Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill
Public Bill Committee, 12 July 2011.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements for the Committee. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Please will all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and other devices are turned off or switched to silent mode during our sittings?
As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairs do not intend to call starred amendments, which have not been tabled with adequate notice. The required notice period in Public Bill Committees is three working days. Therefore, amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on a Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on a Tuesday.
Not everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might help everyone if I briefly explain how we will proceed. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. Debate on that is limited to half an hour. The Government have tabled an amendment to the motion. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence and then to a motion, which I hope we can take formally, to commit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions.
Assuming that the second motion is agreed to, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room, and our oral evidence session will begin. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, we will start to hear oral evidence this morning.
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 am on Tuesday 12 July) meet—
(a) at 4.00 pm on Tuesday 12 July;
(b) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 14 July;
(c) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 19 July;
(d) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 6 September;
(e) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 8 September;
(f) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 13 September;
(g) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 15 September;
(h) at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm on Tuesday 11 October;
(i) at 9.00 am and 1.00 pm on Thursday 13 October;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
With this we may discuss the amendment,
‘(a) in the fourth entry for Tuesday 12 July, in the third column, leave out ‘Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges’;
(b) in the fifth entry for Thursday 14 July, in the third column, after ‘Children’s Commissioner’ insert ‘for England’.
Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for that introduction. I and my colleagues are looking forward to serving under your chairmanship over the coming weeks. The dates are set out in the motion. There will be 18 sittings over nine days, including four sittings to hear evidence. We think that that is adequate time for consideration of the Bill. We have invited a broad range of witnesses and taken some helpful suggestions from the Opposition about them, and we look forward to hearing from them over the coming days. We propose to consider the Bill in order, with schedules taken with relevant clauses. We propose to debate any new clauses and schedules when we get to the end of each part of the Bill.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hollobone?
The Opposition have already made it clear to the Government that we think that the timetable for the Bill’s Committee stage is not adequate, and that at least one extra day is needed for taking evidence. The fact that the Minister has to amend the timetable for evidence, because one of the important witnesses, the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges, cannot come at that time, is evident of the rushed nature of the proceedings. That began by not allowing adequate time between the publication of the Bill and the debate on Second Reading, and it is continuing now. We have already made it clear that we think there should be more days for line-by-line consideration of the Bill extending further into October. We will oppose the programme motion this morning
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I also look forward to serving under your chairmanship today and throughout the course of the Bill in Committee, Mr Hollobone.
I will be brief because there is an irony in taking a long time to debate the programme motion—it takes time from witnesses. However, this is a very important point. It particularly refers to the two days of witness evidence. In a way, it is a tribute Clerks’ work in accommodating almost all the 35-odd witnesses who have been suggested by the Government and the Opposition. The consequence of that is that there is such a short time to deal with each witness that their evidence becomes, not irrelevant, but so severely curtailed as not to give fair representation of their views.
Let me consider two examples of that. Today, we have one hour to hear from the Law Society, the Bar Council and two other very important witnesses in one session. The Law Society and the Bar Council alone no doubt have comments to make about all the different aspects. This is a Christmas tree Bill, which has many important and differing parts to it. On Thursday 14 July, we will take, in the course of four to five minutes, evidence from Shelter, Citizens Advice, the Law Centres Federation, the Advice Services Alliance and R3, which has a particular brief on insolvency. How on earth can the Committee, with the number of Members it has, adequately question those witnesses in that time? We made a very reasonable request for a third day of evidence, which, at least, would have given the expanded time to do that. We have not been granted that.
We also asked for a modest four additional days for consideration, clause by clause, of the Bill. Let me specifically comment on the evidence today. The oral evidence sessions will not be adequate to the task. It is a subversion of the purpose of those sessions, which is to allow adequate time for these very important witnesses to give evidence. We will oppose the programme motion on the clear basis that we wish to see one additional day’s evidence.
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hollobone.
I wonder whether I could give a little reassurance to the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The Justice Committee has looked in great detail at the Government’s legal aid proposals—considerable detail over many weeks and many thousands of words of evidence. The Government have made some key changes in response to their consultation, but the great bulk of proposals is as presented to the Justice Committee, and we investigated them at considerable length.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen reader of the Justice Committee’s official journal, but if he were to reacquaint himself with it, he would find ample time given to the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Family Law Bar Association, and a whole series of other organisations that gave evidence in detail. He could inform himself thereby. This afternoon’s evidence session is perfectly adequate for looking at the Government’s changes to the existing proposals.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
Adverting to what the hon. Member for Ipswich just said, I am also a member of the Justice Committee. We do not have a monopoly on wisdom. If it means anything at all, this process means starting again. We cannot dictate to a Standing Committee what should be changed in the law. It seems to me the whole purpose of today is to ask experts in the field to give their opinion of a very important measure. I do not know how the three esteemed bodies are going to do it in half an hour each. It is almost offensive to them. We are just going through the motions and that is not good enough.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I am a bit worried about the way the debate has gone. It seemed from the contribution of the hon. Member for Ipswich that he had come here with a predetermined view of the Bill. It is a Bill Committee’s job to scrutinise Bills line by line and make recommendations and decisions. It is not the job of the hon. Member for Ipswich to come to a Committee with a predetermined view.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Likewise, I find it a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Hollobone.
I support the comments of colleagues who have spoken for more time. I want to add that, in my previous experience of sitting on a Public Bill Committee, we had the opportunity to question the Secretary of State in an evidence session. I am surprised and disappointed to discover that the Committee is not being offered the opportunity to meet the Lord Chancellor. It is a further gap in our gathering of the evidence.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship and look forward to doing so into the autumn, Mr Hollobone.
