Justice Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Seeing the clock is at 8:45 and there's a quorum present, we'll begin meeting number 6 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, studying Bill C-10.

I think the panel has probably read the directions from the clerk that there is a limit of five minutes for an opening address. The panel should be aware that the members of the committee have five minutes to ask a question, and answers are included in that five minutes. I will cut you off when we get to the five minutes, just to be fair to everyone.

Would you like to go first, Mr. Westwick?

[Vince Westwick, General Counsel, Legal Services, Ottawa Police Service]

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, my name is Vince Westwick, and I'm the general counsel for the Ottawa Police Service. I appear this morning representing Chief Vern White and the Ottawa Police Service. Chief White would have appeared himself, but he is currently in China lecturing on law enforcement matters.

In preparing to present comments to this committee, I sought input from operational police officers, those who investigate the types of offences that are the subject of Bill C-10. They were most supportive. While it is easy for me to report the strong views of the members of the Ottawa Police Service, it is important to understand their thinking on why they believe this bill is important. It is more than a simple plea for longer sentences. It is about ensuring that there is accountability within the criminal justice system. It is about revitalizing confidence in the criminal justice system, confidence for the community, confidence for the victims, and confidence for police.

When police officers in Ottawa encourage victims to come forward and submit to the rigours of the criminal justice system, it is important for the victims to feel the system will be responsive to the pain they have suffered. It is important for police officers in Ottawa standing up before a town hall meeting that they are able to tell communities that the system will protect them and their families. It is also important to police officers to believe that their efforts in investigating and assisting in the prosecution of crime are worthwhile.

Community confidence needs a shot in the arm. The 140-plus pages of Bill C-10 send an important message about safety, but they also send an equally important message about community confidence in the criminal justice system.

I'd like to make a few comments about the specifics within the bill.

Regarding conditional sentences, when a judge has decided that an offender should be sent to jail, the judge may impose a conditional sentence, allowing the offender to serve his sentence in the community—house arrest. Under the current legislation, conditional sentences are available except for a very small group of serious offences. Bill C-10 is decreasing the availability of conditional sentences by increasing the range of offences for which conditional sentences are excluded. While there may be a justification for a person serving his or her sentence in the community, there is no justification for a conditional sentence where the serving of that sentence affects the safety of that community. This reduction in the availability of conditional sentences will increase public confidence in the criminal justice system.

In respect of mandatory minimum sentences, MMPs have caused a lot of controversy. The starting point of the discussion should be section 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada. That section sets out criteria for addressing aggravating and mitigating circumstances that judges must consider in imposing a sentence. These sections were introduced in 1995 and have been used extensively by trial judges since then. Bill C-10 takes that process one step further by attaching a predetermined sentence to aggravating factors—not for all crimes, but for those related to sexual offences involving children, and for serious drug offences.

The staff sergeant in charge of the Ottawa Police sexual assault and child abuse section wrote to me the following:

We can't say enough about the need to put the increased penalties in place. The current mandatory sentencing for sexual interference...sexual exploitation...and invitation to sexual touching...is 45 days with a 10-year max (that is never used). It is our view that 45 days doesn't even touch the surface of what is required to send a message of determent. Most of the time upon conviction these offenders are getting out for time served and go right back at it. One case we are...involved in...allowed for a male involved in possession and sharing child pornography to go right back into the community (after conviction) where he continued and escalated to luring--our [high-tech crime and] Internet Child Exploitation Team is now investigating the luring of over 100 young females. Harsher sentencing is required to stop these predators.

That's from the officer in charge of the sexual assault and child abuse team.

Critics of Bill C-10 argue that it is better to focus on preventative strategies than to focus solely on MMPs. The Ottawa police do not think these strategies are mutually exclusive. For example, Chief White indicated his support for mandatory minimum sentences related to drug offences, but asked me to specifically convey to this community that any MMP strategy needs also to increase the availability of treatment in a correctional facility.

He refers to the Swedish model as an example of a positive step in that regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Your time is up, Mr. Westwick. Sorry.

