Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We do a considerable amount of work, and we provide funding for families of homicide victims. I attended a conference run by a gentleman called Frank Mullane to discuss what he does for families who go through that appalling difficulty. I am happy to talk further with my hon. Friend about what measures are being taken and what else we are doing on those issues.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that this Government have failed to implement the main recommendation made by the last victims’ commissioner, Louise Casey, before she left her post 18 months ago, which was to implement a victims’ law. The Government have also slashed the compensation available to victims of crime. During the last Justice questions, we heard that the Justice Secretary believes that it is the fault of the victims of rape that so many men receive cautions for rape. Does the Minister believe that it is possible to have a criminal justice system that is on the side of victims while her party is in government? If so, when will it happen?

--- Later in debate ---

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

We are considering the case for increasing magistrates’ custodial sentencing powers in the way that my hon. Friend and, indeed, the Magistrates Association has suggested. I agree that magistrates have a very important role to play in our society and we should be thankful for the work they put in. We are exploring other ways to make use of the skills and expertise they bring.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I am sure the Justice Secretary agrees that we need not only to ensure that people do not become victims of crime in the first place, but that those responsible for crime are caught and dealt with appropriately by the criminal justice system. Burglary can have a devastating impact on the victims of crime and leave families traumatised. What are the Justice Secretary’s views on those accused of burglary being given a caution?

[Chris Grayling]

I regard burglary as an extremely serious crime. As I have said publicly, I also have reservations about the way cautions are currently being used, and I have been clear that we are looking at this as a matter of priority. I can reassure the shadow Justice Secretary that in fact, the length of time burglars spend behind bars is increasing, not decreasing.

[Sadiq Khan]

The right hon. Gentleman may therefore be interested to know that last year, 3,359 cautions were given for burglary, and in 2010 the figure was 3,484. There is concern that the use of more out-of-court disposals such as on-the-spot fines and cautions is cheapening our justice system. Although that may be desirable for the Treasury, it is not what law-abiding victims of crime want. The use of cautions and on-the-spot fines can lead to the public losing confidence in our criminal justice system. Does he agree and what is he going to do about it?

[Chris Grayling]

Actually, I do agree. I have reservations about the number of cautions being used. Of course, one has to remember that the current culture of the use of out-of-court settlements dates back to when the last Government were in power, and the use of cautions was much higher three or four years ago than it is today. I am very clear that we have to look again at the way cautions are used, and I have reservations about the way they are used for some serious offences. It is work we are currently doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

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

[Chris Grayling]

We are not planning to build a Titan prison. We have a very good model for prison development in Oakwood, which opened recently in the west midlands. That site has multiple blocks and first-class training facilities. To my mind, it is an excellent model for the future of the Prison Service. We are looking at a number of sites and hope to reach a decision in the next few months on the best option. I would like to open a new generation prison as quickly as possible, because it will save the taxpayer money and the facilities will be better.

[Sadiq Khan]

Four weeks ago, the Justice Secretary announced to the BBC, Sky and anyone else who would listen that he was going to open new super-mega Titan prisons in the near future and that he would undertake feasibility studies. Given his comments on Sunday, can he tell the House how many current prisoners are gay and are sharing a prison cell with another gay person?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not know how many people in prison are gay. I want to ensure that the regime in our prisons is appropriate, commands the confidence of the public and provides an appropriate environment for rehabilitation and training. We must have a prison system in which everyone can have confidence.

Transforming Rehabilitation

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

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

It is universally agreed that we need to do more to reduce reoffending. Preventing offenders from going on to commit more crimes and create more innocent victims should be a priority for us all. Our probation service is the Cinderella of our criminal justice system. It has a low public profile, but is staffed by dedicated professionals who help keep our communities safe. In 2011 it was awarded the British Quality Foundation’s gold medal for excellence, and the performance of every single probation trust was rated by the present Government as either good or exceptional. The service has done all that the Government have asked it to do.

Let me begin by asking the Justice Secretary what he means by saying that he wants to professionalise the probation service. The probation service has been working in partnership with the private sector and voluntary groups for some time now, and I am sure the Justice Secretary will have seen some of the excellent work being done in partnership around the country from Avon and Somerset to Doncaster, and from Peterborough to Manchester. There is a place for all in our justice system, bringing in outside experience and innovation, and working together in partnership to reduce reoffending.

It is always worth looking for new ways to address the serious problem of reoffending, and that was the motivation behind the pilot that the last Labour Government began in Peterborough, which is a payment by results model. I suspect it is also why the Justice Secretary’s predecessor launched two PBR pilots in probation trusts. It is right to test and try out properly any fundamentally new way of working, and there is no history in criminal justice of payment by results. The Justice Secretary has chosen to cancel the two probation PBR pilots set up by his predecessor. Can he explain why? Did he do so because he has already made up his mind that PBR works, despite there being no evidence at present to support that view?

We know, however, from where PBR has been used in the provision of other public services—the Work programme—that it has failed to hit its targets, and the Justice Secretary knows all about that programme, of course. Out of 800,000 people who started the Work programme, only 3.5% were still in work after six months, and not a single provider hit the target. That is bad enough in the context of the Work programme, with people not getting jobs or failing to keep jobs, but in the context of criminal justice, failure could lead to offenders walking the streets without the necessary supervision and support, with the risk that poses to public safety. We are also seeing in respect of the Work programme that it is not the small and local charities that are delivering. They have been crowded out by the big multinationals such as G4S and A4e. How will the Justice Secretary ensure that that pattern is not repeated in probation services? The Justice Secretary is proposing that only low and medium-risk offenders will be dealt with by private companies, but can he confirm that medium-risk offenders include those who have committed burglary and violent crimes, including domestic violence?

One in four offenders’ risk levels fluctuate during their time on licence. How will the Justice Secretary ensure the PBR model will be able to take that into account? In that regard, how does he propose the police should share their sensitive information about offenders under their supervision with the private sector?

The Justice Secretary has also announced a 25% expansion in the number of offenders who will be subjected to mandatory supervision, at a time when his budget is shrinking by 25%. Is it not therefore inevitable that resources will have to be stretched ever more thinly to cover that increase in offenders, and can he assure the House that high and medium-risk offenders will get the appropriate supervision and support?

We are willing to work with the Government to reduce reoffending. We will carefully consider the Justice Secretary’s consultation document and the answers he gives in the House this afternoon, and we hope that the detail given will provide greater reassurance than his statements have so far.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I certainly agree that we want to ensure that justice is swifter and that where possible the probation service produces reports as quickly as it can. My hon. Friend will know from his experience of practising in the courts that probation officers often produce reports in very short time frames, which I am sure is of great assistance to the courts and to be commended.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt)—there cannot be many times when I have said that—and the Minister who commended the probation service for its fantastic work, which was recognised last year by the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence. Can the Minister confirm that the much delayed probation review will not be announced this week, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and will not lead to the break-up of the excellent probation service or its privatisation?

[Jeremy Wright]

This is a good time of the year for patience and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be patient. It will be important in what we do, first, to recognise the key role of the probation service, as he says, and secondly, to do better than we have done on reoffending. When, as now, 50% of those released from prison reoffend within 12 months and a third of those on community orders do the same, we must look at ways of doing better.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Interpreting services in court are at a 95% success rate, and the National Audit Office has said that we should go on and implement the proposals fully. The contract is saving us £15 million a year of taxpayers’ money, and as long as we continue to work with interpreters—we have already had an important meeting with them—the new system will be more sustainable, effective and transparent than the old one.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The British Human Rights Act provides protection against cruel and inhumane treatment, including the right to a fair trial, the right to life, the right to family life and freedom of expression. It makes explicit the fact that Parliament is sovereign, and that even the Supreme Court cannot trump Parliament. Bearing that in mind, will the Justice Secretary make it clear that it is the British Human Rights Act that he so opposes, or is it the British courts that interpret the law? Which of the rights in the British Human Rights Act would not be included in his Bill of Rights?

