Robert Buckland Weblog

Whatever happened to the idea that August was a time of quiet reflection and relaxation for politicians?   I am trying to have a few days here and there, and am looking forward to a longer break around the Bank Holiday, but this month has kept me busy in and around Swindon.  I have used the opportunity to meet local interest groups and organisations and to visit a host of charities and individuals.  The Swindon Osteoporosis Group opened my eyes to the silent condition that can strike without any warning whatsoever.  I have had meetings with local police Chief Superintendent Paul Howlett,  members of Swindon Borough Council’s Anti Social Behaviour team and with Thames Water to name but a few.   I have been able to raise individual cases and to discuss policy more generally, which has been very useful.

Last week, I visited the Broadgreen Breakfast Club, which is a charity that runs a daily breakfast facility for those who are homeless or otherwise vulnerable.   It is held at St Luke’s Church Hall in Broadgreen and is run by a team of dedicated volunteers.  The Club sees about30 to 40 people per day, and is a useful focal point, not only for users, but for local organisations such as Threshold that work with homeless people.  Of similar value is the twice weekly Filling Station, which is run by a group of twelve local churches and which sets up in the Queenstown Car Park each Tuesday and Thursday.    My thanks to Angus McPherson for allowing me to see things at first hand; I was very glad to meet workers from Threshold and a local drugs rehabilitation project with whom I shall work in the future.

Despite the poor weather, Saturday’s Broad Green Cohesion Fun Day , organised by the Broad Green Area Community Council and held at the Community Centre was a chance for me to come together with friends from Broad Green to celebrate the progress being made locally.  Local Fire Chief Andy Popowicz and I were pressganged into action with regard to a stubborn and wayward piece of furniture, namely the erection of a table football game!

The flow of emails keeps coming; please bear with me.  Although I like to respond quickly, this is not always going to be possible if I am to keep any semblance of sanity.   

The Attorney-General is pondering whether or not to allow a Coroners’ Inquest into the death of David Kelly.  Last week’s letter to the Times from a group of qualified persons puts the matter beyond doubt for me.  It should be done, and done soon.

I was delighted to speak at this morning’s launch of Swindon’s Plan 500, held at Nationwide’s Headquarters at Pipers Way.  Together with fellow Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson, Council Leader Rod Bluh and a host of business people, it was a pleasure to meet some of the young people who are benefiting from employer mentoring and work experience locally.  The Plan, which is truly homegrown and which is being supported by key players such as the Swindon Strategic Partnership, is to create 500 opportunities for young people locally, whether it be apprenticeships, work experience placements or mentoring schemes.  Swindon is currently lying sixth highest when it comes to young people not in employment, education or training.  The term “NEET” has become all too well-recognised here. 

My recent visit to Inspire, which is an organisation that helps NEETs into work, allowed me to hear the views of young people at first hand.  They are desperate for a chance to prove themselves, whether it be via work experience, mentoring or some form of hands-on work.   Their curriculum vitae are significantly improved as a result, and it can prove an effective pathway into full time paid employment. 

Plan 500 reflects these needs, so I am delighted to be supporting it.

A thought-provoking article in a recent edition of the Spectator, which is an abridged version of a lecture given by Peter Jones to the recent Inner Temple Conference on Democracy and the Law.  Entitled “Who will Judge the Judges?”, he makes the point that in their fervent desire to maintain their independence from the Executive, the Judiciary often fails to convey the sense that there is a community of interest between the varying arms of Government.  He asserts that all too often, the Judiciary fails to explain things in a way that is properly comprehensible to the public.  This re-inforces the impression of an out of touch oligarchy that is merely serving itself.

There is no doubt that our Judges have an extreme reluctance to discuss anything that would be regarded as moral or political, as opposed to legal or intellectual.  I can understand the wish to maintain such a binary divide; after all, our Judges are not elected and regard moral/political questions as matters for legislators, not them.  The difficulty with this argument is that our senior Judges do themselves make the law, particularly in the Supreme Court.  The over-simplification of the division between Judges and politicians resulted in the creation of that Court in the first place. 