Chief McFee.

[Chief Dale McFee, President, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me begin by thanking each of you members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for having me appear today regarding this very important bill.

This is my first opportunity to present to you, as the newly elected president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. For me, this is truly an honour and a privilege.

We may not always agree on issues relating to law enforcement, justice, and public safety, but I want to assure you that we are very respectful of your positions.

My name is Dale McFee. In addition to my position at CACP, I'm the chief of the Prince Albert Police Service. Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, is like many communities across Canada. We hear Statistics Canada reporting to us that crime is down in most areas of Canada, but as my law enforcement colleagues would tell you, public concern and crime severity indexes regarding serious and violent crimes have increased.

The criminal justice system is facing a serious challenge of confidence. Members of our communities from all parts of Canada, victims and police officers, are losing a bit of faith in the ability of the criminal justice system to keep their families safe. Therefore, as my very first comment, I would like to say that overall the CACP strongly endorses the Safe Streets and Communities Act.

By way of background, the CACP, through its member police chiefs and other senior police executives, represents in excess of 90% of the police community in Canada, which includes federal, first nations, provincial, regional, municipal, transportation, and military police leaders. The CACP continues to support legislative amendments, which assist in making Canada's communities safe and provide support for victims of crime. We have been supportive of many individual bills, which were introduced in the previous Parliament.

Canadians need to know their police and government officials at all levels are working together to ensure their safety. This is why I am here today. Canadians want to know that if they are victims of crime, the perpetrators will be dealt with fairly by the criminal justice system and will face the appropriate consequences for serious criminal acts.

When we talk about terrorism, organized crime, serious violent and/or sexual crimes, producing or trafficking controlled substances, and many other criminal acts related to this bill, let me emphasize we are talking serious crime, and this type of activity simply is not acceptable. In dealing with such crimes, we need to extend protection to the most vulnerable members of society, we need to enhance the ability of our justice system to hold criminals accountable for their actions, and we need to improve the safety and security of all Canadians.

I am here today with my colleague, Vince Westwick, who is presenting as general counsel to the Ottawa Police Service. In addition, Mr. Westwick is co-chair of the CACP's law amendments committee.

The CACP has 21 committees of police leaders who, above their demanding work in agencies and communities, work towards improving our ability to protect Canadians, and, most importantly, reduce the number of victims in our society. Our committees do not take this role lightly.

Deputy Chief Warren Lemcke, a member of the CACP law amendments committee, in addition to his work with the Vancouver Police Department, will be appearing next week to discuss conditional sentencing. The CACP supports the concept of conditional sentences but agrees they ought to be reserved for the appropriate situation. Their misuse only serves to feed the lack of confidence in the criminal justice system.

My colleague, Chief Barry MacKnight, of the Fredericton Police Force, will also appear on behalf of our CACP drug committee and will speak to the amendments related to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to address production and trafficking.

The CACP supports the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act. The CACP is a longstanding supporter of victims initiatives, but is especially so in this case. This act will give some sense of empowerment to victims of terrorism as they seek redress through the civil process. This act will also send a message to those responsible that they will be held accountable for the damage they do. This is most worthwhile.

I wish to compliment the government for proposing changes to offences and penalties associated with sexual crimes related to children. This is profoundly important.

On a further note, we need to ensure that we keep pace with advancing technology, allowing law enforcement to more effectively deal with the same issues. I would urge all parliamentarians to assist us in this important matter.

In conclusion, we believe Bill C-10 provides appropriate consequences for serious criminal acts and will strengthen the public's faith in the justice system. Canadians need to have their confidence in the criminal justice system restored, perhaps reinvigorated. It is a critical element of Canadian life.

To critics of this bill, when it comes to discussing issues related to improving community safety, there is no right or wrong. Community safety is everyone's business. Some see solutions as hard on crime; others see it as soft on crime. Certainly a balanced approach is needed. Crime prevention is an important aspect, which the CACP studies, having a committee dedicated to this issue.

