a society deal with this issue so that other families do not have to experience their anguish.

Lillian’s family found a powerful and useful friend in our local paper, The Croydon Advertiser, and in particular an excellent young reporter called Gareth Davies who worked with them to put together a campaign for what they have called “Lillian’s law”. They came to see me at my surgery to ask for my support, and the package they were looking for contained four items. First, they wanted a change in the law itself. As the Home Secretary mentioned in her speech, although it is currently an offence under section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to drive while impaired by drugs, it is extremely difficult to secure convictions under that legislation because it is difficult for the prosecution to prove impairment. There is no equivalent to the law on drink-driving whereby if someone has more than a certain level of a drug in their blood, that is held to be evidence of impairment. The law is not weighted in the same way. The first thing, therefore, was to change the law, which is what clause 37 does.

I hope the House will not mind if I mention a couple of other things that the family are also looking to see happen. The second point is to have a device, equivalent to a breathalyser, initially for use in police stations but in the longer term for use at the roadside. At the moment, the police conduct a field impairment test, the suspect can be taken to the police station and a doctor must be called to conduct a blood test. That is expensive and time consuming and there is therefore a disincentive to conduct such tests. It is important to get devices in place that allow tests to be carried out that are equivalent to those for drink-driving. I am pleased that the Government have recently given type approval for devices for use at police stations, and I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that the intention is to approve a device for use at the roadside by 2014.

The third issue was to look at sentencing and to ensure appropriate punishment for those convicted of such offences. The Bill would provide a level of sentence equivalent to that for drink-driving. The fourth thing, which can only happen once the three other pieces of the jigsaw are in place, is to look at an enforcement campaign similar to that of the 1980s on drink-driving. There was a time when lots of people drove under the influence of drink—to a degree, it was the cultural norm. It took that enforcement campaign in the 1980s to change attitudes, and I think we now need a similar campaign about driving under the influence of some drugs that, sadly, are all too prevalent in society today.

When the family came to see me at my surgery, I was faced with the challenge of what to do and how to help them. As usual, the House of Commons Library was a great place to start, and I began researching the law and previous efforts to change it—and to be fair to the last Government, they looked at this issue. It was a difficult and complicated matter, however, as several different Departments were involved: the Home Office, in relation to the police’s responsibilities; the Ministry of Justice, in relation to the criminal offence; and the Department for Transport.

I decided to raise the profile of the issue and ask about it in Prime Minister’s questions. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister, because he agreed to meet the family and invited them to 10 Downing street to see him. I guess they found in him one of the few Members of the House who sadly could understand exactly what they had been through in losing a child. The staff at No. 10 have worked closely with all three Departments to get the change in the law before us today through as rapidly as possible.

I want to ask a couple of questions about the detail. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) alluded to this matter in a question that he asked the Home Secretary earlier about what the limits for specified drugs might be. Proposed new section 5A(9) in clause 37(1) provides that specified limits could be zero. Paragraph 562 of the explanatory notes, which are always a great source of guidance, contains the wonderful sentence:

“New section 5A(9) provides that specified limits could be zero, though this does not mean that limits would in fact be set at zero.”

One can make of that what one will.

Lillian’s family feel strongly that the level for illegal drugs should be set at zero. As a matter of principle, they feel that people should not be taking these substances and therefore should not be driving under their influence. There is the strong counter-argument, however, that we should be led by science, as the hon. Member for Cambridge tried to point out, that we should try to discover what level of an active substance in the blood stream leads to the same level of impairment as the blood alcohol limit and that we should set the limits that way. Clearly, as the Bill tries to do, we also have to consider prescribed medications that have the same active substances as some illegal drugs.

[Mr Burrowes]

I commend my hon. Friend for his leadership in driving through this important change. I want to ask about the sentencing impact. Assuming its safe passage, this proposal will have as its outcome a sentencing maximum of 12 months. If someone is impaired by being over the limit, whether in relation to drugs or alcohol, plainly that is inherently careless, but only if they were charged with causing death by careless driving while under the influence would their case get to the High Court for a much heavier sentence, which is what many of these people deserve.

[Gavin Barwell]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will explore those issues once I have dealt with the limits.

A decision needs to be made about whether the levels should be based as far as possible on the scientific evidence of similar levels of impairment to that caused by alcohol or whether there is a case, as the family believe, for zero limits for some of the most serious substances. As I understand it, the Government have set up the Wolff panel to consider the detail. They themselves are finding this a highly complex and difficult area and are taking a bit more time than originally envisaged to do this work, but I would be grateful for any guidance that the Minister could give in his winding-up speech about the timing of the panel’s report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I want to speak in support of clause 38. It was inserted into the Bill by those in the other place, who voted 150 to 54 against the wishes of both the Government and the Opposition. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to the other place for what it has done. In passing, I say that I do not think that such a rebellion would have happened if the other place had been dominated by elected machine politicians, so once again the House of Lords has justified itself on a cross-party basis and forced the Government to see the light.