[Chris Grayling]

The original human rights convention was a laudable document written when Stalin was in power and people were sent to the gulags without trial. Over 50 or 60 years of jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights has moved further and further away from the goals of its creators, and I believe that this is an issue that we have to address in this country and across Europe.

[Sadiq Khan]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done the primer, but I did not mention the European convention or the European Court—I mentioned the Human Rights Act. Will he answer a simple question? Will he confirm that were it not for the Human Rights Act, the extradition of the Asperger’s-suffering Gary McKinnon to the USA could not have been stopped by the Home Secretary?

[Chris Grayling]

I am a bit puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s comment, because the Human Rights Act enacts the convention in the law of this country. I think, and many in the House agree, that the remit of the Court has expanded beyond its creators’ original intention, which is why we need reform.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for allowing advance sight of his statement. This issue has been controversial since the 2004 Hirst v. UK case when the European Court of Human Rights ruled our blanket ban on prisoner voting was contrary to article 3, protocol 1 of the convention. The Labour Government disagreed with the Court’s decision. It is not, and never has been, Labour’s position to give prisoners the vote. That is why we appealed the decision and continued to challenge it until we lost office.

Under this Government, I am afraid, there has been a lack of consistency on prisoner voting. On 20 December 2010—the last day before the Christmas recess—this Government snuck out a written ministerial statement announcing that prisoners on sentences of under four years would get the vote. This meant roughly 30,000 prisoners getting the vote. Information we sought showed that 4,188 offenders convicted and sent to prison for burglary would get the vote—so much for this Government being on the side of innocent homeowners. Had the Government’s original plans gone ahead, 5,991 offenders convicted of violence against the person, 1,700 offenders convicted for sexual offences and even 67 rapists would also have been given the vote. I asked the Government at the time for their legal advice that supported giving violent and serious prisoners the vote, but they declined to provide it. The Government then performed one of their earlier U-turns and in a debate on 10 February 2011, Back Benchers from all sides voted overwhelmingly to maintain the status quo.

I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General appealed to the European Court again in the Grand Chamber this year, but many of us remember the previous Lord Chancellor boasting that he would use our once-in-a-generation opportunity of chairing the Council of Europe to ensure that the European Court changed the rules so that civic and social issues such as this would not be adjudicated on in this way. Once again, the Government over-promised and under-delivered.

We will digest the details of the draft Bill, and will work with the Government to ensure that it receives the pre-legislative scrutiny that it deserves. Like my predecessors in the last Labour Government, I am unhappy with the European Court’s ruling on prisoner voting. I think that the Court got it wrong. This is not a case of our Government failing to hold free or fair elections, or an issue of massive electoral fraud; it is a case of offenders, sent to prison by judges, being denied the right and the privilege of voting, as they are denied other rights and privileges. This issue should be within the margin of appreciation that nation states are given by the European Court.

Let me make clear that I am passionate about punishing and reforming offenders. I believe in intervening aggressively to address the offending behaviour of prisoners, ensuring that they can read and write, addressing alcohol and drug dependency, treating mental illness, providing job training so that prisoners can find employment later, enabling them to work in prison and to find somewhere to live, providing a mentor to help them with those tasks, and much more. I meet many offenders, ex-offenders and experts, and I know that the idea that depriving prisoners of their votes makes them more likely to reoffend —or less likely to reintegrate themselves in society—is absurd.

That being said, I respect the rule of law, and we must uphold it. We do not and cannot abide only by judgments with which we agree. This issue is part of the bigger picture of our membership of the European convention, a membership of which Labour Members are proud. We acknowledge its role in protecting human rights throughout Europe for more than 60 years, and the fact that it gives the United Kingdom more leverage over other countries that are less scrupulous in their approach to human rights. It allows us to press others to improve their human rights records, just as the Foreign Secretary rightly did this week with the Syrian opposition coalition.

Parliamentarians need to know the Government’s legal advice on what is needed to enable our obligations under the convention to be discharged. We also need to be clear about the ramifications of any decisions that Parliament makes, as there is a risk that choosing the wrong option could lead to compensation claims from prisoners and to our being in breach of the rule of law. That is why I wrote to the Justice Secretary last week—as I did to his predecessor—to request that his legal advice be published so that Members in all parts of the House could make an informed judgment. He has not responded yet.

I should be grateful if the Lord Chancellor would answer a number of questions. Will he make available to the House the legal advice on which his draft Bill relies, and if not, why not? Does he agree with all the Attorney-General’s views on this matter? When will Parliament vote on his three options, and which of them will he recommend to the Joint Committee and the House? Finally, will he confirm that no compensation will be paid as a result of the announcement that he has made today?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry that the shadow Justice Secretary did not take the measured approach that was taken by the shadow Home Secretary at the weekend. When he talks of a lack of consistency and commitment, he should remember that the Attorney-General went personally to Strasbourg to argue the case for this country. That does not suggest to me any lack of determination on the Government’s part.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the previous Lord Chancellor. I pay tribute to him for the progress that he made in the Brighton declaration. These are not easy matters. We are dealing with a very large number of countries, and it is difficult to reach unanimous agreement. I think that my predecessor took a good first step towards securing the reforms that are needed—and I agree that reforms are needed: indeed, I personally take the view that further reforms are needed. I think that I have been very clear about that over the past few weeks. Unless and until such reforms happen, however, we must also recognise the reality of our international obligations, and Parliament must decide what approach it wants this country to take. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I am not entirely certain what approach he wants us to take, but I think it important for Parliament to be in a position to make the decision.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the legal advice. I do not think that the Attorney-General’s views on this matter are any great secret: he has given evidence to Committees of this House during the last few weeks. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that on no occasion under the last Government was advice given to them by the Attorney-General willingly published. However, I will give careful thought to the issues that he has raised. I want to be as helpful as possible to the Joint Committee, and I am willing to consider what methods are available to us that are appropriate and follow due precedent.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for clarification of the implications of all this. It involves complex matters that need to be discussed by Parliament, which is precisely why we need pre-legislative scrutiny and should not head straight into a Bill. Both this Government and the last Government have talked about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny, and this is exactly the kind of Bill that requires it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about voting intentions. That is a matter for the House to consider. When we reach the point at which a Bill is before the House, every Member will consider how he or she wishes to vote, but, for now, let us wait and see what the Committee comes up with.

As for the right hon. Gentleman’s question about compensation, I hope that the Court will—as it should—view my announcement as the first step in the process that it has asked us to complete, and that the issues to which he referred will not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

It does not follow automatically that if someone breaches an order, the penalty would be a period of imprisonment, although that is possible. I think the right thing is to say to people: “If you receive a period of unpaid work as a punishment, we expect you to do it and to do it properly. If you don’t do it properly, you will find yourself back in court, and you may find yourself going to prison.” That is absolutely the right approach.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I welcome much of what the Minister has said this morning, and I am sure there will be support for it in all parts of the Chamber. The key to effective community sentences is also proper supervision. How will he address the legitimate concern, which many people have, that increasing the use of community sentences at the same time as making cuts in probation could lead to less effective community sentences, with offenders being neither properly reformed nor punished?

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking at ways in which we can deliver a better probation service, more rehabilitation for offenders across the board and better outcomes, because this is the key. It is not just about the processes we go through; it is about the outcomes we achieve. We are seeking to reward those who provide rehabilitative services in a way that also reduces reoffending. Doing that will help the offender and the wider community. It is also, incidentally, a good deal for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

First, let me explain the context to my hon. Friend. We are in the middle of a programme of new for old in the Prison Service; we are bringing on stream new capacity as well as closing down old capacity, as part of a drive to bring down the overall cost of running the Prison Service by making the unit cost of each place cheaper. We are looking at a number of options, and no decisions have been taken on Lincoln prison. There is no proposal to close it, and I can assure him that I will personally be looking carefully at this issue, as I am well aware of the geographical circumstances of Lincoln, particularly the lack of good transport to other locations in the prison system.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The Justice Secretary referred to the Abu Qatada case. We have also recently heard the ruling of Reading county court, which held that a same-sex couple had been discriminated against by a bed and breakfast owner who refused to let them stay in her B and B. Will the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice join me in welcoming that ruling?