I am rather surprised to be lectured on programme motions by the Opposition, and from someone who, in the previous Parliament, was in a Government who abused the guillotine to such an extent. I remember sitting in this very room waiting for some evidence from a former director of MI5 that was blocked by the previous Government in case she said something that they did not like. “Pot” and “kettle black” comes to mind.
The Opposition are asking us to reconsider the programme motion when, so far, the Opposition have not tabled a single amendment to the Bill. How can we disagree with a programme motion when we do not know what the Opposition are going to put forward to amend the Bill? So far, their ideas—like their policy—are completely blank on this Bill. They are asking us to vote against a programme motion just because they do not like it, but there is a deafening silence on any alternatives to the Bill.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Copies of memoranda that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Examination of Witnesses
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
I welcome members of the public back to the room. I am sorry for the temporary inconvenience of having to step outside. I also welcome our witnesses to the floor. We will now as a Committee hear oral evidence from the following groups: the Criminal Justice Alliance, the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform, from which we have two representatives. For the record, could I please ask our witnesses to introduce themselves to the Committee in a big, loud, crisp voice, so that the Hansard reporters can pick it up?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I should remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has just agreed. I hope that I do not have to interrupt mid-sentence, but I will do so if need be. Would any of the witnesses like to make a brief opening statement—it is not compulsory, but you are welcome to do so.
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
I am learning the procedure as I go. Probation trusts across the country are facing severe cuts. Is there capacity within the service—in youth offending teams, for example—to manage the Bill’s aspirations for greater community sentencing, and what are the implications for public and victim safety?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
So you think that there is a possibility for reinvestment? It seems to be about a cuts agenda, rather than a reinvestment agenda.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
This session finishes in 35 minutes. The following people have caught my eye and will go in this order: Elizabeth Truss, Andy Slaughter, Robert Buckland, Dave Watts, Kate Green, Elfyn Llwyd. You know the time; let us try to make sure that everyone gets in.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
You talked about reducing costs outside the criminal justice system, but surely there is a lot of cost just in the process of the system? Could you identify any savings that could be made in the National Offender Management Service and its structure and in the cost per prison place, where savings appear to have been made by contracting out prisons? So could you identify savings in the cost per place and the structure of NOMS that could contribute to reinvestment in the justice system?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Is it not the case that the cost per prison place is very high in Britain compared with other countries?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
May I go back to finance? What you describe is a virtuous circle whereby the money saved from prison places is invested in community punishments, which in turn may prevent reoffending, which in turn may save money. There are some signs that that has been happening in youth offending, with places being taken out. What I suggest, and I ask you to comment on, is that this Bill is a vicious circle downwards, because the money is simply being taken out of the system. We have cuts of up to 10% in probation services and average cuts of 18% in youth offending teams this year. Do you not think that those services are being set up to fail? New responsibilities are being put on those bodies by the Bill, but they will have many fewer resources to deal with them?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Perhaps others wish to comment on this as well. Let us say those savings are made and are going to the Treasury. What then happens? There are very high levels of cuts, particularly in youth offending teams; what do you think the consequences will be in terms of rehabilitation on the ability of those services to deal with their current work load or an additional work load? There are no extra resources being put in.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I could go on if you are happy for me to do so, Mr Hollobone, but I can come back at the end if others want to ask questions.
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I think we all agree that the lack of opportunity for prisoners to use their term in custody productively has been a real problem. Does the panel welcome the proposed implementation of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996? If so, can it help to shed light on why we have had to wait 15 years for that implementation?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
I was very interested in what Frances Crook had to say about the necessity for legislation. As somebody who likes to hesitate before new legislation, I am in sympathy with her. Can the point not be made, however, that in terms of the hypothecation of the earnings, because some of the earnings will be transferred, hopefully, to the victims of crime, some provision has to be made via amendments to the prison rules, which necessitates some legislation in the Bill?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
We have 20 minutes left of our session with you. Your evidence is generating interest, as it always does. We now have six Members lined up to ask questions in the following order: Dave Watts, Kate Green, Elfyn Llwyd, Ben Wallace, Helen Goodman and Damian Hinds. I am going to ask each Member to ask one question and that way I think we will get everyone in. Your answers are very interesting. Please can we keep them crisper and shorter so that we get all your evidence on the record.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
You seem to be very much in favour of the Government’s proposals provided that the resources are made available to make them work; the increase in youth offending teams, probation and the workplace element of the proposals. What will the effect be if those resources are not made available and you try to pursue the policy without sufficient resources in youth offending teams, probation and in the work environment?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
In your view, does the Bill sufficiently recognise the special needs and circumstances of women in the whole criminal justice system, both pre and post-trial?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
The Bill requires justices of the peace to decide whether there is “any real prospect” of a custodial sentence being imposed, but at the very beginning of the case when they decide on bail. How do you think the outcome of a case can be predicted right from the very start in that way? Do you believe that the provisions as drafted provide sufficient protection for victims?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Let me move on to indeterminate public protection sentences. Could you give us your view, because it is slightly elephant in the room when you are talking about cost and waste. Locking up 6,000 people, 3,500 of whom have already served their tariff and are lolling around in their cells, is a vast waste of money, even if that money could have been used to re-educate them or do something else and be cut from rehabilitation. What is your impression of the IPP policy as it stands now?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
We have 10 minutes left and one question each from the following three Members: Helen Goodman, Damian Hinds and Yvonne Fovargue.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Mandatory minimum custodial sentences are quite controversial and I would like to ask the witnesses what their impact is, whether they think they are an effective deterrent and in particular, what they think of the late addition to the Bill, the new knife crime provisions proposed by the Government?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
I would like to come back to Mr Buckland’s line of questioning to Frances Crook about the clauses relating to the Prisoners’ Earnings Act. I think you said that those clauses were not necessary to make further progress in this area, both in relation to work itself and also to victim support contributions and to the opening of a savings account, which would include payroll deduction provisions and contingent access to funds. Are you sure that it is possible to do that without a change in the law, particularly the contingent access to funds? If these clauses are not necessary to make further progress, why has more progress not been made, particularly with finding more partners with higher value work that would enable these sorts of deductions and contributions to be made?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
Are you saying that payroll deductions to open a savings account with contingent access to those funds, which at the very least would only be on release, could be done without legislation?
