Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Recently in Wolverhampton, two ambulance staff were stabbed. I am watching you go through this Bill saying that you welcome and agree with so many things, so why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it? It just makes no sense.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I do not want to stop the debate for this, but you do not call the person who is speaking “you”. “You” means the Chair; the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I was not aware of your position on the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not finished my speech yet, so the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) will just have to wait for me to complete my argument.

As welcome as this measure is, the Labour party is clear that it does not go far enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, we need to consider the workers on the frontline of the pandemic who should also be given that level of protection. First, it does not cover the whole of the NHS family, so we are calling for protections to be extended to social care workers as well. Throughout the pandemic, the range of frontline service workers who put themselves at risk to serve our community has been clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

This is a significant and large Bill, and it warrants serious scrutiny. It therefore deserves better attention, I submit, than some of the hyperbole that has regrettably been thrown at it in the course of the earlier speeches of this debate. It is reasonable to examine a Bill carefully as it goes through Committee. I have scarcely ever known a Bill that is not improved by careful examination from the time when it is brought in. To vote against the Bill tomorrow does not seem to me to be a mark of a responsible Opposition, and it is regrettable that Labour and the Scottish National party have gone down that route, particularly when they can see that there is much to agree with. Many organisations in the criminal justice sphere including NACRO, the Centre for Justice organisation, the Magistrates Association and others have welcomed measures in the Bill.

We need a sense of proportion about these matters. For example, the reforms to public order legislation certainly need careful consideration, but changes to the law around public nuisance were recommended by the Law Commission as long ago as 2015. This measure puts that law on a statutory basis, as the Law Commission recommended, but uses, perfectly understandably, terms and phrases from the old common law arrangements, which are well understood and well defined by case law in the courts. The idea, therefore, that the Law Commission is somehow part of some authoritarian plot seems to me to be risible, and better arguments can be made than that.

Being near the M25, my constituency has unfortunately had repeated unauthorised incursions into both publicly owned and privately owned playing fields, sports grounds and others. Proportionality and fairness also mean that there should be swifter and better recompense than the current situation permits for those communities that see much-valued community assets put out of use by unauthorised encampments.

On the sentencing elements of the Bill, sentencing is always a difficult matter, both in individual cases and in terms of policy. It requires a careful balance. Overall, the Justice Secretary and his team who worked on this part of the Bill have got it right. It is right that we strengthen provision to protect the public from the most serious criminals, but it is also right that we give greater attention to the need to rehabilitate. Basically, many of those who end up in the criminal justice system and, indeed, in prison have chaotic lifestyles, sometimes mental health issues, educational issues, social problems and, frequently, weakness and stupidity. Getting those people out of a never-ending cycle of reoffending, as the White Paper says, on which this part of the Bill is based, is not just in their interests, but, overwhelmingly, in the interests of the public, too. I welcome the provisions to give a more agile and sophisticated suite of alternatives to custody. It is important that alternatives to custody are credible to the public, because sentencing has to be credible, but also that they do not waste time in comparatively short prison sentences where little rehabilitative work can be done, and which are hugely expensive. They have their place in just limited instances. Those changes, therefore, are very welcome.

Changes to the provisions regarding spent convictions are very important for rehabilitation. The Justice Committee has called for that in previous reports. Recognising a distinct approach to sentencing of younger offenders is, again, something that our Committee has repeatedly called for, and I welcome that, too. Equally, raising the threshold for remanding children into custody is very welcome and I would have thought overwhelmingly supported.

There is much to support in this Bill, including the provision for charities to set up secure schools, a much better improvement on our current provision. I very much hope that this Bill will get its Second Reading and that we can then examine the provisions in detail. The final thing that we have to be honest about is that justice does not come cheap. If we are to make these important and radical changes to sentencing policy, we must invest in them. If we are to have alternatives to custody, we must invest properly in those alternatives. They will bring both a social and an economic benefit in the long run, but we have to be honest and spell that out at the beginning.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a privilege to be called so early in this extremely important debate. As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, although I am a little puzzled, because most of the amendments to the Bill to make it better that she talked about would not be possible if, thanks to the power of her rhetoric, she persuaded the House to vote against Second Reading, since there would be no Committee stage in which to do that. I suspect that, even though she will go through the No Lobby, she actually hopes that the Bill will go into Committee.