[Chris Grayling]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I never comment on individual cases, but I voted for the law behind that case and stand by the decision I took at the time to vote for it.

[Sadiq Khan]

Three minutes ago, the Justice Secretary commented on a case from yesterday. Three minutes later, he is unwilling to comment on a case from three weeks ago. He looks uncomfortable—does he think that he was wrong when, as shadow Home Secretary, he said:

“B and Bs should be able to turn away gay couples”?

Will he now apologise for those comments and commend the Equality Act 2010, which is doing so much to tackle discrimination in this country?

[Chris Grayling]

I was not aware that I was accountable to the House for Opposition roles, but I will say again to the right hon. Gentleman that I voted for the law as it stands and I stand by that decision.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The one point on which I will take issue with my hon. Friend is the fact that he talks about magistrates “knowing” that someone will commit an offence in the future. It is reasonably well established in British law that people are innocent until they are proved guilty—

[Sadiq Khan]

Have you seen the Bail Act?

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House affirms its commitment to the blameless victims of violent criminals who suffer physically, emotionally and financially from the injuries inflicted upon them; recognises that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is the fund of last resort for much needed compensation for these blameless victims and is relied upon by many thousands of victims each year; and that in the opinion of the House the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012, which was laid before this House on 2 July, should not be approved.

The Opposition are asking the House not to approve the changes passed by a narrow majority in Committee last week, and to reconsider. However, let me say up front that we are willing to work with the Government to see whether there are ways to reduce the Ministry of Justice budget while continuing to help blameless victims of crime. We do not believe the two are mutually exclusive.

It is worth beginning by setting out basic principles and an understanding of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. A non-statutory compensation scheme for victims of crime was first introduced in 1964. Not even the previous Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, was a Member of the House then, but he and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) were members of a Cabinet that introduced a statutory scheme in the mid-1990s in the form of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.

The current guidance to the 2008 scheme stresses that it is designed to compensate

“blameless victims of violent crime”.

The scheme recognises that the award can never fully compensate for all the injuries suffered, but an award is recognition of public sympathy for the blameless victim. Those basic principles, which are based in primary legislation, are important. If a person is not blameless, they do not get any compensation. If a person is not the victim of a violent crime, they do not get any compensation. If a person is a minor victim, they do not get any compensation.

Under the draft scheme, nearly 90% of those who have received compensation would have had their compensation slashed or cut totally. Of around 40,000 eligible cases annually, some 50% would no longer receive any compensation whatever and another 40% would have their compensation severely reduced. Compensation would remain the same in only around 10% of cases. Compensation in most cases is not a large amount of money—a couple of thousand pounds in many cases—but it is crucial for people whose livelihoods might have been interrupted as a result of their injuries. We know from our constituency surgeries that bills rack up and need paying. Compensation also plays a part in giving recognition for the pain and suffering of the victim, as well as providing a degree of closure after an attack. But for many thousands of future victims of crime the benefits of receiving compensation will no longer be available.

Those who will no longer receive any compensation include those with injuries such as permanent speech impairment; multiple broken ribs; post-traumatic epileptic fits; and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement, including the many victims of vicious dog attacks, many of them young children or postal workers doing their jobs.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

More than 6,000 postal workers a year suffer injuries as a result of dog attacks. For example, Paul Coleman of Sheffield required multiple operations on his leg after a vicious attack. People like him will no longer get compensation if this proposal goes ahead. Is that not a devastating verdict on the work done by postal workers in this country?

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that one example of the “blameless victims”—the language in the legislation—who will no longer be eligible for any compensation.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman began by referring to basic principles. Surely it is a basic principle that ideally it should be the offender who pays compensation to the victim, not the state? I am looking forward with some interest to the saving suggestions that he mentioned.

[Sadiq Khan]

There are many words that I would use to describe the former Justice Minister, but “ignorant” is not one of them. He will know that people are eligible for this compensation only if the offender cannot pay the compensation because he has not been found or has no insurance. I will come to that point shortly, and the hon. Gentleman will be able to rectify the error in what he has just said.

The compensation cut will cover injuries such as significant facial scarring, punctured lungs, permanent brain injuries affecting balance and fractured joints that lead to continual significant disability. Those are not minor scrapes, as the Government Front Bench would have us think—far from it. Some 60% of the victims of the 7/7 attacks who received compensation would be subject to these reductions. Only 9% of them would have their compensation protected under these plans. Government Members know this. Indeed, at the delegated legislation Committee that initially discussed the changes, the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who deserves credit for being part of the Cabinet that put this scheme on a statutory footing, said:

“I have never been shy about saying that I would like us as a Government to spend less overall, but I have never once thought that it had to be done by cutting something so sensitive or giving a worse deal to the disabled, the poor or the most vulnerable. I hope that the Government will think again.”

He also said:

“I want Members to understand that the last place I would look for savings would be benefits and payments to the vulnerable, injured and incapacitated—indeed, I would not look there at all. If anything, we should be more generous. I did not come into Parliament to see those things cut.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 September 2012; c. 19-22.]

To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I should say that he also suggested where savings could be made in the administrative costs of the scheme—as one would expect from him.

What about the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray)? She said that

“rowing back on compensation for postal workers seems strange”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 September 2012; c. 5.]

If the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) will forgive me, I will not read his entire speech, but, with his permission and the indulgence of House, I will read two paragraphs:

“The aspect of the greatest concern to me is dog attacks, certainly upon postal workers but particularly upon children. I will mention just one case, which relates to a Labour councillor in my constituency, Councillor Dilwar Ali—the hon. Member for Llanelli probably knows him, as he is very active in Welsh political circles. His young son was the victim of an horrific dog attack that has been the subject of widespread press and television attention. Reconstructive surgery was needed on this poor young child’s face. The person in charge of the dog did not set the dog on the child but failed to exercise any sort of control over it, and he was subsequently sent to prison. He will therefore not be in a position”—

the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) may want to listen to this—

“to be sued in the civil courts. Criminal injuries compensation is the only resource available to that child. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not want to be asked to vote today in favour of a change that says to that child, ‘From now on, because of the difficulties of the deficit, you’re not going to get any compensation.’”

The hon. Member for Cardiff North went on to say to his Front Bench:

“I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend, and I congratulate her on her appointment, but she has just assumed the post and this is an inheritance—some would say a hospital pass—from her predecessors in the Department. I ask her and the Secretary of State to reconsider the proposal and examine the points made in this debate.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 September 2012; c. 19.]

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have never sat in the House and heard somebody from the Opposition Benches quote me with approval at such length? Let me make it clear to the House that I do not withdraw a word of what I said. I stand by every one of them. However, I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House either. In the course of my remarks, I made it clear that I was prepared to accept the Minister’s arguments regarding the need for a change in the scheme and for a more efficient system. I also made it clear that the budget currently bears no relation to the number of people who would be eligible for compensation. It was for that reason that change was necessary. The Opposition’s motion, as I understand it, would result in no change.

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman has been very fair. At the outset, I said that I accept that there should be a reduction in the budget and that I am willing to work with the Government if they reconsider the draft scheme, which, as he knows, is identical to the one that gave him so much difficulty.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has not quoted the following:

“The scheme does not aim to provide individually tailored compensation packages covering each and every type of damage...Anybody who thinks that it does misunderstands the nature and purpose of the scheme.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 14 July 2008; c. 13.]