Yvonne Fovargue (Labour, Makerfield)
Social welfare law is being removed from scope at precisely the same time as one of the hugest upheavals in the benefit system, with the introduction of universal credit. What do you believe will be the impact on community cohesion and crime levels?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
I suspect that this will be the last question.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I would just like clarification from Frances Crook on prisoner earnings. When you said you set up a business, if I heard you right you talked about it being voluntary. It was a voluntary relationship between the prisoners and the Prison Service to deliver that business. Is that correct? There was no compulsion on the prisoners to do it.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I was not asking about compelling them to work, but about earnings—taking some of their earnings and using them for something else; what if they opposed that? That would be the change in the law that would seem to be required.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Payment by results is the only way it is suggested new resources will go in. Are you concerned that that is the only way, and it may skew what alternatives to custody may be available?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. In accordance with the programme motion, which the Committee agreed, that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of our witnesses in the session. Thank you all very much for coming along this morning, giving up your time and giving evidence. We will now hear evidence from the National Association of Probation Officers and the Prison Officers Association.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
On a point of order, Mr Hollobone. I note Mr Wallace asked questions about IPPs, which are not in the Bill. Given the constraint we have on time is it permissible to ask about things that are not in the Bill?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. There was another question from a Labour Member that was also slightly wide of the mark, but I used my discretion as Chairman to allow both to take place. However, his advice to the Chair is well meant and well put and if we can keep to the terms of the Bill that would maximise the effectiveness of the time deployed.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Further to that point of order, Mr Hollobone. On the question that I raised on IPP, first, it is in the sentencing Bill and I appreciate your discretion. Secondly, the witnesses who gave evidence this morning included IPPs when they made submissions to the Green Paper and in public. As it was the final opportunity to ask for their view of an IPP, and as the Government have openly said that measures on IPP may come forward at some stage in the course of the Bill, I thought it was correct to do so.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
I thank Mr Wallace for that point of order and his remarks are on the record.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
We will now hear evidence from the National Association of Probation Officers and the Prison Officers Association. For the record, please would you be kind enough to introduce yourselves to the Committee? If either or both of you would like to make a short statement to the Committee, you are invited to do so.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
May I ask for indications of which Members would like to speak? At the moment I have Helen Goodman, Andy Slaughter, Dave Watts, Yvonne Fovargue, Elfyn Llwyd, Alex Cunningham and Mike Crockart. Going from Opposition to Government, I will take Mike Crockart second, then the running order as I have described. This session ends at 12 o’ clock.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
One of the Government’s main objectives is to increase significantly the number of prisoners who work while in prison. At the moment a minority of prisoners work for around 20 hours a week. The Government’s proposal is to get almost all prisoners working 40 hours a week. It would help the Committee if we understood the implications of that for running the prisons, particularly from Mr Gillan. What sort of staff oversight would this entail? What other investment might be needed? Could he tell us something about the practicalities of this?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Could you explain what the “core day” is to the Committee?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
If 40 hours was achieved, could you explain in more detail what sort of impact it would have on staff—for example, would it mean employing more people or longer hours?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Could you say something about what the change in the prisoner’s core day has been over the last 10 years?
Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. My question relates to implementing the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996. We have heard evidence this morning that there is a feeling that prisons are not equipped to employ people meaningfully. Do you agree with that, and if so, what can be done to achieve such employment?
Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
The point that previous witnesses in the evidence session made was that it need not necessarily be the type of work you are talking about—the workshops that are already there. If we are talking about external companies coming in and setting up a business within a prison, then surely it would be up to them to set up the infrastructure to allow those prisoners to do the meaningful work. Is that not a better way forward?
Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
You major on the word “meaningful”— that it has to be meaningful work—and then give the example of putting knives and forks together. Plenty of people outside prison are doing that type of work and regard it as meaningful because of what it achieves for them. Surely that is what we are trying to get for the prisoners. That sense of meaningful work is in supporting their families and giving something back to society.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
In so far as there will be any new resources for dealing with rehabilitation, and particularly if there will be enhanced community punishments, they will come through payment by results alone. Does that cause you any concerns, and how do you see that working?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I do not know whether you have had a chance to look at the Civitas report that came out this week. It seemed to say that rehabilitation as it is envisaged in the Bill would not work for repeat offenders, and that not enough consideration could be given. From your own experience—particularly Mr Ledger—do you feel that that is the case?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
The Civitas report commented on rehabilitation as the Government envisage it at the moment, and stated that Civitas was not persuaded that it would work in the case of persistent repeat offenders. Do you think that more needs to be done to deal with that problem?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I could ask about resources but I think my colleague is going to ask about that. I will stop there.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
A lot of your colleagues are lined up to make contributions, starting with Mr Watts.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
We heard earlier from witnesses that they are keen on the strategy and they believe that the resources should be transferred to the community programmes that are an alternative to a prison sentence. Given that you said that you seem to need more space and more resources, what will the impact be if there are cuts in the overall budget, then further cuts from your budgets to pay for improved services in the probation service, drink prevention and all the other things? What practical impact will that have on prisons?
