Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for her brief but to-the-point contribution on the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Many people throughout the country will have sympathy with it, and even if it is not added to the Bill today, they will be listening and watching for future developments.

Amendments 89 and 90 deal with an entirely different matter. As Members are aware, the Bill is wide ranging. Clause 42 was inserted during the Bill’s passage through the other place. Its effect is to remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. We could debate that for many days, and I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments, which were well made in the other place, but it is perhaps worth noting that, notwithstanding the Government’s indication that they did not support the amendment in the other place, it was agreed to on a Division by 150 votes to only 54. I think it is fair to say that there was overwhelming support for the removal of the word.

The very minor amendments that I am proposing would bring the wording of the offences set out in sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act in line with section 5. Those amendments are in line with the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in its report issued in October 2011:

“We also support the amendment of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all reference to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. This would enhance human rights and remove a possible incompatibility with the right to freedom of expression.”

I stress that the report states, “remove all reference” to offences based on the use of insulting words or behaviour, not just the reference in section 5 of the Public Order Act. I entirely accept that most of the publicity and the campaign on the offence of using insulting words or behaviour centred on the need to reform section 5, but if, as the other place has voted, and as the Government have accepted, it is deemed sensible and appropriate to amend section 5, it must follow that the phrase, “insulting words or behaviour”, should be removed from other provisions in the 1986 Act that make an identical reference.

Section 4 of the 1986 Act deals with the fear or provocation of violence and states that someone

“is guilty of an offence if he…uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or…distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.”

Section 4A, which deals with intentional harassment, alarm or distress, states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he…uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or…displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.”

If my amendments are accepted, the offences would remain completely unchanged, apart from the fact that the word “insulting” would be removed. If those offences are allowed to remain on the statute book unamended there is a serious danger that people who would have been charged under section 5 will simply be charged under section 4 or section 4A, and all the campaigners who have been celebrating the insertion of clause 42 and the removal of “insulting words or behaviour” from section 5 will be disappointed.

A leading campaigner for the removal of the word “insulting” from section 5 is Mr Peter Tatchell. I suspect that I may disagree with him on other issues, but I hope he will not mind my praying in aid of my argument words of his that appeared on The Huffington Post website in January 2012:

“Section 4A of the Public Order Act is sufficient to cover any exceptional circumstances requiring prosecution, although its criminalisation of mere insults should also be repealed”.

It is obvious that Mr Tatchell has looked at this whole field and recognised that there is a need wider than just amending section 5—that it is necessary to amend other provisions in the Public Order Act.

Our country rightly values and defends the right of individuals to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is wholly wrong to retain any reference to the term “insulting” in any criminal offences on our statute book. The people of this country are fed up with political correctness. If the House supports these minor amendments, it would be one small step towards restoring the public’s faith in this House and in our country as a place where the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression are cherished.

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

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

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

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

[Mr Burrowes]

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

[Stella Creasy]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I will talk mainly about drug-driving because that has been the largest part of our debate, but I will pick up on the points that have been made in relation to other amendments.

On drug-driving, it is important that we consider carefully any extra burdens that we place on the police, the Crown prosecutors and the Courts Service when introducing a new offence. The Government published an impact assessment in May last year that considered those issues. It shows that removing the requirement to prove that a driver is impaired will make it easier to enforce the law against drug-drivers.

In 2010, about 40% of the proceedings in magistrates courts for driving while impaired through drugs were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for exceeding the drink-drive limit is just 3%. In addition, research for Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug-driving law found that in one police force, only 35% of positive preliminary impairment tests led to findings of guilt at court in 2008 and 2009. It is clear, therefore, that the existing law on drug-driving is unsatisfactory, resulting in costs being incurred unnecessarily by the police, the CPS and the courts.

The new offence will reduce the wasted time, expense and effort involved when prosecutions under the existing impairment offence fail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new offence is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO has been fully involved in the development of the proposal and is fully aware of the resource implications for the police.

