Justice questions in the Commons have been dominated by the Damian Green affair, and whether the offence of misconduct in public office should be a criminal or disciplinary matter.
James Duddridge (Con, Rochford and Southend East) began the session by asking whether it was appropriate that a law enacted in 1783 was being used against a civil servant who had leaked information that “embarrassed” the government.
Jack Straw (Lab, Blackburn), secretary of state for justice, responded that such laws were continually refined and redefined. He noted that the specific offence of misconduct in public office had been looked at recently in both 1979 and 2004.
Responding to questioning from Andrew MacKay (Con, Bracknell), Straw said he had asked his department to provide figures of how many civil servants had been arrested under the offence, how many have been charged, and how many have been convicted.
Desmond Swayne (Con, New Forest West) said the offence was “elastic” and asked whether it needed further statutory clarification.
Straw said that the bar for criminal investigation and prosecution was set “very high”. He noted that a joint committee on the draft Bill on corruption had decided against that, and pointed out that Nick Herbert (Con, Arundel and South Downs) shadow secretary of state for justice, sat on that committee.
Peter Lilley (Con, Hitchin and Harpenden) said that given that it was the intention of the government when passing the Freedom of Information Act that the disclosure of non-national security information be treated as a disciplinary matter not a criminal matter, did the current situation not show that criminal law had been brought back into the issue.
David Howarth (Lib Dem, Cambridge) echoed these comments, arguing that the central point was the relationship between misconduct, leaks in the civil service, and national security. He asked that since there was no risk to national security in this case, why a criminal investigation was being pursued.
Straw responded by saying that it would be “odd” to never involve criminal law in such a case of persistent misconduct.
Herbert said the whole purpose of restricting criminal law to leaks that relate to national security was to allow lower level offences to be treated as disciplinary offences.
He said that leaks that revealed Home Office “incompetence” did not damage national security, and that it was “typical” of the government to confuse party interests with the interests of the country.
Straw repeated he felt it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing investigation. He pointed out again the joint committee report that decided against statutory clarification of the offence.
Alan Beith (Lib Dem, Berwick-upon-Tweed) asked whether it should be up to a High Court judge to issue warrants for searches of parliamentary offices. He wondered how such proposals could be carried forward if the proposed Speaker's committee was not to meet until the conclusion of any police investigation.
Straw suggested that he would be “astonished” if amendments dealing with that issue were not attached to the proposed Policing, Justice, or Coroners Bills.
Away from the Damian Green affair, Anne McIntosh (Con, Vale of York) asked whether the ministry was aware that the Magistrates Association had expressed concerns about the use of fixed penalty notices for first time offenders.
Maria Eagle (Lab, Liverpool Garston) under-secretary of state at the Ministry of Justice, said that the ministry was aware, and that a meeting had been arranged with the association to discuss the matter.
Commenting on the sentencing of shoplifters, Henry Bellingham (Con, North West Norfolk) shadow minister for justice said that now was the wrong time to reduce punishments for those convicted of retail theft as a result of addiction. He said a relaxation of sentencing times could lead more people to commit offences.
Eagle argued that those who are motivated to commit crime because of an addiction to drugs or alcohol should receive treatment. She said that the evidence showed that those who complete treatment orders are only half as likely to offend.
Speaking on civil service independence, Eleanor Laing (Con, Epping Forest) asked if, and when, the measures in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill were to be brought forward. She said that despite comments from the government, there was not time allocated in the parliamentary timetable.
Michael Wills (Lab, North Swindon) minister of state at the Ministry of Justice, said that the government intended to bring this forward the proposals contained in the draft Bill in April or May. Responding to heckles from the benches he denied this was “news” and insisted that this was always the intention.
Sandra Gidley (Lib Dem, Romsey) asked whether the minister believed handing out more custodial sentences was an effective way to tackle crime.
Minister fo state Bridgete Prentice (Lab, Lewisham East) said that both custodial and non custodial sentences are important, and that there must be flexibility for the courts to decide what is appropriate in each case.
Ann Cryer (Lab, Keighley) asked whether the ministry was satisfied with the ethnic make up magistrate’s courts.
Straw said that whilst minority representation on magistrates courts was better than in other areas of the judiciary, he recognised that there was still “a very long way to go” to ensure they accurately reflected their communities.
Simon Hughes (Lib Dem, North Southwark and Bermondsey) asked whether central government would consider redistributing the cost of the investigation into the shooting of John Charles de Menzies amongst all the London boroughs. He said the total cost to the four boroughs currently financing the investigation was £4 million.
Straw said that whilst there was no budget in central government for this, it was a subject of discussion.