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
Is it your view that there is no scope for transferring resources away from the Prison Service itself? You would need to have the same resources that are there if you wanted to do things like the Work programme and more work in prisons. It seems to me—I do not know about other members of the Committee—that there is a contradiction here. There seems to be the easy hit. First, the Treasury takes a lump sum out of the system, then we transfer some into preventive services in probation and youth offending and that comes from your budget when you are saying that there is not that scope.
Yvonne Fovargue (Labour, Makerfield)
I should like to move on to the duty to explain sentences. Do you feel that there are some offenders who do not understand the sentences? What resources do you think you need to be able to explain that fully to them?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Mr Gillan, you believe that the prison population is going to increase and therefore this Bill will not affect that increase. Is that right?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Would you support the notion put by some authorities that it is time to have a full audit of everybody currently in prison; to look at those with mental health problems, or drug problems and so on, who are not a danger to society and consider whether they should actually be in prison?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
Mr Gillan talker earlier of the need not to rob Peter to pay Paul, but what we actually have is both Peter and Paul being robbed to pay the Treasury. Your organisation has campaigned hard against cuts in prison, probation, the youth offending service and others, so is it actually realistic for the Government to have this aspiration for greater community sentences when there is such a cuts environment?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
What about the victims? There are issues about what this means for victims of crime and our communities.
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
So the Bill, with its cuts and everything else, is actually putting our communities and victims at further risk?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Perhaps one of the ways you could free up some money is that there are 3,400 prisoners who have completed their tariff but are serving indeterminate public protection sentences. We spend roughly £120 million a year on their custody. Would you agree that getting to grips with that backlog and finding them an appropriate setting—whether that is under the aegis of the probation service or not—would perhaps be a good way of finding alternative funding?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Steve Gillan mentioned the importance of multi-agency working, a point also made by Juliet Lyon in the previous evidence session. Do you think we should have a stronger duty to co-operate between the Prison Service and the probation service, and also with other services in the community—local authorities, housing associations, maybe health authorities—so that people do not fall through the cracks?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
The Bill seems to give quite a lot of new responsibilities to prison officers and the probation service. There are quite complex changes to sentencing, which you will have to understand and explain. You may want to correct us on this, but we have been told that the cuts will mean 10,000 prison officers having to leave over time and up to 10% cuts in probation services this year, by region. Have you experienced that level of cuts before, and what difference do you think that will make to the service that you can provide?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Gillan, but under the terms of the programme motion, I have to bring this particular session to an end. I thank you and Mr Ledger for your time this morning and for giving evidence to the Committee.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
I welcome our witnesses to the Committee and ask them to introduce themselves. If you would like to make a brief statement to the Committee, you are invited to do so.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
To follow that point, and the increasing emphasis that the Bill will place on strong community penalties, do you consider that the probation service will be adequately resourced and equipped to supervise those offenders who will now serve sentences in the community and will therefore be more in the face of their victims?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
Following on from Kate’s questioning, when there are custodial sentences, what polling or other evidence do you have from victims about what they think prisoners should be doing in prison—whether work, rehab or education—and what type of work? Within work, we have talked a lot about making deductions to help to fund Victim Support charities and create a savings gain, but what do you think is an appropriate proportion of prisoner earnings to be deducted to aid Victim Support?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
What do victims think about the concept of work in prison being optional or voluntary?
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
We heard this morning from prisoners’ associations about the difficulties of the present bail system and about the court system. From the victims’ point of view, one of the things that I have heard—I would be interested to hear your views—is that many people complain about the repeat offences committed by people on bail. Many complain that, once people are bailed, they fail to turn up for the next court session. What are the views of victims about the proposals, if it seems that we are going to have more of that?
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
If there were further cuts in youth offender and probation teams, would victims be less happy—more unhappy—about the proposals?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
I want to look at the proposals to alter the duty on the court to explain the effect of sentence. I do not know whether you would agree with this proposition, but over the past few years, because of the amount of changes, judges have had to undertake some sort of steeplechase to try to explain sentences, which have become more and more enshrined in jargon. Do you now welcome the re-emphasis in the proposed new provisions to explain things in ordinary language? Not only would that assist those in court, but it could assist in translating that message to victims who, very often, will not be there to hear sentence.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
We have nine minutes left and five speakers have caught my eye; Helen Goodman, Elizabeth Truss, Elfyn Llwyd, Alex Cunningham and Andy Slaughter.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
On suspended sentences, you said that it could appear as no punishment, a kind of bind-over. Are you advocating, in essence, suspended sentences plus?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Have you thought any more about it?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
When people breach suspended sentence orders, both of you expressed some doubt about simply imposing a fine. Have you any information on who would benefit from the proposals that the Government are making?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
But what kind of offender?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I completely agree with your comment earlier that there is an issue about the culture and organisation of resources in the prison and probation service rather than about the pure cost, and we have one of the most expensive justice systems in the world per head. I support the vision of the National Offender Management Service system as it was created, but how can that be put into practice when the Bill is implemented to created a much more seamless prison and probation operation rather than the very different cultures that we have at the moment?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
May I go back to what Ms Gimson said about explaining sentences? The duty in the Bill is to use ordinary language, which may be a tall order for some senior judges. I put it to a senior judge in the Select Committee on Justice recently that it would be a good thing if the Crown court associates or the magistrates clerk, who sit in court, were to take down a note of the salient points of the sentence and then communicate that directly to the victim. I think that that would be straightforward and simple, but I was told they were too busy. I am sorry, because it is a long-standing problem and that seems to be the simple answer. What do you think?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
May I turn briefly to parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, which are also about victims, in their own way? They are about the victims of tortfeasors or about people who are trying to get compensation; for example, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cases would be removed from the scope of legal aid, and if victims were suing under the new conditional fee arrangement system, there is the possibility that 25% of their damages would go to paying their lawyer’s fees. Have you looked at those, and do you have any concerns about the changes?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I think that it would be interesting, particularly on Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cases no longer being eligible for legal assistance in relation to legal aid, as we understand it.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Will it be more difficult for victims if they cannot get legal assistance or assistance generally to help them?