Those are the words of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), when the compensation scheme was last considered in 2008. Does he agree with that and does he recognise the context?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Of course I do. At the outset, I set out the basic principles of the scheme. Of course it is the case that with 25 tariffs we cannot expect to compensate every single victim for every single injury they have suffered. It is compensation of last resort. Let me say this. What was the reward for the honesty and candour shown by those three Members for speaking up for vulnerable witnesses and for their constituents? They were sacked from the Committee, which subsequently reconvened on 1 November to debate the draft scheme, and now the ministerial team is peddling myths about the scheme. We have heard a couple of them already. I have the letter that the Justice Secretary wrote to Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs—not to Labour MPs, I hasten to add—on MOJ letter-headed paper claiming that only minor injuries will no longer be covered. That is nonsense: the criminal injuries compensation scheme at the moment makes payments only for injuries that have a disabling effect for at least six weeks. No payments are made for cuts and grazes, as has been suggested, unless they are serious enough to leave a permanent and visible scar.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have to explain why someone off work for six weeks—the minimum period under the scheme—who, even on the minimum wage, would lose £900, if they were on statutory sick pay, should then be plunged into further debt and poverty? Why should a victim of crime, as well as enduring the crime, be plunged into debt as a result?

[Sadiq Khan]

To be fair to the Government, I will assume that this is an unintended consequence of their obsession with cutting budgets without considering the consequences of legislation on blameless victims. We will hear shortly from the Minister, who will have to respond to my hon. Friend’s important example. We all have examples from our own constituencies of where blameless victims will suffer as a consequence.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs were also told in the letter that the scheme was financially unsustainable, but the Government’s own figures in their impact assessment do not back that up. The average cost of the scheme over the past four years has been £192 million—this out of a departmental budget of more than £8 billion. We also hear that the scheme is too generous and that the taxpayer can no longer afford it. Well, the tariff payments were not generous in 1996, when they were first introduced, and there has only been one 10% increase in the intervening 16 years, even though inflation has reached almost 50%. It is also worth remembering that, in 2010, 79% of all compensation paid out was for awards below £5,000. Nor is it right to accuse the scheme of being poorly policed. In 2009-10, only 57% of applicants received any compensation. Ineligible applicants are weeded out.

The Government also claim that the scheme is not needed, because people can get compensation elsewhere —we heard that said by the former Justice Minister—but that is also wrong. The scheme only makes awards to those who cannot receive compensation from any other source—for instance, if no assailant has been apprehended or claims on insurance are not possible. Also, we should not believe the propaganda claim—I am not sure whether you received the letter, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the scheme is collapsing under the weight of ever-growing numbers of applications. The data are clear: over the past 10 years, the number of eligible applications has remained broadly stable, at about 38,000 to 39,000 a year. Nor is it right when Ministers claim that this is about refocusing resources on the most serious injuries. There is no refocusing. This is a plain and simple cut.

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman’s speech is devoid of context—the £750 million of debt associated with the scheme, the three-year backlog of payments and insufficient money to fund it. That context would have been helpful, but I am sure that the Minister will provide it. At the end of the process, however, the Government and offenders will be spending more money on victims of crime than when we started. That is the right place to be. More money will be being spent on victims at the end of this process. The right hon. Gentleman needs to put the scheme in the wider context of the Government’s victims policy.

[Sadiq Khan]

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman is so emotional about his legacy, which I will come to shortly. More money will not go to victims as a consequence of the Government’s plans. More money will be wasted on commissioning services for victims around the country, but more money will not go to victims.

The £50 million cut arising from the draft scheme is not being added to compensation for the most serious injuries. Not a single award is increasing. Even the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—the president of the Liberal Democrats, who is not in his place—who sat on the most recent Delegated Legislation Committee, repeated the myth. He is wrong. He said:

“Many of us feel that it is fair to redistribute money within the pot to the victims of crime with the most serious injuries,”

so that most of it goes to those

“who have suffered the most incapacitating injuries with the longest lasting impact.”—[Official Report, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 1 November 2012; c. 19.]

That is another example of somebody being misled by the myths from the Front Bench.

[Jonathan Evans]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sadiq Khan]

I want to make some progress, because others want to speak.

We know what the spreading of these myths and untruths is really about: building up a narrative that says that cuts must be made to the scheme if it is to survive, but those cuts are nothing to do with the sustainability of the scheme. Rather, they are part of a wider political narrative pursued by this Government—one that is as far from the “We’re all in this together” line that they espouse as we can get—in which, as has been demonstrated, innocent victims are left without support to see them through the difficult times after serious and violent crime.

The hon. Member for Reigate talked about his legacy for victims, so let us talk about it and about what the Government have done since May 2010. We have had the aborted attempts to introduce 50% sentence reductions for early guilty pleas, simply to reduce the prison population and save money. Then we had the abolition of indeterminate sentences for the most serious and violent offenders at greatest risk of reoffending. The Government have failed to accept the previous victims commissioner’s recommendation for a victims law. We have also seen the role of the victims commissioner left vacant for more than twelve months and cuts to support for victims. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman gets so emotional when these things are brought to his attention, and today we have cuts to compensation for innocent victims of crime.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to lead the charge against these disgraceful cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but he is also right to point out the need to enshrine the rights of victims in statute in a better way. Is that not why he proposes to introduce a victims law?

[Sadiq Khan]

Absolutely, and I look forward to working with the Government—if they really believe they are on the side of the victims—to ensure that that happens soon, rather than waiting for 2015.

Victims and potential victims up and down the country must have thought that the entire Justice team being sacked by the Prime Minister in his reshuffle would lead to a change in direction by the new Ministers. On 10 September, when the first Delegated Legislation Committee met to discuss the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), then newly appointed as a Justice Minister, brought proceedings to a premature end by claiming:

“I have listened very carefully to what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said today about the scheme. I am a new Minister and, having taking some advice and thought very carefully about everything that has been said and the importance of the scheme to people whom we all care about, I have decided not to move the motion on the criminal injuries compensation scheme”.—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 September 2012; c. 25-26.]

“Hurrah!”, one might think, “Common sense prevails!” For just one minute, let me be generous to the Minister. Let us assume that the reason for this sanity was not because the excellent new Justice Whip—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), who is not in his place—could add up and had worked out that the vote would be lost, but because the Government were genuinely going to listen to concerns.

However—it upsets me to say this—I am afraid that the good faith and good will towards the new Minister from Opposition Members has evaporated very fast indeed. She might have listened, but she did not hear, because exactly the same draft order was tabled four weeks later. Not a dot or comma had been changed: it was exactly the same legislation that the Minister said she was going to reconsider. One can understand why the previous Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate, is so emotional, because no changes were made—although I acknowledge the change to the non-statutory element of the scheme, with the establishment of a £500,000 contingency fund for special circumstances, but no commitment has been given on how long it will be available for; there is nothing in the draft scheme about that. That fund is a smokescreen and it could be cut at any time, without the need for parliamentary approval. It represents just 1% of the £50 million that is to be cut, and it will probably help just a few hundred innocent victims of crime, at most, compared with the 34,000 who are going to see their compensation either slashed or cut totally as a result of the proposals. The fund is a drop in the ocean, and it would be misleading to refer to it as a concession.

We have also seen wholesale changes to the delegated legislation Committee. Last week, the Government stuffed the new Committee with their loyalists and—it pains me to say this, Mr Deputy Speaker; you know that I am a polite man—with lackeys. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Cardiff North had been sacked and were no longer available to sit on the Committee, and they were replaced by three—yes, three—Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and a vice-chair of the Tory party for good measure.

It is a sad state of affairs when the Government have to wheel out the payroll to support them in a delegated legislation Committee, even though they have a built-in majority. But don’t worry, the president of the Liberal Democrats—whom I e-mailed today to say that I would be mentioning him in the debate—was there to join Labour Members in being the advocates for blameless victims. Or so one would think. What did he do? How did he show whose side he was on? The president of the Liberal Democrats did exactly as we would expect: he abstained. Had he voted with us last week, that legislation would not have been passed.