I did not share the view that there was an incompatibility, believing it more preferable that our Senior Judges were fully aware of the political context of their decisions.  The public does deserve access to an understanding of judicial decisions, so I would welcome more thinking on this issue from both Judges and politicians.  My attempts to create a link to the appropriate page have not been successful, so I will quote the last paragraph:

“Fiat iustitia, ruat coelum (1602), lawyers intone: “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall in”.  But if the consequence of justice being done is that the heavens do in fact fall in, on whom do the heavens fall?  Us, that’s whom.  It is about about time the appeal judiciary took a look at its elite oligarchic self and asked: whom is its justice serving?  The people?  Or simply itself?  And is that really what it is for?”

Yesterday’s Surgery at Walcot Community Library and Shop brought  wide variety of issues to the table.  They ranged from the barriers that face deaf people when they are called for Jury service to the particular needs and concerns of a severely disabled young man whose parents live apart from each other.  I was extremely grateful for the services of a sign language interpreter. whose work enabled my constituent to have direct access to me for the best part of an hour.  His explanation of the difficulties he has in gaining access to other authorities made me think that, for him, this ease of access was the exception rather than the rule.   My caseworker Claire wisely set aside more time at the beginning of the day, so we worked solidly from 9am to 1pm. 

A mix up about timings meant that I was very late for the AGM of the Swindon Youth Mentoring Service SMASH at their HQ in the Link Centre, West Swindon, yesterday evening.  Despite this, I was very pleased to make my first visit since the election to an organisation that does so much important work in helping to make sure that vulnerable and often troubled young people do not end up in the criminal justice system.  It is a devastatingly simple concept, but one that works brilliantly – a shining example of how intervention at the right stage will save thousands in the long run.  I am very pleased to hear that SMASH has secured some funding from the John Paul Getty Foundation that will allow it to operate over the next three year period, but it can always do with more.  For anyone reading this blog with sponsorship money to spare, please direct it towards SMASH.

The eighth Swindon Mela is taking place today, and I have enjoyed several happy happy hours taking it all in.  My thanks to the organising committee for allowing me to take part in the opening ceremony in the Town Gardens.   There is no doubt in my mind that this particular venue helps make the Mela a very special event; we should do all we can to ensure its continuance in the Town Gardens.  The juxtaposition between Victorian grandeur and South Asian culture is a reminder of the imperial legacy that entwines Britain with South Asia – we mustn’t forget that the sub-continent has its fair share of Victorian parks that brought a little bit of home to British India and which outlived the Raj.  The Mela brings together the whole Swindon community in an unspoken but effective way.   I was given the honour of wearing a fetching blue turban for much of my visit; already, I imagine that several photographs of my headgear have made their way into wider circulation!

Its dedicated team of volunteeers deserves our praise and support.  I very much hope that in the months ahead as they plan for the next Mela, Council officers work constructively with the team.  The culture of Health and Safety regulation has caused real problems for the organisers of events such as the Mela.  It is time for this to stop.  The Young Review into Health and Safety law could be an extremely useful as a means of moving away from an overly presciptive approach that seeks the elusive and impossible goal of risk elimination.   One of the Mela organisers, who has huge experience in this area, put it extremely well when he said that we must move away from the compartmentalist approach to Health and Safety.  No matter what our discipline might be,  peforming the task in a safe way should be an integral part of our professional or other standards.

Another example of a local Community standing up and being counted is today’s re-opening of Freshbrook Community Centre.  After months of hard work, the new Committee can be very proud of the end result- a welcoming centre that is being used by local people.  I was extremely happy to have held my second ever Constituency Surgery there at the end of May, and will be back in September.  My good wishes to the team; it was great to see local ward Cllrs Mick Bray and Michael Dickinson there too.  Michael, who was described as a “star” by one of the Committee, has been able  to provide support and advice based upon his experience and qualifications in the field of accounting. 