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt one of our witnesses. I thank you both for giving your time this morning and giving evidence to the Committee. We now come to the session where we hear evidence from the Magistrates’ Association.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
I thank our witnesses from the Magistrates Association for coming before us this morning. May I invite you both to introduce yourselves to the Committee? If you would like to make a brief introductory statement, that would be most welcome.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Mr Thornhill, you have highlighted the concerns about the changes in bail. Can you tell us a bit more about your concerns in that regard?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
In other words, it is not simply about whether there is a custodial sentence on the horizon; it is to do with, among other things, the possibility of an interference with the judicial process.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
Can I ask you about the penalty notices and penalty notices for disorder? Are they an effective way to deal with problem? It seems to me that, first, people with money would be able to pay a quick fine and not be held accountable for the crime or the offence they have committed, and, secondly, on the opposite side, there will be people on such low incomes that the level of payment would be set so low that it would not deter them. Whichever way you look at it, it seems that the Bill will make it even more difficult for people to see justice being done.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
Is there not a likelihood that the chief constables will want to use the sanctions to avoid so-called bureaucracy and paperwork? You may well have them used for inappropriate offences in future.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
I declare an interest as a life member of the Magistrates’ Association. I want to ask about the proposals in the Bill on knife crime, and whether you have any views on the extent to which that might start to limit judicial discretion.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
To what degree have you felt an insufficiency in your sentencing powers in relation to this matter, up to now?
Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We heard from the victims commissioner that there are real concerns about the extension of powers to suspend custodial sentences of up to two years. Do you think that you will use these new powers more, and what effect do you think that would have?
Michael Crockart (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Does that indicate that you feel that there is something missing from your toolbox—something that stands between restorative justice in the community and a suspended sentence? Is there something missing?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
I want to come back to what you were saying earlier, Mr Thornhill, about out of court disposals, to see whether I really understood. Were you saying that, particularly with fixed penalties, one problem is that they are not recorded properly and that no proper track is kept of them?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Could you say how you think that they should be recorded?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
It is not just a question of keeping a private record, it is also a question of publishing the record?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
You also said that you valued section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Could you say a little more about that?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You said that you do not believe that withdrawal of the 12 month sentence for a single offence is to do with custody plus and that it was a stand-alone provision. Do you know why it is going to be withdrawn? Do you still not have the power to sentence for 12 months consecutively on different offences?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
It cannot therefore be about your overall sentencing powers. Do you know why the Government have taken the view to withdraw that provision?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Do you suspect it might simply be that they are worried that more people will go to prison for longer?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Indeed. The issue of remand seems quite a fundamental change to the way that the criminal justice system works. Effectively, a large body of defendants are going to come in front of you and you will, except in exceptional cases, have no ability, irrespective of whatever risks you think there are, to remand them in custody. Are magistrates very concerned about this? Do they see it as a limitation on their authority and discretion?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Yes.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
There is an extension of fixed penalties. Do you have any concern about the type of offences that fixed penalties will be used for? Secondly, you have talked about public justice. Are you concerned that it will take matters away from judicial bodies and towards administrative bodies? Thirdly, you have talked about a postcode lottery. Is that because you cannot, as you can with magistrate sentencing, make comparisons between different police officers and different police forces?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
If we put together the restrictions on sentencing powers, remand powers and out of court disposals—I suppose you could add to that minimum sentences and, possibly, although it is not in the Bill, the attacks on your allowances—how is the magistrate profession feeling now? Profession may be the wrong word. Is there a feeling that there is a cumulative attack on the discretion and ability of magistrates to do their job?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
I know we are very short of time, but under the Government’s plans you are being encouraged to impose more community-based sentences. Will the reduction in resources for people who deal with offenders in the community affect your making such decisions? Will it deter you from imposing such sentences? Yes or no would be good, given the time.
Philip Hollobone (Conservative, Kettering)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Thornhill. Under the programme motion, I have to bring this morning’s proceedings to an end. I thank you both for coming along and giving your time and evidence to the Committee.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Welcome to the afternoon sitting of this Bill Committee. I am happy to carry on the procedure that Philip Hollobone started the day with. Rather than having brief questions, people can just catch my eye if they wish to ask a question. Is that acceptable?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
On a point of order, Mr Sheridan. I just wanted to express my surprise that the final evidence session with witnesses this afternoon is due to end at 5.40 pm. My understanding is that normally afternoon sittings on a Tuesday run until 7 o’clock. Given that we have already expressed concerns this morning about the very limited time available to take evidence from some witnesses, I am surprised that we will be finishing early this afternoon. I wonder whether that was fixed this morning.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
I imagine that it is too late at this stage to extend the hearing, but certainly that is something that we can take on board for future meetings. Unfortunately, the programme motion has been agreed, Kate, but I share your concern.