The whole new Justice team had a small window of opportunity, during which we might have given them the benefit of the doubt. After all, their predecessors left behind what the hon. Member for Cardiff North has described as a number of “hospital passes”. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald even raised our expectations, and we hoped that the cuts to the criminal injuries compensation scheme might be re-examined. She was even made Minister for victims in the intervening weeks. Minister for victims! You really could not script it, given that her first task as Minister was to gut the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which was a big slap in the face for the innocent victims of violent crime. Despite claims that she would listen, we have seen nothing but the merest tokenism.

Victims do not usually have someone to speak on their behalf. The victims commissioner post has been vacant for more than 12 months; she is no longer around to speak up for them. However, Victim Support, the Police Federation, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, trade unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Communication Workers Union, the Legal Services Agency and parliamentarians who are in touch with hard-working people are united in believing that the Government’s proposals are flawed and need to be reconsidered.

In that earlier Committee sitting, the right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke for many of us—and when did we last hear a Labour Front Bencher say that? Many of us agreed with him when he said that we did not come into Parliament to see small amounts of compensation for innocent victims of crime being slashed and cut. I look forward to testing whether that sentiment will be borne out in the Division on our motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I will give way for the last time, and then make some progress, as I am conscious that many Members want to speak.

[Sadiq Khan]

I do not want to intervene on the Minister when he is in full flow, but is it not correct that there are 17,700 cases a year in bands 1 to 5, none of which will be eligible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme under the proposals? He calls such cases minor, but they include permanent speech impairment, deafness lasting more than 13 weeks, multiple broken ribs, post-traumatic epileptic fits, and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement. All the people with such injuries will no longer be eligible for the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

[Damian Green]

I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman what I have just said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark): if the injuries are serious and long lasting, people will still be eligible for the scheme. There is a genuine misunderstanding. [Interruption.] Let me get on to the bands in a moment, and I hope I will assuage the concerns of the right hon. Member for Tooting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady has had a go already. I should like to make some more progress. First, let me make a final point about the issue of dogs, which has been raised by Members on both sides of the House.

It is inaccurate to say that all postal workers who had suffered dog bites would be eligible under the current scheme, which makes payments when dogs are intentionally set on victims and in a small number of other cases. Some of the figures that have been bandied around do not reflect the reality.

Let me now return to the expenses involved in the scheme. The cumulative effect of the reforms will deliver savings of about £50 million a year, but that is not to say that the Government are aiming to reduce the amount available to victims. We are determined to get the balance right, so that the burden is shifted from the taxpayer to those who commit crimes.

The new victim surcharge arrangements were implemented on 1 October. Along with other financial impositions, they are intended to raise up to an additional £50 million per year to be spent on victim services. That is how it should be. Offenders who have caused harm to victims and to society as a whole should have to put their hands in their pockets and pay for the services for which they themselves have created a need. At present, out of a total central Government spend on victims and witnesses of about £66 million, only about £10 million comes from offenders. That means that the burden rests too heavily on the taxpayer. With the money that we are taking out of the scheme and the money that we are raising from offenders, we are changing that balance.

[Sadiq Khan]

How much of the victim surcharge, which the Minister expects to amount to £50 million, will go directly to compensate the victims of criminal injuries?

[Damian Green]

As I have just said, the money will be spent on victim services. [Interruption.] I am interested to note that the Labour party does not seem to regard victim services as important. They are hugely important, as I have said on several occasions.

[Sadiq Khan]

Why can’t we do both?

[Damian Green]

The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of enticing me to draw attention to the present Government’s fiscal inheritance. We simply cannot—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman said in the responsible part of his speech that he was prepared to look for savings in the budget of the Ministry of Justice, but judging by his remarks from a sedentary position all he wants to do is increase spending in every area.

Tariff payments will continue to be available to those who are most seriously affected by their injuries, and to the victims of the most distressing crimes. What that means in practice—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The speech we just heard from the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) in many ways mirrored the shadow Secretary of State’s rather narrow speech and failed to look at the context in which the Government have had to assess the scheme. As I was the junior Minister responsible at the time, I can explain the problems we were presented with. The scheme was £750 million in debt and it was taking years to get people paid properly.

The right hon. Member for Oxford East referred to some of the payments that have been made to address the backlog. Those payments could be made because other savings were found in the Ministry of Justice, under the excellent director of finance, Ann Beasley—one of the ways we can spend money quickly within the departmental budget is to take any left at year-end and put it into the criminal injuries compensation scheme to address the backlog. That was a priority because victims of crime are a priority for this Government.

We were faced with a situation in which the scheme was massively in debt, payments were horrendously late and, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East might have spotted, there was no money. The Ministry of Justice is trying to cut its budget by £2 billion a year over the course of the comprehensive spending review period. I noted the shadow Secretary of State’s opening comments about wanting to work with Ministers to help to look for savings, which he agreed have to be made. I listened, but I am afraid that I heard not a single suggestion for where other savings might be made in order to deal with the backlog.

The challenge for Ministers was to put the scheme into financial order, which meant taking some difficult decisions, and that, of course, is what we did. We had meeting after meeting to look at the bands, reductions that could be made and different ways of assessing it. That received the highest attention, including from the Prime Minister, who took an interest in it, because it is extremely important to get it right. But we are faced with the fact that savings have to be made, so the scheme proposed here is the one that has come forward. Of course uncomfortable decisions have to be made, as the right hon. Member for Oxford East acknowledged, but it is a pity that the Opposition never try to suggest what those difficult decisions should be or explain what they would do.

[Sadiq Khan]

Does the hon. Gentleman now accept that his Front Benchers are wrong to give the impression that the reason for the cuts is that they want to provide services for victims, because he has been honest and said that the reason for the cuts is that they want to make cuts?

[Mr Blunt]

The right hon. Gentleman is right: cuts have to be made to the departmental budget that we inherited and the scheme was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt. That had to be addressed properly and in a hurry. Savings had to be made throughout the rest of the Department, so it was extremely difficult to include compensating expenditure in the scheme in order to rescue it.

The Government’s proposals will put the scheme in sensible order. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has outlined—as did the new Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) during the two Statutory Instrument Committees—they will get rid of bands 1 to 5 and make sure that victims of sexual crime and the most serious crimes are protected.

We then looked at the whole context of what we ought to do about victims of crime. Frankly, I am proud to say that we pushed to examine how we could stretch the victim surcharge so that we could get offenders to contribute to victims’ services. Under the proposals made, not in the statutory instrument, but in parallel with it, at least an extra £50 million will be raised from criminals for victims. Surely it is a basic principle that offenders should fund victims’ services and, indeed, compensation, which is an issue to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded, and which I will come on to later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

I am a very patient man, but this issue has dragged on too long and people’s patience has been exhausted as they have waited for some compensation from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The reality is that the scheme cannot be afforded. Last year, the authority was provided with additional funding and a total of £449 million was paid to victims, the largest amount in a single year. Despite the cash injection, total liabilities currently stand at some £532 million. This Government will not ignore the historic underfunding of the scheme. We will not hide behind administrative efficiencies. We are facing up to this difficult issue. We want to express solidarity, but we are not jumping on the bandwagon. We cannot simply have a sustainable scheme if it has to go cap in hand to the Treasury every year asking for a top-up. That does not do justice to the cause of victims. It must be sustainable and on a stable footing. We need a decent, open and transparent way to deal with compensation.

[Sadiq Khan]

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that Dod’s is up to date—is he still a PPS?

[Mr Burrowes]

Yes, that is the case.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thought so.