A happy day, showing Swindon at its best.

We are now coming to the end of the Parliamentary session, which has been an extraordinary few months for me.  I am now delighted to say that the new office in Swindon, jointly run with North Swindon, is up and running.  I have tried to learn as much of the procedures of Westminster as possible by taking part in debates, tabling questions and joining All Party Groups.  I have spent much time here meeting interest groups ranging from local employers in Swindon to national organisations such as NACRO (National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders).

I have particularly enjoyed starting my work on Committees.  Last week, the Justice Select Committee met with the Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, and asked him questions for nearly one and a half hours.  The topics ranged from court closures to offender management.  I asked some questions about the role of guidelines in sentencing, and about the dangers of passing legislation without the means of implementing it.  In the context of community sentences, I am extremely anxious to see that they become a more effective sentence.  Very often, it is the lack of meaningful alternatives to custody that give judges no real choice when it comes to sentencing offenders.  A short term of imprisonment may be the only way of protecting the local community, albeit for a short time. 

Ken Clarke has signalled an important change in strategy when it comes to short term prison sentences.  The choice for policy makers here is not tough versus soft, but smart versus dumb.  In many cases, well-targeted intervention to deal with the causes of offending will be money much better spent than on a few short months of incarceration.  For a number of years prior to the election, sentencers were being regularly told by the Probation Service that short sentences were not working and did little if anything to reduce crime levels.  The last Government ignored this reality; it takes a politician of the calibre of Ken Clarke to recognise it and to have the courage to try and do something about it. 

I have undergone the experience of taking part in a number of votes on a range of issues.  Sometimes, members of Parliament vote with a heavy heart on certain issues.  A week or so ago, I was not very happy to see an extension of the provisions that allow detention before charge for twenty-eight days, but having heard the Home Secretary declare her personal preference for a reduction in length, I decided that I could accept her call for the review into terrrorism provisions to take place before any change to this limit is carried out. 

Another important debate that has allowed me to question the detail of Government policy was the debate on the Academies Bill.  Whilst I support the Bill and its provisions, I was glad to see that amendments made in the House of Lords that enhanced the position of pupils in receipt of SEN were accepted by the Government.  In my contributions to the debate, which can be accessed via Theyworkforyou (link provided on this website),  I sought further clarity as to the procedures to be adopted by parents who had a complaint about the implementation of Statements or other action plans for pupils by schools or who had an issue about the admission of their child to an Academy.  I am glad to know that these issues will form part of the review into SEN provision that will be carried out by the Government in the Autumn. 

I am learning that an effective way of making progress on issues such as this is to raise detailed concerns about them so that the Government has to listen.  I will be taking part in the SEN review and will encourage Swindon residents with a shared interest/expertise to participate too.

The All Party Groups at Westminster proliferate, reflecting the huge range of experience and interest that exists.  I have joined many, including APPGs on Autism, Credit Unions, Speech and Language Disabilities; Disability; St. Helena; War Heritage and the All Party Kidney Group.    Membership of these groups is based upon personal or constituency interest, plus a wish to expand my knowledge into new areas.   The groups will orgainse information meetings and other events at Westminster, which will bring volunteers and experts into direct dialogue with MPs.  They can be an excellent way of raising issues of importance to all of us, and bring politicians of all parties and both Houses of Parliament together. 

The recess beckons, but this will mean only some days of rest.  As usual, there is plenty for me to see and do in South Swindon, and I will try and adopt a slightly slower pace in the weeks ahead.  This should give me some more time to read and blog.

I had the honour of delivering the Eulogy at the funeral of my father-in-law, John Reed, at St.Mary’s Church, Tenby, this afternoon.   Cardinal Newman’s poem, “The Dream of Gerontius”, later adapted in a memorable piece by Sir Edward Elgar, is an uplifting and deeply moving account of the journey of a dying man to the afterlife.