I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on this outstandingly good Bill designed to make us all safer in so many different ways, but I want to focus on one small aspect of the Bill: the sentencing of minors in clauses 101 to 105. The Home Secretary knows well the case of my constituent Ellie Gould, and she kindly saw the Gould parents on one occasion. Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home by 17-year-old Thomas Griffiths in May 2019. It was the most horrible murder of the worst kind, with a knife found at the scene of the crime.

Griffiths’ 12 and a half-year sentence was shorter than it should have been for three reasons: first, because he pled guilty, and I am glad that he did; secondly, because he was a junior at the time of the offence, albeit he was 18 at the time he was convicted; and thirdly, because, rather than taking a knife with him to the murder, he picked one up in the kitchen. He none the less stabbed Ellie multiple times using that knife and then sought to pretend that Ellie had done it to herself. It was very much a premeditated crime—there is no question about it—but because he did not bring a knife to the scene, he only got 12 and a half years, rather than the significantly longer sentence he would have got otherwise.

I pay tribute to Ellie’s parents, Matt and Carole Gould, and a group of her school friends, who have been tireless in fighting to change the law in respect of a brutal crime of this kind. I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary for having listened carefully to them. Under clause 101, a 17-year-old who turns 18 during the course of the trial, as happened in this case, will now face a similar penalty to the one they would face if they had been 18 at the time of the crime. Until now, a 17-year-old was treated much the same as a 10-year-old, and of course, they are very different people. A sliding scale will now be introduced, so that a 17-year-old will be pretty much treated as an adult. That would have increased Thomas Griffiths’ sentence to 14 years. We also welcome the ending of the automatic review halfway through the sentence, which, apart from anything else, causes huge stress and trauma to the victim’s family.

However, the Bill does not address the third anomaly, which is that had Griffiths brought the knife to the scene rather than pick it up in the kitchen, his sentence would have more than doubled—he would have got up to 27 years, rather than 12 and a half. Surely a frenzied attack of this kind, whether it is done with the knife that someone brings with them or a knife that they find in the kitchen, deserves the fullest possible sentence in the law.

There is an argument that women who are victims of domestic abuse may carry out a murder in self-defence using a knife at home. Surely the criminal law could find a way of saying that murder in self-defence under those conditions is quite different from a brutal murder such as that of Ellie Gould. The Lord Chancellor has said that he will consider this matter further, probably outside the context of the Bill. None the less, I hope that such a differentiation will be made possible in the near future, because this is a very important matter, and it touches on the tragic case of Sarah Everard.

Nothing can bring Ellie Gould back. Nothing can assuage the grief of her parents. Incidentally, nothing can assuage the grief of Thomas Griffiths’ parents, who are also my constituents; they have lost their son in a very real way too. But strengthening the sentencing regime, as the Bill does, will at least mean some lasting legacy. It is, indeed, Ellie’s law.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]]

There is much in the Bill that I agree with, and much of that was set out by the Home Secretary in her opening remarks. I particularly agree with increasing the sentences for assaults on emergency workers to two years, which is an amendment I tabled back when the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was first debated in 2018. It is always good when the Government come round to my way of thinking, so I hope as a result they will look favourably on my amendments when I table them, and we can save some time.

In the time I have, I will go through some of the things I would like to see in the Bill. As was mentioned earlier, I would like to see a specific offence for assaulting shop workers and other frontline workers. I used to work in retail, but it has been absolutely terrible to see the fact that during the pandemic, when shop workers have been going the extra mile to help us all, the number of assaults on them has doubled. We really need to do something about that, and I hope the Government will look favourably upon that proposal.

I am pleased to see some of the provisions for ending automatic early release for prisoners. I certainly support that, but I would like the Bill to go further. I would like to see the end of all automatic early release for prisoners, particularly those still considered to be a danger to the public. I would particularly like to see an end to all automatic release for those people in prison who assault our prison officers. Again, prison officers face a terrible burden in prison, with far too many assaults. If we were to say to prisoners that anybody convicted of assaulting a prison officer would lose their right to automatic release, that may well help those hard-pressed prison officers.

I would like to see the retirement age for magistrates and judges increased to 75. The Justice Secretary has said that he intends to do that, so this Bill seems a very good vehicle for that. I would like to see a sentencing escalator, whereby if people are convicted of the same offence more than once, they have to get a harsher punishment the second time than they had the first time, and a harsher punishment yet again if they commit the same offence a third time. The Government clearly accept the principle of that, because they have done exactly that with the covid fines. I hope they will allow a sentencing escalator for other criminal offences as well.