What does clause 38 do? It removes “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is a free speech reform. It has been called for, for years by civil liberties groups, gay groups, Christian groups, secular groups, right wingers and left wingers. It is opposed almost by no one, apart from the Government, until today. Sinners are always welcomed when they repent very late in life, so we should welcome the Government to the lighter side. However, the Home Secretary did not seem entirely convinced, so I hope the House will forgive me for a few moments as I try to explain the rationale for this important campaign, which has been running for years and has united Peter Tatchell and myself—quite an achievement.

[Mr Burrowes]

I, too, thoroughly welcome this change. On the issue of repenters, there is another category that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—the Opposition. The shadow Home Secretary was distinctly ambivalent in welcoming the fact that the Lords have allowed us to see sense. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that? While we may have the numbers, it is important to recognise the cross-party, cross-issue, cross-everything opposition to having “insulting” in section 5.

[Mr Leigh]

I do not want to be party political, because many Labour MPs have joined us in the campaign that we have been waging. This is not a Conservative-Labour issue. I cannot really understand why the Opposition are still equivocating when we have had such a long consultation and when the issues are not very difficult. I still hope that the Opposition, at the last minute, in winding up this debate, will get off the fence. The House, along with people who have been campaigning on the issue for years, are entitled to know where they are.

The campaign has been waged for a long time. I spoke about the issue in 2011, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—that, too, was on Second Reading. I then tabled an amendment that was exactly the same as clause 38 in this Bill—unsurprisingly, as the same people who have been campaigning drafted both clauses. It was co-sponsored by 64 Members of the House, from every party and every shade of opinion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights—a Committee of Parliament—described it as a “human rights-enhancing measure”. We had been speaking on the issue for years, so we did everything to secure a debate. I do not want to talk too much about Government bad behaviour in the past; one should not perhaps do so when they have done something right. We got the measure tabled as new clause 1—we got there first at the end of the Committee stage. However, unfortunately, after we had got 10% of the House to co-sign it, the Government then took the unusual step—I will not say any more—of using a programme motion to prevent it from being debated. Why? Perhaps they feared that we might defeat the Government—something that happens very rarely in this place.

However, we did force the Government to have a consultation, which was great. The consultation started, lasted a whole year and closed on 13 January 2012—a year ago. We were still waiting and now we have a few words from the Home Secretary. That appears to be the end of the consultation, but it would still be useful to see it, because this is an important issue. We want to know why the Government have changed their mind on this, so it would be quite nice for the consultation, a year after it was closed, to be published.

Why is clause 38 so important? It is important because it removes section 5 of the 1986 Act, which was undermining civil liberties. The breadth of cases suggests that virtually anyone could find themselves at the wrong end of section 5. They have been cited several times, but I want to go through some good cases—there are many others—to show how section 5 was being used against civil liberties and freedom of speech. Section 5 was cited in a court summons given to a 16-year-old protester for holding a placard saying,

“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.

A Tynesider named Kyle Little was convicted and fined under section 5 for saying, “Woof!” to two Labradors. Thankfully, that conviction was quashed. An Oxford student, Sam Brown, was arrested under section 5 for saying to a policeman,

“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”

Thames Valley police said:

“He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”

My friend Peter Tatchell was charged under section 5 for condemning the murder of gay people by Islamic extremists. His placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely to cause distress. Blackpool café owner Jamie Murray was told by officers that playing DVDs showing text from the New Testament was a possible section 5 offence.

The police have often used section 5 to freeze debate and stop difficult people speaking out, but in this place we should cherish difficult people. That is what this place is about: cherishing people who do not always go with what the establishment wants. In another case, animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. One of my favourite cases—I think I can end on this one, because it goes against what I normally talk about and believe in—involved an atheist pensioner in Boston, in my part of the world. He wanted to place a small sign in his window saying:

“Religions are fairy stories for adults”—

I never thought I would repeat that in this House, but that was his crime, apparently. He was told by Lincolnshire police—our very own police—that if anyone complained, he could be arrested and dealt with under section 5.

These cases are worrying. We might be tempted to blame poor on-the-spot decision making, but when there are so many, with such wide variation, and when some of them progress to the courts, it is no longer a joke. We have to conclude—and we have concluded; and now, thank God, the Government have concluded—that there is something wrong with the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor.