Okay, colleagues. Any other questions before we move on? Given the warm weather, please feel free to take your jackets off if you feel that that is necessary.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Thank you very much for coming along. We will now hear oral evidence from the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Family Mediation Council and Leigh Day and Co Solicitors.
For the record, would you please introduce yourselves to the Committee?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
I am having some difficulty hearing. I do not know if it is the acoustics. If witnesses can speak a bit louder in future, that would be extremely helpful.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick strictly to the timings in the programme motion, which the Committee has already agreed. I sincerely hope I do not have to interrupt people in mid-sentence but I will if need be.
Yvonne Fovargue (Labour, Makerfield)
The Bar Council has today issued a report that said the measure is do-it-yourself justice. What impact will there be on courts and the numbers of litigants in person? What about vulnerable people who cannot represent themselves?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Before calling the next Member, I believe we have been joined by the Family Mediation Council. For the record, could you introduce yourself?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
My question is to Peter Lodder primarily, but Linda may be able to help as well. I declare an interest as a criminal legal aid practitioner until the election. It has been suggested by some quarters, including the Labour party, that more savings could be made in the field of criminal legal aid. We come to the Bill after many years of retrenchment in criminal legal aid. What do you say to the proposition that more cuts can be made in that area?
Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)
I have to say to the panel that I have had longer to cross-examine witnesses on a simple road traffic offence—someone parking on the zig-zags—than I have to take evidence from you today. I will try to be quick, now I have made that point.
I have some concerns about the definition of domestic violence in the Bill. Could you help me with the impact that that will have from a practitioner’s point of view?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Sheridan.
Mr Lodder, how many barristers travel first-class on the railway?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
You have never heard of any travelling first-class and charging it to the taxpayer?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
What would you say to the suggestion that £10 million can be saved by limiting all but essential advocates’ travel to court and hotel expenses, and no longer paying for first-class travel?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
That is the suggestion of your neighbour, in her cost savings. What do you say to capping fees?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
You have just said you were united, so I just want to check the degree of union. What about capping fees at £250,000; do you support that as an idea?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
I just want to explore the Law Society’s other savings, which they have been trumpeting. As far as I can make out, about £42 million comes from the Bar, which is already under considerable pressure in criminal and family cases. Is that something that you have discussed with the Law Society?
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
That is £42 million that the Law Society proposes—
Ben Gummer (Conservative, Ipswich)
It is not. I just wanted to check what the Bar thought of your proposals to trim £42 million from their fees.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
I want to ask a question specifically of Claire Fazan from Leigh Day about the impacts that you think the reforms will have on civil litigation on cases such as Trafigura, which, very famously, your firm pursued. I wonder whether it would be helpful, for the benefit of the Committee, if you explained a little of the background to the case as well.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Is anyone else able to comment on that case, or on the impact of civil litigation generally?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I want to try and explore the effects of the impact of the success fee. On Trafigura, my understanding is that the legal costs for that case were £100 million.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I can tell you the facts, if you want, about the costs, because I would like your view on the success fee, which is relevant both to clinical negligence and other parts of the law.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
But the success fee is a more general concept; it is not just confined to clinical negligence. It is about whether you think the success fee is a principle that needs reforming, as Lord Justice Rupert Jackson’s review tried to change. The legal fees for Trafigura were £100 million; the awards were £30 million. In the Naomi Campbell case with The Mirror, her awards for damages were £3,500 and the legal fee award was £1.4 million. In both cases, the success fee made up nearly 50% of the legal costs. What is clear from the example of both cases is that the success fee, as in many other cases of success fee, is not shared with the claimant; it is shared by the lawyers to compensate them for failing cases elsewhere. That is the principle of the success fee as it was changed, the latest in 2003, to compensate them for other failing cases they might have elsewhere and to close the risk.
Karl Turner (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East)
Is there a question here?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Mr Turner, you were not here at the beginning of the sitting this morning, so if you listen you may learn something.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Ben, carry on. Try and ask a question and get an answer.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
On the success fee issue, do you think that it is okay for defendants to pay excessive fees to compensate lawyers for non-performing cases they may or may not have against other defendants?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Very briefly, Ben—and very brief answers as well.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I understand that when a defendant loses, he pays compensation. He or she pays for their failure in whatever field. I am talking about the extra bit—the success fee—where that defendant pays for some other failing case elsewhere or to compensate the lawyer for taking on cases in other fields. I understand that the people culpable should pay for the mistake they make and that they should make reparations and so on. It is the extra bit I am concerned about. One of the big law firms described it on its website this morning as a “win bonus” that went to the lawyer. I do not see why that principle is fair.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
We may return to that issue if time allows.
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
I think it is generally accepted that the Government’s proposals will reduce the scope and the number of people who will be eligible for legal aid in the future. That will leave a gap in the justice system, which the Government seem to think they can fill through mediation—at least, one of the mechanisms is mediation. First, are there enough mediators around to do this? Secondly, in your view is mediation a substitute for court action?
Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)
What will happen in cases where they have been referred for mediation and that mediation fails? How do you end the process?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I want to return to the issue of the scope of legal aid. Is it not the case that in other countries with similar legal systems, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, there are much lower costs per head of legal aid, the scope is much narrower, and the eligibility for legal aid is much lower. My understanding is that at roughly £10,000 income you do not receive legal aid in those countries. Is the British system not pretty generous in terms of the eligibility for legal aid and the scope that is being proposed under this Bill?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Could you comment on those specific countries please?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I just mentioned three that do use an adversarial system.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Excuse me, but I did not ask that question.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I did not mention France. I asked you specifically about the income eligibility in New Zealand and Canada. Could you answer that question?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Can you tell me what the income threshold is in those countries?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
May I put it to you that the Law Society has not actually studied those systems and how they work?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
Do you know the income threshold for British Columbia?