The economic circumstances facing all Canadians is a reality affecting law enforcement as well. It requires some very innovative thinking and new perspectives as to how we approach crime in our communities. I am a very strong proponent of early intervention and community mobilization towards a common-sense approach to reducing crime. It is an area the CACP looks forward to making a significant contribution with governments at all levels.

Obviously, Mr. Westwick and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Chief.

Mr. Waller, do you have an opening statement?

[Dr. Irvin Waller, President, International Organization for Victim Assistance]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to pursue the issue of prevention and how this bill could become an effective way of doing that.

I want to just mention briefly that I have spent most of my professional career fighting for victims of crime. I received awards in the United States and internationally for getting the UN General Assembly to adopt basic human rights for victims. I worked with Manitoba to establish the first victim rights legislation in this country. I've recently done work for a think tank for David Cameron in the U.K. The report was called “Less Crime, Lower Costs”, and I've done a book on rights for victims of crime addressed to legislators.

It won't surprise you to hear that I agree with the Minister of Justice that 440,000 victims of violence and 1.3 million victims of property crime need addressing. It also won't surprise you that $83 billion in harm to victims of crime deserves action and deserves additional expenditure and energy. However, there is a very important element missing from Bill C-10, Safe Streets and Communities Act, and the two previous speakers have mentioned it. That is prevention and that is victims.

I am proposing, respectfully, that the committee consider a crime reduction board for Canada. This would be a permanent and high-level office to sustain efforts to prevent crime and bring our services up to international standards. We would achieve this in a variety of ways that are specified in my written submission.

I want to close with a couple of very important examples. Canada has moved to implement effective prevention strategies, but unfortunately, these are a patchwork from coast to coast and we need federal leadership to make more happen. The province of Alberta now has the leading crime reduction and community safety strategy in North America, which, to quote the previous speaker, balances smart enforcement with smart treatment with smart prevention, in sum, combining what this bill needs to combine.

Just last month the province of Saskatchewan, with the approval of the previous speaker and the provincial Association of Chiefs of Police, endorsed a similar strategy for Saskatchewan. But we do not yet have this federally.

My second example illustrates the cost effectiveness of investment in crime prevention. In Winnipeg the number of victims of car theft was significantly reduced by a collaborative process between police, social agencies, and the provincial insurance company. The $50 million that it cost has been recovered, and $40 million is saved every year to taxpayers, and of course much more to victims who are not harmed. Car thefts often cause serious injury.

In my written brief I've shared details of the compelling knowledge that shows that violence can be prevented but requires investments in prevention. I've talked about the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. I've talked about the British Youth Justice Board.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to interest you in a small step toward making Canada the safest country in the western world, if we can add to this bill this small amendment that will stop victims, reduce harm, and save costs to the criminal justice system.

Thank you very much for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Kennedy, do you wish to make an opening address?

[Sheldon Kennedy, Co-Founder, Respect Group Inc.]

Thank you all for having me here this morning. My name is Sheldon Kennedy. I'm the co-founder of Respect Group Inc. We're a prevention organization that educates all adults across this country--over 500,000 annually--on abuse, bullying, and harassment.

I'm here today to speak in support of Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, specifically, part 2, proposed paragraph 11(a), which calls to increase or impose mandatory minimum penalties and increase maximum penalties for sexual offences with respect to children, thereby offering greater protection to Canada's most vulnerable.

When I finally filed a report of sexual assault against my junior coach in 1997, as an adult and professional hockey player, there were people in the media and hockey in the town where it happened who didn't believe me. On top of having to battle with the fear and shame that sexual abuse brings, I had to deal with disbelievers.

Children who are victimized spend years trying to explain what happened to them and working to restore their emotional well-being. Offenders, in my opinion, serve an inadequate amount of time, in some cases, none, paying for these atrocities. Believe it or not, current sentencing laws for someone convicted of sexual assault against a child under 16 carries no minimum mandatory penalty. This needs to change.

Currently, child sex offenders are also eligible for pardons. My abuser got three and a half years for his crimes and was released after only 18 months. He paid $50 and got a rubber stamp pardon, took off to Mexico with a clean record, name changed, and had a chance to start offending yet again. Now he is out on bail facing the same charges. That is what this government is trying to prevent.