[Mr Burrowes]

Fair enough, although I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that all Members have a right to speak up about issues concerning victims. Opposition Members certainly do not have a monopoly on that. As the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned, this Minister, like previous Ministers, has had to pick up the legacy from previous Governments in terms of compensation for victims. That only £30 million was paid by offenders in court-ordered compensation is not acceptable, given that the criminal injuries compensation scheme costs more than £200 million a year. Like others here, I remember going into court as a defence practitioner. After a defendant was convicted, sometimes a request would come from the court for the application for compensation but there would be nothing in the Crown Prosecution Service file. The information would not be available, and applications would just go by the board.

When a victim impact statement comes through, there is no information about the details of compensation, so they have to go down the long, laborious route of making a civil claim or pursuing criminal injuries compensation. We are saying that they should get the justice and compensation they deserve in court. As one of the architects, I encouraged that approach, and it was followed through quite properly. We now have a proper statutory duty to order compensation, not just in terms of what the Government have sought to do with the victims’ surcharge for those who have fines imposed, but in serious cases involving those who have community penalties and have served prison sentences. I remember too many clients who felt that they got away with it in the sense that there were no victims. The person who gets shut out is the victim.

We have quite properly introduced what was a legacy of the previous Government. We remember many a piece of legislation from the previous Government—one that was on the books in 1997 was the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, which was not implemented by the previous Government. Why was it not implemented? Because the advice the Government apparently received from the Home Office was that they would never find the work in prisons for prisoners to do to make it viable. We are not simply going to accept that; we will make sure that offenders pay for their crime and pay when they are in prison. That is what we are doing.

Despite the cowardice of the previous Government when it came to victims of crime, we are now ensuring that £800,000 each year will go to victims of crime through court-ordered compensation. That will avoid the labyrinth of compensation schemes and avoid the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) about local commissioning. The compensation will go directly to victims when it is ordered, as it should be ordered, by the courts. We are picking up a legacy and that is why it is important to consider the issue in its proper context.

Not only is the victim surcharge being extended in terms of the 1996 Act and court-ordered compensation, but we are removing the £5,000 cap on orders to offenders to pay compensation in magistrates courts. I remember victims having to wait months, if not years, for the opportunity to get redress, with offenders having gone off to the Crown court. That is being changed. The cap is being removed to allow compensation in magistrates courts.

Recently, a constituent visited my surgery who was concerned because she had never received any compensation. She was the subject of a serious burglary. Months later, the offender was found, the offence was taken into consideration in a clear-up, and he went to court, but the victims were not even told so no application for compensation was made. That happens time and again. We need to ensure that offenders pay for their crime. That is what victims want. They want justice. They want redress. We recognise that the scheme has a part to play, but a contributory part. Compensation is perhaps a misnomer when we are talking about wanting to deliver justice properly. That is what we are doing. We are delivering that to ensure that £50 million—let us try and get more—goes to victims. Let us ensure that we are on the side of victims. We will not jump on a bandwagon; we will make difficult decisions to ensure that the scheme is sustainable, fair and just.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). I listened carefully to her contribution.

Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am not a Parliamentary Private Secretary, nor have I been a shadow spokesman—

[Sadiq Khan]

Yet.

[Nick de Bois]

I thank the shadow Minister for his confidence, but I fear it will be a very long time before that happens.

I came to this debate for the same reason I sought election to the Select Committee on Justice, which was that, with no legal training or legal background whatever, I felt I could occasionally take the perspective of an ordinary citizen. It is with that in mind that I want to focus on what I think is the response of many to being a victim of crime, of which I have sadly had far too many in my constituency. From those who have come to see me, I am confident that—I am sure Members will understand this—the immediate, default position is not about compensation, but about justice and the ability to cope with the shock and emotional effect of being a victim. Of course there are different degrees of that, and some people deal with it extremely well.

One thing that has perhaps not been identified as one of the most important facets of the proposal is the victim surcharge. People look for justice and support, and I believe they think that the offender should compensate. That is true.

Early in my parliamentary career, I was fortunate enough to be able, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), to introduce what became known—by us, anyway—as Enfield’s law. It requires that anyone aged 16 or over who uses a knife in a threatening or endangering fashion should receive a mandatory jail sentence.

Sadly, I have met too many victims of knife crime in my constituency. When they come to see me, it is not to discuss the frustrations caused by the bureaucracy of the compensation scheme but to talk about the emotional support that they need or, sometimes, the remoteness of the Crown Prosecution Service and the judicial system when dealing with prosecutions. They always speak very highly of the victim support organisations. I support the new legislation for many reasons, but the overriding one is that it will direct funds towards those all-important organisations.

I want to bring a case to the House’s attention. The two younger brothers of an Enfield resident had been abused by their grandfather for approximately 16 years. The case highlighted the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, including the lack of engagement of the victims in the process. They felt that they were left alone. Unlike the scenes that we see in television programmes such as “Law and Order”, my constituents had no contact with the CPS until the day of their Crown court appearance. They were told that any other arrangement could compromise their case. They were even told by their CPS barrister that the case would have to finish on the upcoming Friday morning as he was going on holiday the following day.

However, my constituents drew massive support from Victim Support, of which they could not speak highly enough. The charity was with them every step of the way throughout the trial. They were not concerned about compensation at that point. The problem that would have confronted them would have been the need to go through a difficult and bureaucratic process to claim it. The measures are therefore welcome; they have been undersold and understated, but they will improve the situation.

[Sadiq Khan]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that improving the services that victims receive and providing blameless victims with compensation are not mutually exclusive?

[Nick de Bois]

The point that I am trying to make is that there is a difficult economic context, and that we must take into account the failure of the system in the past. I want to see more effort put into raising money and directing it towards the necessary emotional and practical support. I think that it was the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran who spoke about asking our constituents about this. The question of emotional support is what confronts me more and more, compared with what are, in most cases, relatively insignificant levels of compensation. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, I would like the money to go in the direction of providing such support. That is why I like the idea of raising the money not from the taxpayer but from elsewhere, including from the offenders, to help to fund that vital work. If we can do anything to strengthen the victim support organisations, I will support it.

I do not want to leave the impression that all is well in this regard, however. Frankly, we do not know whether that is the case. We are embarking on a new scheme. I hope that the proposals will be seen as a living document, although perhaps not in the strictly judicial sense. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the Government will commit to a firm review period. If there are any flaws or shortcomings, the House should not be inflexible. We should be prepared to re-examine the issue in good faith and determine whether any areas need improvement. I am sure that we will hear about any such shortcomings in our constituencies, even if the Minister does not hear about them.

I want to raise a couple of technical points on which I would like clarification. Will this be a reciprocal scheme in the context of the European Union, and will it be used as such? Also, will the proposed scheme be open only to UK nationals and not to those from outside the EU, should a reciprocal agreement exist?

At the end of the day, while I may be touching on what some Members think are the slightly softer issues, I do not find anything wrong with shifting as much of the responsibility for funding compensation from the taxpayer to the offender. That is something with which I hope the whole House would agree, even if some Members would disagree over the means to do it. That is why I wholeheartedly support the reform, albeit in the hope that we will always be open to reviewing it if any shortcomings become apparent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

In the Delegated Legislation Committee last week, I said that, although we saw no merit in making further changes to the scheme, we were nevertheless persuaded that something ought to be done for certain low earners who were temporarily unable to work due to their injuries and who would no longer fall within the scheme. I announced a hardship fund that aims to meet a pressing need for people who might well find themselves in real financial difficulty.

Opposition members of the Committee were critical of the lack of detail I provided on that occasion. However, the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice provided details today in his opening speech, and it is a great shame that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) seem unable to acknowledge the fairness and decency of the fund and recognise that it will help some of the very poorest people in our country.

[Sadiq Khan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

No. I have been very generous in taking interventions in three debates so far, so I will make my points and will not waste any more time.