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I have looked at the Canadian system and I believe that most of the provinces in Canada have an income threshold of about £10,000 a head.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
When you look at the British system, where you can get legal aid on incomes up to about £30,000, you see there is a vast difference.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
It seems to me that I have put figures to you and you have not put alternative figures for those other countries.
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
But you will provide the figures.
Elizabeth Truss (Conservative, South West Norfolk)
I would expect, given that those countries are the closest comparators to the British system, that you would have the figures.
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
I think that we might need some mediation in this Committee before long.
Can I take the witnesses back to clinical negligence, which I am interested in? I declare an interest having practised in family and criminal law for many years, both as a solicitor and a member of the Bar. In particular, I am interested in the removal of a civil aid certificate where clinical negligence has occurred in very serious cases. I know that the Government have rowed back slightly and said that there will be some cover for initial medical reports, which I appreciate are crucial. Overall, what is your view on that? I am asking Ms Fazan to begin with.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I think you said earlier that early disclosure—early sharing—is very important in clinical negligence cases. Would you be supportive of the NHS Litigation Authority being compelled to share reports, etc., much earlier in cases where one could try and resolve things before getting to court or further down the line?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
My first question is to Linda Lee, although the others may want to answer. We consider the Bill, particularly the parts on legal aid, to be essentially a cost-cutting measure without a view to the social costs or access to justice. I think I am right in saying that the Law Society said in evidence that it believes that the cost to the public purse will be higher—in other words, there will be increased costs. Can you explain that?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
May I pursue a point with Deborah Turner? I think that all parties would agree that mediation if possible is better than an adversarial solution. However, in looking at these proposals and the costs involved, do you feel, first, that there are an adequate number of properly trained mediators? Secondly, in dealing with all situations without the back-up of litigation, including where there is an inequality between the parties, do you feel that you might be being set up to fail because so much is being put on to mediators to resolve matters?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
One final question, for Claire Fazan principally, about what the landscape is going to be in clinical negligence if all the provisions of this Bill go through. We have heard about the double whammy of removing legal aid from scope and the changes to CFAs. I do not know if you undertake both, but if you had one of the types of cases you talked to us about—for instance, parents coming to you with a catastrophically injured child—how would you advise them if the provisions of this Bill go through, and how do you think your practice will change in the light of that?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Very briefly because other people are indicating that they want to speak.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
I want to return briefly to mediation, and whether your respective organisations have any proposals for how mediation could be strengthened, enhanced or made more relevant to ensure that more people are diverted from courts, or whether you think that there is precisely the right amount of mediation now and it cannot be increased in any shape or form.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
Is that process of training barristers in mediation complete, or is that an ongoing programme whereby you are seeing more people trained in mediation and therefore they can offer more mediation than is the case currently?
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
No, I am asking you whether you have plans, as it seems the Bar Council has, to expand the level of mediation training to be able to deal with more cases through mediation.
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat, Carshalton and Wallington)
So, in your view there is no way in which more mediation could be progressive?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Order. Could I just mediate now, in the sense that we have very limited time left and we want to move on?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
I want to return to where we started in Committee, with vulnerable people. The panel of witnesses has made it very clear this afternoon that the Government’s proposals to withdraw legal aid for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people will be quite disastrous for those people, for example the mother who loses her children because she cannot afford to fight for them, or the father who cannot get access to his children for the same reason. What changes should we be making in Committee to this Bill to avoid that disaster?
Alex Cunningham (Labour, Stockton North)
A direct answer to a direct question. Thank you.
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
I want to return to international benchmarking, because it has been a very important part of the wider debate on this subject. Figures have been cited in Parliament suggesting that there is a huge gap between legal aid costs in this country and those in some other countries, including comparable countries with similar legal traditions. I know that you will probably dispute that and say that it is not a direct like-for-like comparison and so on, but even after you allow for all that, it seems that there is still quite a sizeable gap.
So my question to the panel of witnesses is, “What do you believe are the drivers of that gap?” Linda, earlier you seemed to suggest that, in the case of New Zealand, rurality and a small population were drivers of the difference. Forgive me if I say that that sounds like a counter-intuitive response, because those are usually considered drivers of higher rather than lower per capita costs. So I was wondering whether you stick by that, or whether you think that there might be other drivers in differences of costs between countries?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
If we can just stick with countries that are broadly comparable in terms of the legal traditions, so exclude France for the moment, what do you think are the key drivers of differences in per capita cost of legal aid between countries which, even after you made the adjustments you mentioned, would indicate that this country is still a particularly high-cost country per capita?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
What are the main differences?
Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)
But how much of the legal aid bill is serial killers and Moss Side?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Order. We are close to running out of time, and this issue has had a particularly good hearing. If you could provide an analysis of comparison countries—other European countries—that would be extremely helpful.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
I want to go back to the questions about private family law. I would like to ask Deborah Turner in particular a question as she briefly mentioned the fact that in cases of mediation quite frequently one party has more money than another. Do you think that withdrawing legal aid so that people come without the benefit of advice will particularly disadvantage women and children as opposed to men?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
That being the case, what would the risks be to women and children as opposed to men?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Do you think the Bill could be amended to ensure that litigants in person, in private family law cases, are not able to cross-examine either children or other adults whom they are alleged to have abused?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Order. We have now come to the end of the time allotted for this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all the witnesses for coming along. We now move on to oral evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Examination of Witness
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
May I welcome the next witness, the Director of Public Prosecutions? Just for the record, could you introduce yourself?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
At this stage, I remind colleagues of the previous comment I made about straying outside the remit of the Committee, despite what is going on outside.