Is there a parent in this country who would have an issue with protecting their children from this predator and others like him? Pardons should be eliminated for all child sex offenders, period.

Child victims of sexual assault often struggle with emotional issues, alcohol, drug dependency, and suicide. They have to seek out their own specific forms of rehabilitation. In my case, it's been a 30-year struggle. I lost a lucrative professional hockey career. I've been in countless treatment centres. I lived a reckless lifestyle with significant cost to me, my friends, family, and my marriage. I'm still receiving counselling on a regular basis and it has taken all this time to become a productive member of society.

I believe we need to toughen sentencing for child sex offences. They just don't seem in line with the damage they leave in their wake, not even close. The proposed legislation for my perpetrator would go from a 90-day minimum sentence to one year. The ceiling of a maximum sentence would remain at 10 years. By imposing increased minimum sentences, we are telling these predators that they will go to jail. MMPs and maximums will provide direction to the courts and serve as an equal starting point.

Research shows that the rehabilitation rate for pedophiles is very low, if they can be rehabilitated at all. Why then would we not do everything we can to keep them off the streets for as long as we can? They're a serious threat to our children. They belong in jail for their heinous crimes.

We constantly tell our children and their caregivers to come forward to tell someone. They need to know that the courage it takes to tell someone and report this will result in consistent convictions that will stick and that justice will be served.

To me, the fundamental reason for change to these laws is simple: we can't let these perpetrators walk freely among our youth organizations, our schools, our neighbourhoods, and our workplaces. Children need to feel safe, and parents have to trust that the government is playing a role in protecting them. Criminals need to be held accountable and be dealt with consistently with clearly defined consequences. In my mind, child protection is paramount.

In closing, I want to thank this government for standing up for victims and finally taking action. It's about time someone gets tough on criminals.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

That completes the opening addresses by the panel, so we begin the question and response period.

Mr. Harris will go first.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the panellists for your presentations this morning.

First of all, Mr. Kennedy, I want to publicly say what I said to you a minute ago privately: I'm very pleased to have met you. I want to commend you for your courage in becoming public on this issue, and for showing leadership, particularly to the young people of this country who admired you as a hockey player and who were able to get some comfort in knowing you had the courage to speak out.

I myself represented numerous victims of the Mount Cashel orphanage scandal during the nineties, and I was very aware of the importance of what you did when you came out in 1997. I started in about 1989, and we went through a public inquiry where young men were talking about their experiences at an orphanage—the same stories of non-belief and trying to get attention for what had happened to them. I'm very sympathetic to your circumstances.

Can you tell us whether you have seen any change in awareness in the last 10 or 12 years by society or young people, in terms of prevention of further perpetration? Do we have a better situation now than we did 15 years ago because of people like you, because of these prosecutions, because of the inquiries that have happened?

Have you seen any progress, in other words?

[Sheldon Kennedy]

Yes, and thank you for the comments. I appreciate that.

I do believe that as far as awareness, our understanding of not only sexual abuse, but abuse, bullying, and harassment has come a long way. As a social issue, these issues have come leaps and bounds from where we were in 1997.

But I think there's a gap. The gap is that we are out there in the prevention role telling individuals and our kids to tell people and to go to the police, and then there's nothing being done. I think that's a huge deterrent right now.

We need to really narrow that gap, and I think with these proposed changes in Bill C-10 we can accomplish that. As far as the prevention side of it, we reach, as I said, half a million people annually. I know we've donated a lot of money to the Red Cross. We've been in front of three and a half million youth across this country with education programs on these issues, specifically abuse, dating violence, bullying, etc. Those people are now adults.

There was a time that if you had a prevention program in place it meant you had problems within your organization, whereas today, if you don't have something in place, you know what, we're not signing up.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

That's a good line.

Professor Waller, I know you talked about having a particular role in prevention, or a particular body to do that. Aside from the specifics, such as Mr. Kennedy was talking about with particular offences....