Moving on, we have defined eligibility for the scheme more tightly so that only the direct and blameless victims of crime who fully co-operate with the criminal justice process obtain compensation under the scheme. That is surely right. Those with unspent convictions will not be able to claim if they have been sentenced to a community order or been imprisoned, and those with other unspent convictions will be able to receive an award of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. Not only that, but applicants will need to be able to demonstrate a connection to the UK through residency or other connections.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and many others have been critical of our approach to dangerous dogs, because in future the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will pay only where the dog was set upon the victim by its owner. A similar approach already applies to injuries caused by motor vehicles; in order for the applicant to be eligible, a car has to have been deliberately driven at him or her. Contrary to our critics’ assertions, that will not have much of an impact on claimants because awards for dog attacks are few. That said, aggressive dogs of course present a serious and growing problem, which is why the Government are active in that area, with work going on at the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and elsewhere.

The last major element of the scheme is special expenses. As is consistent with our policy of focusing payments on the most seriously affected, we have retained the vast majority of those payments in their entirety. However, we have made it clear that the scheme should be one of last resort in relation to special expenses and that payments will be made only if the claim is reasonable.

Finally, we have made some changes to the process of applying for compensation in order to make the scheme easier for applicants to understand. For the first time, for example, the evidence required to make a claim is being included in the scheme, which is a simple but plainly very helpful change. The Government believe that the draft criminal injuries compensation scheme provides a coherent and fair way of focusing payments towards those seriously—

Oral Answers to Questions

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend and his constituents are right to be worried. It is true that foreign national offenders will continue to challenge deportation under article 8 of the ECHR, but he will be pleased to know that this Government have changed the immigration rules. New rules came into force in July this year so that only in exceptional circumstances will family life, the best interests of a child or private life outweigh criminality and the public interest in seeing foreign national offenders deported where they have received a substantial sentence. That is a better balance between the interests of foreign criminals and the interests of the British public in being protected from them, which have been neglected for far too long.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I, too, congratulate and welcome the entire Justice team on their elevation, and wish well those right hon. and hon. Members who have been relieved of their duties?

The Prime Minister said in 2010 that he would

“personally intervene to send back thousands of foreign prisoners”

and alleviate the strain on our overcrowded and overstretched prisons. The last Government negotiated prisoner transfer agreements with more than 75 countries. I know that the Justice team and the Prime Minister believe in taking personal responsibility, so will the Minister tell us with how many countries this Government have finalised a prisoner transfer agreement over the last 28 months, and how many thousands of prisoners have been transferred during that period?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows how difficult this exercise is. He knows perfectly well that prisoner transfer agreements are a matter of negotiation, and he also knows that compulsory transfer agreements are much more valuable than voluntary ones. Most of the agreements that he has described his Government as having achieved are voluntary, not compulsory. This Government will attempt to negotiate more compulsory agreements, so that we can continue to send home foreign offenders whom we do not want in our prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with that. We are seeing significant improvements—

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Really?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes we are, and the Opposition also need to accept that the NAO report accepted that the Government had good reasons for making changes from the old system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked long and hard for many years to stamp out this abhorrent practice and that it affects a large number of women and girls in Britain today. I assure her that I will look very carefully at the language of the declaration to make sure prior to its being signed off that we will achieve optimum effect.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

[Chris Grayling]

I look forward to many months of debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe absolutely that the rehabilitation revolution should be at the top of the agenda. We want to deliver a system whereby we no longer send young people inadequately supported back out on to the streets, to reoffend and then go back to prison. I believe in having the right number of people in prison. We need our courts to send to prison people who need a prison sentence, but I also believe in doing everything we can to prevent them from going back.

[Sadiq Khan]

We will wait and see whether the right hon. Gentleman keeps his brief, but I hope we will be debating for more than a few months; we could do with more certainty in the Justice Department. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, the National Audit Office has said today that, as a result of this Government’s botched policies over the past 28 months, there is now a £130 million black hole in the MOJ budget. We also know that our prisons and probation services are overstretched. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House and the British public that, unlike the previous Justice Secretary, he will not risk public safety or let victims down in his attempts to fill the black hole?

Prisons (Property) Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have the chance to speak about the Bill. Good private Members’ Bills are a bit like buses—we do not see one for ages, then we see two in a row. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who achieved a Second Reading of an excellent Bill on mental health, an issue that touches many of us personally or through our families, friends or constituents.

I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). I must give him a warning, though. He said in his short speech that he had been to a prison on one occasion, to HMP Leeds, and hoped that it was the only time that he would visit a prison. He is doing such a good job with the Bill that he may well be promoted to being a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, which would mean his visiting many prisons. However, I wish the Bill a safe passage. As you will gather, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition support Second Reading of the Bill.

One can always tell when a non-lawyer has drafted legislation because it is simple and concise, and this Bill has only one clause. Perhaps a precedent has been set and future Bills will be drafted by non-lawyers for the purposes of simplicity. I suspect that many people—governors, officers, parliamentarians and others—will welcome the Bill because of the clarity it provides about the powers held by a governor or director. The aim of the legislation is clear and realistic. It will allow a governor of a prison, young offenders institution or secure training centre to

“destroy or otherwise dispose of”—

including by way of sale, which I will come on to—any unauthorised property found in prisons. Unauthorised property includes items that are unlawful to possess—hon. Members have already discussed controlled drugs and offensive weapons—as well as things such as mobile phones that, although not unlawful, could be used to threaten prison safety or security.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was right. Many of us, even those who claim to be experts, were probably not aware that the powers in the Prison Act 1952 allow the confiscation of unauthorised property, but not its destruction. The thrust of the Bill is to rectify that situation. It has been argued that items can be stored in a prison for a certain period and returned to the prisoner on release, but the cost of that storage falls on the National Offender Management Service. That does not make sense, especially in the current environment.

Mobile phones are some of the items most commonly found in prisons. In his excellent speech the hon. Member for Pudsey provided examples of how mobile phones, which are obviously lawful outside prison, were used in prison for illicit purposes, and damaged the quality of life for those outside, including victims of crime. The hon. Gentleman also touched on the fact that, for obvious reasons, many mobile phones are not attributable to a particular person—a prisoner would not admit that a phone belonged to him or her, as that could lead to disciplinary action. It is therefore often not possible to return the phone to its “rightful” owner, and the Bill clarifies what should happen in such situations.

I want to address a couple of points raised by hon. Members during the debate, but I will keep my comments brief so that we can get the Bill through Second Reading. As is often the case, much to my embarrassment I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Shipley. He mentioned the need to redouble efforts to stop unauthorised items getting into prisons, and although he was right to make reference to that, such things also happened under the watch of the previous Government. Unlawful items getting into prison is not a new phenomenon. However, if we want to have closed visits or full body detectors, to carry out more searches—including intimate searches—of visitors, staff and prisoners, and give prisons the technology to stop mobile phones being used, which is expensive although not particularly difficult, we need investment and to spend resources on those things. If the hon. Gentleman argues for proper investment in order to use technology and other means to prevent illicit items from entering prison, the Opposition will support him.

The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) was Chair of the Public Affairs Committee, of which I was also a member, and I have huge respect for him. He made a couple of interesting interventions, one of which was a word of caution about seeking to extend the power of the state and deprive prisoners of more of their rights. Instructions from the Ministry of Justice, however, are clear: prisoners are allowed to possess sufficient property to allow them

“to lead as normal and individual an existence as possible within the constraints of the prison environment.”

Therefore, the hon. Member for Pudsey was speaking about unauthorised property, rather than property that would normally be allowed as conducive to a prisoner having a life inside prison.

I have a couple of short questions. I do not need the answers today, but it might be worth the hon. Gentleman and the Minister considering them in Committee. The first question comes from the instructions given to prison governors—I have been sent a copy—which are quite clear that

“the Governor is authorised to permanently confiscate the item and to subsequently arrange for its safe and proper destruction. In these instances where appropriate the relevant property card needs to be updated accordingly.”