I would like to see magistrates’ sentencing power increased to 12 months, rather than six months. That needs to be done. I would like to see the word “insulting” removed from section 4 and section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 so that someone cannot be guilty of something if they simply insult people. There are many amendments I would like to see to this Bill that time does not allow me to mention this evening. I could do with a whole day on Report all to myself.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I do not think that is entirely likely to occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I start by offering my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. May her soul rest in peace.

Parts of Clapham Common fall within my constituency, and having lived in Brixton all my life, I have walked the same streets that Sarah did. My first job was at the Sainsbury’s supermarket on Clapham High Street and my sixth-form college, St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, is located at the southern tip of Clapham Common at Clapham South. I have felt afraid, and I do not want my daughter growing up and making the same adjustments that I did—that all women do. In the past few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of women and men—young and old, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers—who live in Clapham and across my constituency of Vauxhall. Now they no longer feel safe.

Our streets and our public spaces should not be places of fear for women. We need to listen to women’s voices and we must believe what they are telling us. That includes making sure we listen to all women, including the voices of black women and trans women. Far too often, we do not hear the names of black women and minority ethnic women in the news or on social media, but sadly, many of them have been failed by the police and the criminal justice system. So I say the names of Blessing Olusegun, Joy Morgan, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and many others who have died on our streets. Only then can we start to heal the mistrust and put in place long overdue protections to protect all women. We must and we will reclaim the streets.

The Bill is wide-ranging and it contains a number of important measures that I welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their tireless campaigning on dangerous driving, protecting our emergency service workers, reforming the Disclosure and Barring Service scheme, and widening the law to prevent adults from abusing their positions of trust and engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18. These measures will make us feel safer.

However, the Bill is also a missed opportunity for much-needed reforms. It does not do nearly enough to address the urgent issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I am disappointed that the Government have missed an opportunity to focus on prevention by ensuring that the organisations that need the long-term funding to tackle serious violence and build trust with communities that feel they are sometimes viewed as the perpetrators when they are actually victims, are not included. That includes the many girls and young women caught up in violence associated with gang violence.

I want to focus the rest of my remarks on some of the other measures proposed in the Bill. Those who seek to control the expression of the right to protest—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has significantly exceeded her time limit. She will have another opportunity at the next stage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a Trojan horse Bill, and the Home Secretary is Sinon at the gates of Troy saying, “I’m the only one left! Please let me in with this fantastic Bill that’s going to do all the things that you Opposition Back Benchers have been asking me to do.” Well, we see that hidden in the Bill, there are some nasty and pernicious laws. Many of the good things in the Bill could be achieved by either amending or bringing forward separate Bills, such as the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).

Instead, the Government have put forward a Bill that is so big, so expansive and so diverse that it covers two Departments, so that they can squeeze the good things in as well as those that deny the rights of people. If we allowed this to stand, every Government would do it, would they not? They would put pernicious rules into what, in public speaking, we call a “something sandwich”, where you put the bad in the middle and sandwich it with the good. That is what the Bill is. I will come on to what the particularly bad things are, but there are also great missed opportunities. I sat on the upskirting Bill Committee. We pushed amendments, and the Government accepted that they would explore bringing forward misogyny as a hate crime. Where is that in this Bill? That could have been included, and it is so disappointing that it is not. There are clearly missed opportunities.

Part 3 of the Bill is particularly problematic, and notably the use of the phrase “serious unease”. To tell the truth, I find myself feeling serious unease when certain Government Members speak and I disagree with them, but in a democracy, I can feel unease, disagree and even think that they are saying things that are offensive, but they are not criminalised. During the Brexit debates, in the main, the protests outside this place by UKIP and Brexit party supporters and by the remainers were eccentric and annoying to many of us at the time, but to me, it summarised the beauty of British democracy when those peaceful protesters, sometimes of opposing forces, were ringing bells and shouting into horns. Now there is the idea that the police could say, “You’ve gone a decibel over—you’re a criminal.” Many of the people on protests will not even know that the police have laid orders down, because it will not be widely known, so we will be criminalising people without them even knowing it.

I have not even got on to some of the really pernicious measures in the Bill, such as those on Traveller communities. If we had decent move-on sites and decent support from local authorities and made sure that we worked with the community, we could resolve the problems. Surrey has no move-on sites whatsoever—no wonder there are problems in that county. Those are the things we need to deal with rather than criminalising. The idea that someone in a layby over one night could be considered a criminal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I was so carried away with the hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric that I did not notice he had exceeded his three minutes. I apologise to everybody else.