I'm going to quote you a comment from your own paper. It says, “If locking up those who violate the law contributed to safer societies, then the United States should be the safest country in the world.”

That's a general comment about how many people are in prisons. That comes from a committee of this House, in 1993, I think, led by Jack Horner. He would have been the chair of that committee.

How does that comment fit with your comments about crime prevention generally? We do have a lot of commentators saying that a solution of having more people in jail is not going to make our communities safer—notwithstanding what Mr. Kennedy said about perpetrators; that's a different category.

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

I think my concern is very simple. There have only been debates about more or less punishment; there have not been debates about effective prevention. It was actually Bob Horner, the Conservative member of Parliament for Mississauga, who was the chair of the parliamentary committee that looked at what should be done. That was based on 1993 data.

We're now in 2011. We have World Health Organization data. We have the examples of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. We have the success of the Youth Justice Board. The World Health Organization has recognized the Fourth R as one of the three proven programs that reduce bullying and sexual assault in schools. We have many, many examples of things that are effective. I think it's important that we combine whatever we're going to do to be tough on criminals with being tough on causes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Go ahead, Mr. Goguen.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to address my question to Chief McFee. Chief, critics often say that crime rates are in decline. Of course, they cherry-pick the data that feeds their ideological hunger, yet they seem to fail to recognize that there remains a significant concern about crime, violent crime particularly, in this country. Particularly, I'd note that a recent Statistics Canada survey reported increases—yes, increases—in crimes. Crime rates increased 36% for child pornography, 11% for firearms offences, 10% for drug offences, 5% for criminal harassment, and 5% for sexual assaults. These are all criminal activities our government has specifically targeted both in the past and in this current legislation, including of course the measures in Bill C-10. Also there was a recent Nanos poll where the highest—yes, the highest—percentage of respondents chose cracking down on gun, gang, and drug crime as being the government priority most important to them.

Chief McFee, if there does remain a significant concern about violent crime in Canada, does your organization support Bill C-10? If yes, I'd like you to expand on what measures contained in the bill you personally support and why.

[Chief Dale McFee]

Good point. Obviously there's a lot in that. The reality is, is it a concern? Absolutely, yes. I think you just hit it on the head. If you look at demographics across Canada…I was in Iqaluit two weeks ago at a summit with the leaders of Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and we had Alaska Public Safety, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, and Greenland. I mean, even looking across the country there are differences. But overall, is the violent part an issue? Absolutely. Is it a concern? Is the perception of it a concern? Absolutely.

I think as my comments earlier refer to, what we see here is tackling serious crime. And you know what? That's needed. The reality is there are people who should go to jail because that keeps communities safe, and there is the purpose of a jail.

On the other side, Mr. Waller is saying we equally believe that we need to go in on the front side—if we call one the back side and one the front side—and we need to also do some programming in a lot of those things that make a difference and alleviate the call load. Obviously between the two of them they become cost efficient.

I struggle with the fact that it's one or the other. You know, this hard versus soft on crime. I think it's all hard on crime, with tough decisions. What I see here is dealing with one side. I assume that's what we're dealing with today, but equally important at a later date is something in relation to crime prevention. Obviously it's equally important. That's why we see this as one part of the key cog. If it's half of your business or a third of your business and you don't pay some attention to those things that work, then you don't maximize your results.

I hope that answers your question.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, that's very good.

Bill C-10, Chief, focuses on sexual predators, of course, organized drug crime, protection from violent young offenders, terrorism, human trafficking—all pretty heinous areas of criminal activity. From your organization's perspective, is our government on the right track when it comes to improving the safety of our streets and communities? Are we getting it right, Chief?

[Chief Dale McFee]

As I said in my opening statement, overall we support this. We're going to have other people come here to talk about sentencing and the drugs part of it, but I think there are some really good, positive moves here dealing with that side of the business. When you're talking about terrorism, about child exploitation, about serious violent offences, and organized crime, you're not talking about everybody. You're talking about the things that are disruptive in our community, that obviously decay our community, and are on the very serious end of the business we do. Absolutely, we think that. We put it in terms of “appropriate sentence for the appropriate crime”.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Almost a minute.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Okay.