Depending on the level at which specified limits are set and on the drugs specified for the offence, it is possible that introducing the new offence, which does not require proof of impairment, will increase the number of proceedings against drug-drivers. However, based on the Government’s estimates, those costs will be more than offset by savings from fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Indeed, the impact assessment published in May 2012 records an overall net saving of some £86 million over a 10-year period.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is still work to be done and that getting the technical details right is difficult and important. Although she said that this work is being done at the last moment, we do not envisage the offence coming into effect until the later part of next year, so there is time to get the details right. The Department for Transport and, where relevant, the Home Office will be concerned to ensure that the details are in place.

The hon. Lady asked about police equipment and training to support the enforcement of the new offence. Equipment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We have already granted type approval for the first station-based drug screening device for use in enforcing the existing impairment offence. We are also committed to type approving roadside devices for use in enforcing the new offence. Work on that will be taken forward once we have determined the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the specified limit for each drug. Our aim is to have approved roadside devices available as soon as practicable after the commencement of the new offence. As hon. Members will know, training on the use of new equipment is an operational matter for chief officers in consultation with roadside drug-testing device manufacturers. I acknowledge the validity of the observation made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the Government do not have the answers to every question, but I hope that I can reassure the House that the work is ongoing.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister respond to the question that I asked him about the expert panel, which has set out a series of substances that should be tested for? Will the Government accept its recommendations in full and ensure that every police force can test for all the substances that it has outlined?

[Mr Browne]

No final decision has been made on the precise list of what will be tested for. We are grateful for the contributions and representations that have been made, and when we are in a position to provide the details we will do so. We obviously want to ensure that a wide range of drugs whose consumption could lead to increased risk on our roads are covered, but the line will need to be drawn somewhere and there will be practical considerations to take into account. We will obviously want to ensure that we inform everybody once the deliberations have run their course.

On new clause 18 and amendment 120, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has explained that he is concerned about the penalty regimes for drink and drug-driving. That is the issue that has exercised people the most, so I think it will be helpful if I dwell on it for a while. The new drug-driving offence created in clause 41 will be subject to the same penalty regime as the existing drink-driving offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The penalties available are mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, and a fine of up to £5,000, and/or imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, there is the offence in section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that a person’s driving was careless to secure a conviction for that offence.

Section 3ZB of the 1988 Act makes it a criminal offence to cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Amendment 120 would amend that section to include people who were driving with a specified controlled drug in their body in excess of a specified limit. Importantly for my hon. Friend, carelessness does not have to be proved to secure a conviction under that section. I know that he is concerned that requiring the prosecution to prove carelessness puts too great a burden on it, but the Government are not aware of any recent cases in which that has proved problematic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point.

The test for carelessness is broad, and CPS guidance suggests that a wide variety of circumstances should be considered as carelessness. Indeed, in the case of Lillian Groves, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—although he is in another debate now, he has been extremely vigilant in pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents—the driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving. It therefore seems likely that if the new offence had been in force when the tragedy took place, the defendant would have been tried under the section 3A offence, provided that the prosecution could also show that he had a specified controlled drug in his body in excess of the specified limit.

However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or interested groups can provide evidence that prosecutors are failing to prosecute drivers for the section 3A offence because they cannot show that the driver was careless, the Department for Transport has undertaken to review the case for amending legislation. The changes in the Bill will make a difference, but the carelessness provision already stands and we have no reason to believe that it will prevent prosecutions, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow suggested. However, if evidence of that is brought to our attention we will of course consider it properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also proposed new clause 18 that would increase the maximum sentence for the prescribed limit drink-driving offence to two years’ imprisonment. The United Kingdom already has the toughest drink-driving penalties in Europe. Sir Peter North’s 2010 review of drink and drug-driving law examined the penalty regime and did not identify any evidence that would support that increase in the maximum sentence. The Government are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light since the North report was published.