It seems that instructions exist. In Committee, will the hon. Gentleman and the Minister say whether the Bill intends to clarify the position to avoid, for example, civil action or compensation claims made by prisoners?

The second question worth discussing—if not today, then in Committee—is whether the Bill will close concerns expressed in relation to the case of Coleman. The Minister might have had a chance consider that this week, but if he has not, he could save it for the Committee. My understanding is that a couple of changes have impacted on the way in which governors handle prisoners’ property in the light of the High Court ruling in the case of Coleman in 2009. Governors have been told that they do not have a general power to confiscate permanently or destroy a prisoner’s property. I appreciate the Minister will not be able to answer now, but will the Bill address that concern, which has been expressed by governors, prison officers and lawful citizens outside prison?

Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber raised the important question of what happens to unauthorised property when it is sold. Will we encourage governors to give the proceeds to Victim Support or to the families of victims, as the hon. Member for Pudsey suggests? It might be worth considering in Committee whether there is an appetite for ring-fencing the proceeds of sales when disposing of unauthorised property.

I do not want to detain the House any longer than I need to, because I am keen to get the Bill through. I conclude by saying two things. First, I again welcome the Minister to his position. I doubt whether he will take another Bill through the House that will involve such a consensual approach from the Opposition. I ask him please not to expect that in relation to other Bills he leads on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Shipley supports the Government on this Bill, which is also infrequent.

My second comment is that it is rare that a Member comes towards the top of the private Member’s Bill ballot and introduces a Bill that has cross-party support and common sense. I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey on choosing the Bill and on the importance he attaches to the victims of crime, including his constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman has just said. There will be some very good prison governors who will dispose of those items in the way he suggests, but there will be others who might be too busy or who perhaps do not realise that the option exists. Those governors could continue to leave confiscated property sitting in their storerooms, or simply destroy it, without ever taking advantage of some of the innovative ideas that are being put forward. If the hon. Gentleman is lucky enough to be chosen to serve on the Committee, will he suggest to the Minister some ways of encouraging the less good governors to do these things?

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that suggestion. I think that I have just been volunteered to serve on the Committee. He makes a good point.

The last thing I would want is to add to the administrative burden of governors, who are incredibly busy people working in a very challenging environment, but this is perhaps a discussion we could have with the relevant charities to see how it might operate in practice. It is certainly an idea worthy of further consideration.

Despite those few questions and concerns about the Bill, I very much hope it gets its Second Reading today. It is an important measure. It is simple, but the very straightforward Bills are often the most effective. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey again on his good fortune in securing this debate, and I wish his Bill Godspeed in its later stages.

Defamation Bill

Sadiq Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

First, I take the opportunity to congratulate and welcome the entire Front-Bench Justice team to their new roles; I wish them well. I also welcome the Justice Secretary to the Dispatch Box for his first outing in his new office. I congratulate him on his well-deserved promotion to the Cabinet and look forward to working with him in those areas where we have shared objectives, such as the updating of our outdated defamation laws. I agree with much of what he said and the tenor of his speech on Third Reading.

Many people have played a role in getting the Bill to this stage and I thank all those who have been involved in its long passage: the Libel Reform Campaign, whose members have shown dedication and passion in rightly pushing Parliament to modernise our outdated defamation laws; the working group established under the previous Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw); the Joint Committee of both Houses that scrutinised the draft Bill; and all those who participated in the Second Reading debate and Committee stage, including all the former Ministers.

We welcome much of the Bill—a single publication rule, measures to protect foreign defendants from actions brought in this country, clarification of and improvement to the defence of honest opinion, and additional protection for a limited number of scientific and academic publications—so let me say straightaway that, despite being hugely disappointed with the Government’s approach in Committee, when they failed to take on board our concerns and those of experts, and their approach to some of the issues raised on Report, we will not oppose Third Reading. We have high hopes that the new team and those in the other place will revise and improve the Bill.

We firmly support the principle of modernising our out-of-date defamation law—indeed, we set the whole process in train when in government. This Bill is the vehicle to bring our defamation law into the 21st century, making it fairer, simpler and cheaper so that public debate is encouraged, not stifled. Our emotional attachment to the Bill is therefore strong. That said, as it stands the Bill is a wasted opportunity. Blue moons come around more often than defamation reform: the most recent reform took place in 1996, and the one before that in 1952—even the Justice Secretary’s predecessor was not in Parliament then—so we should not expect the next opportunity to arise soon. We need to take full advantage of this window. Furthermore, there is political consensus: all three main political parties called for an update of our defamation law in our election manifesto. The absence of major policy differences should allow us to focus our energy on getting the Bill right and make the most of an infrequent opportunity. That is why we are so disappointed: we have not grasped that opportunity.

The Bill has reached Third Reading without any major improvements or changes since it was first published back in May. The Joint Committee did some excellent work, and its members must be tearing their hair out because most of their hard work has been wasted. The Bill is deficient in several respects: it makes no specific provision on corporations bringing defamation proceedings; it deals inadequately with the treatment of website operators; and there is no definition of serious harm. To add insult to injury—or perhaps I should say injury to insult—the Bill risks making matters worse by codifying an earlier version of the Reynolds defence of responsible publication.

We have other concerns. The Bill fails to provide a new and effective public interest defence. The Government still want to rely on regulations to sort out the mess that is clause 5, but despite more than four months having elapsed since the Bill was first published, no regulations or draft regulations have been seen. No effort has been made to address the issue of costs or judicial case management. What is the point of reforming the law if, at the same time, we take away the ability of the ordinary citizen to use it or of the courts to prevent it from being abused?

As you know, Mr Speaker, I am an optimist. This week, we have seen evidence to encourage my optimism. On Monday, the new-look Justice team showed their willingness to recognise the errors of their predecessors by withdrawing the statutory instrument that would have resulted in deep cuts in compensation for victims of crime. Perhaps that was the first indication of a new approach—a Department with completely new Ministers that is not afraid to accept that it got things wrong in the past. The Justice Secretary said that his new team do not have a closed mind on clause 4. I hope that they do not have a closed mind on the rest of the Bill either.

I accept that two major U-turns in a week may be one too many. I accept that there has not been sufficient time over the past week to look at all the mistakes by the team’s predecessors over the past 28 months, but if this is indeed a new approach by the Ministry of Justice, I hope that it might be applied to the Bill in the other place. I am happy to work with Ministers to that end. Not for the first time, we look to the other place to address the shortcomings of a Bill leaving the Commons.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Garnier]

It is probably unwise to give cocktail advice across the Chamber, even to my hon. Friend.

[Sadiq Khan]

Especially for free.

[Mr Garnier]

Yes, especially for free.

The Derbyshire county council case was a development of the common law. The judges decided that it was no longer appropriate for a local authority to bring an action for damages in defamation. As it happened, it was against our right hon. Friend Lord Tebbit—but I am sure that that had no influence on the judges. As I understand it, nothing in the Bill has any bearing on whether the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court can reach a similar decision based on argument in respect of a learned society. Since we have a Bill and if we are to do that, however, we might as well think about it between now and October or November—whenever the Bill moves to the other place—and deal with it in legislation, not least because the issue is hot and strong following the Simon Singh case.

The Bill has good intentions and contains some good, defensible and sensible clauses. It also probably promises more than it can deliver, particularly in relation to libel tourism. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Rotherham about its being a bad thing that people want to come to London to litigate. Nobody seemed to complain the other day when Abramovich sued Berezovsky were in this jurisdiction. That demonstrates that in the United Kingdom people can find uncorrupted judges who will deal fairly with difficult cases. If foreigners want to sue other foreigners in our courts, I see no problem with that. Before the right hon. Gentleman rises again to defame others under the cloak of absolute privilege, he might consider that if the courts find that there is no real connection between the litigants and the jurisdiction, they can strike out the claim under the Spiliada principles, with which I am sure he is familiar. They essentially mean that that court is not the appropriate forum in which to bring an action.