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
You have taken my first six questions away, Chair, but I will persevere. Mr Starmer, clause 12 of the Bill, which was a surprise to some of us when it arrived, allows the Lord Chancellor to apply a means and merits test and possibly other tests as well to the provision of legal advice on arrest. We understand that the Minister has said that there are no plans to use that, but the fact is that the measure will be in the Bill if it is enacted. Do you have any concerns about clause 12 and the possible uses of it?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
Obviously, what is of concern to us—you might or might not want to comment on this—is that you will have situations going back to pre-PACE, less enlightened times where individuals charged with offences that are serious or at least of consequence to them will not have the benefit of legal advice on arrest. Is that something that gives you concern?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
I shall ask you another point of principle and then I will leave you to my colleagues and perhaps come back if there is time. Part 1 of the Bill deals with very significant scope changes to legal aid. The impact assessment to the Bill concedes that that will be detrimental to social cohesion and is likely to increase crime. As you probably heard in our last session, it will also mean that victims can be cross-examined by perpetrators without the benefit of representation. Have you looked at the scope changes and do you have any concerns from your point of view?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
One more question if I may. There is quite a significant increase in out-of-court disposals in the Bill. We heard interesting evidence this morning of a substantial variation between police areas as to the percentage. That can vary between 33% and 66% of criminal offences being dealt with, and at least one chief constable has said that they thought only 20% of offences should get into court. Do you have any concerns in relation to that, whether there may be a move away from judicial towards administrative determination?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Order. We have very limited time in this session and a number of people have indicated, so brevity both in questions and answers would be helpful.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Welcome to the Committee. The previous witness from the Law Society put together an alternative funding package, saying that a lot of the measures in the Bill would not be necessary because we could raise money elsewhere to find savings or funding. The biggest chunk of their proposals—£79 million—was that the CPS, which you are responsible for, should pay for all judge-directed acquittals and dropped prosecutions at court. What is your view of that, and if you did have to find £79 million, what would you have to do vis-à-vis your administration of justice?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
What is your total budget?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Can you drop us a note?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
The Government are proposing to change the way bail operates and replace the long list of reasons that magistrates and judges can use to remand people to prison with a no prospects test. I am sure you have thought about how you are going to advise the courts. Could you tell us how you plan to advise them on these issues and what you think the impact of the provision might be?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
If you think that is a low-level issue, what do you think the impact will be on attendance at court, and if you think that the level of non-attendance will increase, are you content for people to be tried in absentia?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
Can one infer that magistrates concerned about using remand to prison are worrying unnecessarily at the moment?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Mr Starmer, you have dealt with the question of the costs element. Can you clarify for me that there is, in fact, already a provision, which has been around for many years, for wasted costs to be paid where there has been improper, negligent or unreasonable behaviour on the part of the prosecution?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
Thank you. May I move on to the part of the Bill that I know you have been paying close attention to, in particular clause 54, “Duty to give reasons for and to explain the effect of sentence”. It may not be apparent to every member of the Committee, but the CPS does have a role, and exercises this role very diligently, in writing to victims of crime to inform them about the outcome of cases. In particularly serious cases, there will even be meetings with victims of crime to discuss with them any concerns they may have. What is your view about the potential impact of proposed new section 174? Do you think it will make the job of caseworkers and CPS lawyers easier in putting together letters explaining sentences to victims of crime?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
I should like to ask about the Government’s proposed new offence in relation to knife crime. As a prosecutor, have you seen the need for this new offence to be created? This is in relation to an offence of threatening with an offensive weapon or an article with a blade or point and creating a risk of serious physical harm.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
But this will now be a mandatory sentence. Do you have any concerns about that?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
In fact, the clause adds very little to what was already there—if, indeed, it adds anything.
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
I should like to go back to the issue of out of court disposals. You said that you were concerned about inconsistency in their use by different police forces. Do you think that the reduction in the involvement of the CPS will increase that inconsistency?
Helen Goodman (Labour, Bishop Auckland)
What do you think the appropriate instrument for agreeing that with the police might be?
Andrew Slaughter (Labour, Hammersmith)
We are promised a new clause on the law of self-defence in relation to residential burglary in the autumn. Do you feel the need for either a change or a clarification of the law on that or do you think it is sufficiently clear at the moment?
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Order. That brings us to the end of this question time. Thank you very much for coming along. I am sure that it has been a busy day for you.
We will now hear oral evidence from the Legal Services Commission.
Examination of Witnesses
Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Thank you very much for coming along and for your patience. For the record, could I ask you to introduce yourself?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
It is good to see you again. I will ask you a question that I think that I have asked you before in my capacity as a member of the Select Committee on Justice. I know that you came in towards the latter end of the LSC’s lifetime, shall I say? I will not make any further comment.
I think that we all agree that the tendering process involving the family law contracts last year was a debacle, and we know that the result was defeat for the LSC in the High Court. What lessons have been learned from that particular episode, and how will the new Executive agency pick up the baton and ensure that that sort of scenario is not repeated?
Robert Buckland (Conservative, South Swindon)
You are confident that that will be translated into the new arrangements in the Bill?