I particularly like the following passage:

“I went to sleep, and now I am refreshed,

A strange refreshment; for I feel in me

An inexpressive lightness, and a sense

Of freedom, as I were at length myself

And ne’er had been before.  How still it is!

I hear no more the busy beat of time,

No, nor my fluttering breath, nor struggling pulse;

Nor does one moment differ from the next.

I had a dream; yes – someone softly said “he is gone”

And a sigh went round the room.

And then I heard a priestly voice

Cry “subvenite” and they knelt in prayer”

A fitting salute to a life well lived.

The last week in Parliament alllowed me to discuss a few issues in which I have either a professional or personal interest.  My first Prime Minister’s Question last Wednesday was on the admission of children with Special Educational Needs into new Academies.  The PM gave me an assurance that new Academies would be obliged to accept SEN youngsters-an important concession that echoes the moves the Government have made on amending the Academies Bill in the House of Lords.  I shall be watching it carefully when it comes to the Commons.

Also on Wednesday, I was lucky enough to be called to speak in Westminster Hall during a debate on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services for children and young people with autism and related disorders.  The debate had been secured by Labour MP and fellow ASD parent Jonny Reynolds, and proved to be a useful forum for concerns to be raised with Health Minister Anne Milton.  One of the key requests we made of the Minister was for the statutory guidance to local authorities for provision of services during the transition from education to adult services to be strong and clear.  The Autism Act was a good start, but it now needs flesh on the bones.  The National Autistic Society’s “You Need to Know” Campaign, which has highlighted deficiencies in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) when treating youngsters with autism, ASD and Aspergers, prompted the Westminster Hall Debate. 

One of my main points was that, very often, mental health problems were caused either by an incorrect diagnosis or a late diagnosis of autism.   I well recall being told by a senior paediatrician that diagnosis of autism at two or three was not appropriate.  I think that this is the wrong approach.  Failure to diagnose these conditions leads to a lack of proper provision that can cause years of misery for the child involved, leading to the sort of mental health issues that are then poorly addressed by professionals who have not had sufficient training.  It is my hope that campaigns such as this will lead to real change in this area.

On Thursday, the debate on Defendant Anonymity saw many contributions from professionals who have worked in the field of rape and sexual offences, me included.  Dr. Sarah Rollaston, the new Tory MP for Totnes, made a short but very powerful speech in which she outlined her years of experience as a forensic medical examiner.  She had met many rape complainants and observed that only a small proportion of them took their complaint further.  Anna Soubry, the new Conservative MP for Broxtowe and a fellow criminal barrister, reminded us that there had been much progress in the treatment of rape complainants in recent years, and questioned the rationale behind isolating anonymity to rape cases.  Anna’s main point was that the problem lay with reporting of arrests and procedures prior to charge.  She has introduced a Private Member’s Bill allowing for the granting of reporting restrictions to any person between arrest and charge, subject to judicial discretion.

Anna’s point is a good one; the danger of isolating anonymity to rape and teachers is not only a practical one, but ignores the wide range of allegations that can damage a person’s reputation.  In my speech, I urged a move away from the use of the word “anonymity”, which confused the issue with witness anonymity, to the phrase “reporting restriction”, which was more accurate.  The real problem in my view lies with the power of the internet, meaning that stories about allegations that later turned out to be false or which were the subject of acquittals, remain on the net for years, meaning that a Google search can cause a host of problems for persons of good character.  This is a matter for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport to consider in my view. 

The creation of an interests of justice test for reporting restrictions in any case, to be decided upon by a Judge, would be an effective way of helping to deal with the problem.  For those people whose stories remain on the net, there should be a mechanism by which they could apply to the appropriate newspaper editor or webmaster to have the story removed.  I understand that the concept of permanent removal from the net may not be possible, but removal from a Google seach could help the individual concerned very greatly in my view.

It was a week where I gained more experience of the ways of Parliament-the best way to learn,  I think.