The Government consider that the existing offence framework is sufficient and appropriate, and ensures that those who ought not to be on the roads are removed from them. Where more serious offences are committed—such as where others are hurt or killed—other relevant offences could be pursued. I do not want to suggest in any way that the Government are complacent about or insufficiently vigilant in the face of such matters. We want to make our roads as safe as possible, but it is worth noting that Britain has some of the safest roads anywhere in Europe and the western world. That is due to responsible social attitudes but also the fact that the legal framework in place has been shown to be effective. I understand, however, why people involved in each individual case and each individual tragedy would feel strongly about these matters.

Amendments 89 and 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) bring me to the subject of public order offences. I suggest that the amendments would limit the police’s ability to deal with those who can be shown to be intentionally provoking violence, causing others to fear violence, or causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. They would do that by removing the word “insulting” from the offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

My hon. Friend may see the amendments as a helpful intervention to bring those sections of the 1986 Act into line with the amendment to section 5 of that Act set out in clause 42, but that would be a mistake as it would ignore the thorough consideration, consultation and debate undertaken by the Government, both here and in the other place, before agreeing to reform section 5. It would also ignore the significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious offences described in sections 4 and 4A. This is not just a tidying-up exercise; sections 4 and 4A are materially different from section 5. Offences under sections 4 and 4A require proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that harassment, alarm or distress was both intended and actually caused to another person. The intent and harm caused are the differentiating features of those offences, rather than the likely effect of the words used or behaviour involved.

Using insulting words that cause someone to fear violence against them, or that have the deliberate intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, is a far more serious matter than the section 5 offence in which the perpetrator might not intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and indeed none might have been caused. In the Government’s view, using insulting words or behaviour in the context of sections 4 or 4A oversteps the line between freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to live in peace and safety. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government believe it right to draw it between sections 4A and 5.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in clause 42, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups. The reasoning behind that was that the police have more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it seems perverse to remove the protections for minorities provided by the “insulting” limb in sections 4 and 4A.

In summary, for reasons that I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House, the Government are not persuaded of the case for making the same change to section 4 and 4A offences that clause 42 makes to the section 5 offence.

Finally, I ought to speak briefly to the single Government amendment in this group, amendment 84, which provides for the enhanced householder defence provisions in clause 30 to come into force on Royal Assent. Clause 30 is designed to give householders greater latitude to protect themselves in those terrifying circumstances when they are confronted by intruders in their homes. We recognise that it is unusual, although not unprecedented, to commence provisions of this nature on Royal Assent. We would usually allow a gap of at least two months between Royal Assent and commencement, to allow the enforcement agencies time to prepare. However, in this case we are anxious to avoid any unnecessary delay in delivering a coalition commitment and, more important, a tangible enhancement of the protection that householders have to defend themselves. The Government have discussed the amendment with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which are content with clause 30 being commenced on Royal Assent. We think the public would find it difficult to understand why commencement had been delayed beyond Royal Assent, particularly if a householder was attacked by an intruder in the intervening period while acting to protect themselves or family members, but could not rely on the heightened householder defence.

For all the reasons I have set out, I would invite Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Bury North not to press their amendments. I recognise that I cannot provide the House with all the practical details of the methods that police forces will use to test for drug-driving, but we are at the broad legislative phase, not the practical implementation phase. I can assure the House that we will no doubt discuss such practical considerations in due course, but they are not necessary to approve the proposed legislation before us.

[Stella Creasy]

Given the Minister’s open, earnest and welcome admission that he cannot answer the questions raised today and that the spirit of our amendment 2 is precisely to get at that information, will he tell the House when we will have that information about the implementation of the offence and the ability of our police forces and courts to deal with it? After all, our amendment calls for information one year after the introduction of the offence, which seems a reasonable amount of time to expect police forces to deal with it, so can he explicitly set out for the House when he expects to report back on these issues?

[Mr Browne]

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

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

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