I welcome the Bill and want to draw out some nuggets that I believe can, in certain circumstances, be refined to be even more golden. On the whole thrust of the Bill in terms of efficiency and coherency, I welcome and support the single county court and single family court provisions. I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to the jurisdiction issue in relation to the youth court. The Government’s approach is to triage cases into the appropriate courts. The nugget that I particularly welcome is the change giving youth courts the power to grant gang-related injunctions. That is welcome in my constituency and in the borough of Enfield. We were the first north London borough to obtain a gang-related injunction, which led to a 14-month prison sentence. Indeed, the cross-partnership work in the borough has led to a 50% reduction in serious gang crime-related violence.

However, there needs to be flexibility. We can perhaps go further in making this nugget even more golden when dealing with young offenders. We have seen across courts the value of community justice, having drawn from America the examples of Red Hook and Harlem, and now there is the example of Liverpool as well. In our whole approach to community justice we must recognise that when someone comes to court they come with a whole package of concerns that may well go across jurisdictions. That arises particularly when dealing with young offenders, given the need for timely and effective intervention.

From my experience over the years, I know that young offenders often come with a package of family problems. They might well be the victims of abuse. There will often be parenting issues, and some children who appear before the youth court should be in care. At the very least, they are likely to be vulnerable. The magistrates who deal with them often also sit on the bench of the family division, and they have been expressing their frustration for a number of years that they cannot intervene quickly to enable those young people to get into the family court where appropriate welfare orders can be made. That is what happens in the Scandinavian jurisdictions, and the possibility of it happening here has been mooted by the Government in the past.

This is not a new issue. I refer hon. Members to the Home Office consultation document produced in March 1997 entitled “Preventing Children Offending”. Paragraph 103 states:

“Under the law at present, the Youth Court is not able to refer children to the Family Proceedings Court for consideration of a care or supervision order. It is possible that this might be a useful additional power which would enable the Youth Court to deal more effectively with difficult children.”

We then had an election, and the rest is history. I still believe that that proposal would be welcome, however, and it should be looked into. We have an opportunity to try to get young people into the right jurisdiction. The proposal has also been welcomed recently by the Youth Justice Board, which is very supportive of it. When John Drew, the chief executive, spoke at the board’s annual conference in November, he welcomed the opportunity, in appropriate cases, to get children to where they needed to be, which could well include the family court.

Another nugget in the Bill is the provision on community penalties. I welcome the proposal to ensure that there will be a punitive element to them. That is appropriate because, when an offence is serious enough to warrant a community penalty, the deprivation of liberty must be implicit in that penalty. That will now be the case. I also welcome the provision to allow the courts to defer sentencing at the pre-sentence report stage in relation to the provision of restorative justice. Fifteen years ago, I was involved in a pilot at Haringey magistrates court in which sentencing was deferred to accommodate restorative justice conferencing. We have been through many such pilots and reviews over the years, and the evidence is clear. It is about time we got on and dealt with this, and I welcome the fact that the Government are now pushing the measure forward. It will be based on the need not only for restorative justice but for quality restorative justice. We need to look at the details to ensure that the right people will be dealing with the provisions, and that the provisions are victim led and carried out to the satisfaction of the victims. That could well lead to a reduction in reoffending.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the provisions on fines. I welcome the changes in the Bill. Yes, they may lead to contracting out; “may” is a very important word in legislation. This is not about wholesale privatisation. The ideological bent is that we are on the side of the victims, all too many of whom are not receiving the compensation due to them. The financial penalties involved are simply not being paid, which is why we need to pursue all options to ensure that fines can be collected more effectively and quickly, especially in relation to compensation orders. The burden of the collection costs should fall not on the taxpayer but on the offender, and I welcome the fact that that will now happen.

I also welcome the new offence of drug-driving; it is about time that it was introduced. As a legal practitioner, I have defended many cases that were unable properly to be proven in relation to the impairment caused by an intake of drugs. I have seen the gaps that prevent such cases from being properly proved in court. The Bill provides clarity in that regard. We need to proceed with caution, however, and to ensure that cases are based on evidence and examine the specified levels. This is a complex area in relation to particular opioids and certain other drugs. We need to focus on ensuring clarity in the law, so that we do not allow people on prescribed medication to fall foul of the legislation, when its target is those who are flagrantly taking drugs and going out in a vehicle and causing a menace to others.

There is a medical defence in the Bill, but that might not be enough when a person is arrested and taken into custody. That person will have had their liberty taken away and will then have to prove their medical evidence in court. We shall have to see how we can deal with such cases proportionately, when we produce the guidance. On sentencing, I note that schedule 18 contains a provision to up the sentence for being unfit to drive owing to drug-taking to the equivalent of the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. We need to ensure there is equity with driving with excess alcohol.

I welcome those and other provisions in the Bill, some of which will perhaps receive further refinement in Committee. I am also grateful to the Government for acceding to the wish of Members across the House and in the other place that the term “insulting” be removed from clause 5. That is welcome on the grounds of religious freedom and freedom of speech; it also demonstrates common sense.