I'd like to expand on something Sheldon Kennedy was saying, Chief. He was talking about sexual offenders and how, if they can be treated, certainly they can be rehabilitated. Of course, in Canada we have a very effective probation system, but regrettably, although people serve a sentence, the maximum period of probation thereafter is only three years. Is there any thought of perhaps expanding the probation period to follow sexual offenders for a longer period of time, and perhaps in fact give them some sort of treatment and cure? Would that be an effective measure?

[Chief Dale McFee]

One thing I noticed about this bill when I was reading it was that everybody who is an offender is going to have a set out plan on how they're going to get.... I mean, there are assumptions that they go to jail and they shouldn't be taking treatment. Our correctional institutions have great treatment programs. They're proven, they're evidence-based, and I think they're only getting better.

I don't want to keep going back to it, but that's a certain part, and then there's a certain part on the preventive side not coming into the system yet. We see these as equal. That's why we're able to sit here and speak on this as important. This is a part of what we see in relation to serious crime that needs to be dealt with, and it needs to have the appropriate consequence or the appropriate punishment. I think we have to say that we know there are folks that are going to go to jail, but that doesn't mean we forget about them. There are good programs in jail. Hopefully they'll acknowledge them and take them and go through that rehabilitation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'm sorry, Chief, I'll have to cut you off there.

Mr. Cotler.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to welcome our guests today.

I concur with what my colleague Mr. Harris has said, and I commend you, Mr. Kennedy, for your courage and commitment.

Professor Waller, I think we have a unique privilege in having a world leader, really, with respect to protecting victims of crime, protecting their rights, testifying before us today. Your central proposal, that Parliament should add a short amendment to Bill C-10 to create a permanent crime reduction board for Canada I think is a compelling one. I hope it will be adopted by this committee. As you put it, it would combine being tough on criminals with being tough on causes.

In your statement, you make this point:

If the federal government matched every additional dollar for prisons with an additional dollar for prevention and victim rights, Canada would have significantly fewer victims of crime and so would have alleviated harm to crime victims.

I agree with that statement and your proposal. But it appears to me that your proposal.... I understand that it presupposes, in effect, that Bill C-10 is going to be adopted, and, since it's going to be adopted, we should have an amendment as you have suggested. And that is correct.

I would just like to take you back one step and ask you whether Bill C-10 in its fundamentals, as it now exists...because some have said that this will end up incarcerating more people for longer periods of time, and we'll end up with more crime rather than less crime, with less justice rather than more justice.

Are there any other suggestions that you might make regarding Bill C-10 as it stands now that would fit with your model of an effective balance between enforcement, treatment, and prevention?

[Dr. Irvin Waller]

Clearly I'm in favour of the two sections that refer to victims, but these are.... Well, the one on reparation and terrorism is a very important one. The one on greater standing for victims in the parole hearing is also progress. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.

In very simple terms, if we began to spend intelligently the amount of money that we're expecting to spend on additional prisons--not just because of Bill C-10 but because of previous bills--and we began to match that with prevention and improving services for victims, we would probably, certainly within the next five to ten years, significantly reduce the need for incarceration.

My pleading here is that the most important thing to do is to address the $83 billion--that's $14 billion to $15 billion in tangible costs and $60 billion or so in intangible costs--that the Minister of Justice has talked about.

I do not share the view of some other experts that crime is going down in this country. If you look at the victimization survey, done only every five years...which it clearly isn't. We've seen a huge drop in reporting in this country, which the Minister of Justice has also mentioned.

So I think there's some urgency. I very much agree with the president of the CACP about this balance. He said, well, it's for a future event. I think it's important to do things now. The title of the report that I worked with for the Cameron government was “Less Crime, Lower Costs”. It's about preventing crime, preventing people from becoming victims. We have a huge amount of knowledge, some of which we're using in this country. We could be using way more to reduce those numbers significantly.