John Redwood’s blog carries an impressive list of legislation that he wants to be repealed by the new Bill.  I am thinking of some more detailed and less glamorous provisions that need to be changed.  I have blogged before about my concern whenever a politician threatens someone with a libel suit if they are criticised.  Lord Sugar made such a mistake not long after his appointment as a Minister.  The 1996 Defamation Act, advocated by the now disgraced former MP Neil Hamilton, allowed MPs to sue for libel for the very first time.  I disagreed with it then, and I disagree now.  Why?  MPs enjoy the protection of Parliamentary Privilege when they make speeches or ask questions in Parliament.  This is a huge and valuable power, and one that MPs need. 

There is a trade-off, however, and that is the lack of a right to sue for defamation or libel.  MPs will be attacked for their views, dress sense, diligence or lack of it – even their hair!  This is the sort of stuff that goes with the job, frankly.  I dislike it intensely when Members of Parliament try to throw their weight around by threatening opponents who may have criticised them in the local paper with lawsuits.  It has happened locally in the past, and I abhor it.  The one tweak I would make would be to allow an MP who also had another role or capacity (eg an MP who was also a doctor) to be able to launch a libel action if he or she were defamed in a way that was connected with their profession, rather than their membership of Parliament.

The law of Defamation in England is the subject of a review, as I understand it.  My suggestion would be that this aspect of the 1996 Act should be looked at again and that we move away from a situation where MPs can have their cake and eat it.

The broadcast media have failed again to properly report what was a considered and important speech from the Lord Chancellor yesterday.  Let’s get things straight here; no-one is saying that serious violent or sexual offenders should not receive proper jail sentences.  One of the primary functions of terms of imprisonment is to protect the public.  What Ken Clarke is talking about is relatively less serious crime where there is a chance of rehabilitation.  Currently, we spend millions on using up prison places where there should be a proper and workable alternative. 

I was always in favour of building more prisons because I believe that with more room and better accommodation, there is a greater chance of rehabilitating certain prisoners.   The current economic climate makes a wholesale programme of prison building pretty difficult to say the least.  The smart alternative is a truly effective system of community penalties, with restorative justice schemes, meaningful community work and the use of electronic tags to significantly restrict freedoms. 

For some significant time now, there have been fundamental doubts about the effectiveness of sentences of less than twelve months.   Frankly, there is little if anything done with these prisoners.  Judges are told that they are merely postponing problems for a few months by locking people up for a short time. Would be be right to remove the power to pass very short sentences?   The Scots Parliament has decided to abolish prison sentences of less than three months.   Frankly, I think that they are wrong.  The problem does not lie in the power to imprison, but in the prison regime itself.  Sometimes, the only option for a sentencer is a short term of imprisonment where, for example, the offender has already breached an order or orders and shows no sign of being willing to co-operate. 

Having visited quite a few prisons in my professional life, I do not share the “abandon all hope ye who enter here”  mentality.  Prisons can and very often do work, and Ken was not saying otherwise yesterday.  What he did open up was a proper debate into the alternatives.  Labour’s big mouth on sentencing was never matched by money.  It is time to move things away from a tough v soft argument to a smart v stupid argument on criminal sentencing.

The overlooked part of Ken’s speech was the prospect of a change to Legal Aid.  Frankly, the wealthy should be funding the costs of their representation.  The plus side for them would be that they could hire and pay lawyers of their choice, and the benefit to the public is that we wouldn’t be funding their defence.   I suggest a return to the old system of legal aid contributions according to income; it collected much revenue.  Labour’s change to a universal system, with the possibility of making costs orders against convicted defendants, resulted in very few such costs orders ever being made and a loss of revenue. 

Ken’s speech was the first attempt at real leadership on this issue in years; rather than following the agenda of certain parts of the media in a craven way like successive Labour Ministers, this giant of the political scene has once again set the agenda.

Prior to the Adjournment Debate, I wrote an article for epolitix about development in Swindon.  The link is http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/building-a-sustainable-swindon 

The link to the transcript of the speeches in the Adjournment Debate is http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-06-21a.135.0&s=speaker%3A24843#g135.2