Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Just to be on the safe side, I am sponsored by the union USDAW, which has made representations to the Committee, and which I may speak on in due course.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Rory Stewart.)

[The Chair]

Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. The selection list for today’s sitting is also available in the room.

Clause 1

“Whiplash injury” etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Members for Ashfield and for High Peak for their powerful speeches. Before I move on to amendments 12 to 15 and Government new clause 4, I will clarify some points raised by the hon. Member for High Peak.

Many things are covered by insurance besides the ability to get compensation for whiplash. It would be absurd if the entire purpose of an insurance scheme was simply to give someone an annual pay-out for whiplash, and they paid £450 for that insurance when such claims were capped at £450. The hon. Member for High Peak is right that that would be an absurd system, but insurance covers many things besides whiplash claims. In fact, we are trying to move to a world in which the majority of someone’s insurance would cover things other than their whiplash claim.

This goes to the heart of the discussion so far, and to a point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge. Fundamentally, the number of road traffic accidents has decreased by 30% since 2005. At the same time, cars have become considerably safer: headrests and other forms of restraints have made it much safer to be in a motor car than it was in 2005. During that same period, whiplash claims have increased by 40%. Whether we define these as fraudulent or simply exaggerated, there is no doubt of the trend. There are fewer road traffic accidents and cars are safer, yet whiplash claims are going up.

[David Hanson]

We heard a number times in the Justice Committee, when taking evidence from the Minister’s colleague, Lord Keen, the question of the word “fraudulent”. Can the Minister quantify for this Committee how many fraudulent claims he expects there to be on an annual basis?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is that judging fraud in whiplash is almost impossible except statistically through the measures that I have used, because for minor whiplash claims of the sort that are covered in the tariff—not the type of whiplash injury that the hon. Member for High Peak experienced—there is no way of proving whether an injury has occurred. That is why The New England Journal of Medicine has done research on this.

There has been interesting research on what happens if someone sits in a motor vehicle with a simulated accident and a curtain behind them, so that they are unable to tell whether the accident has occurred or not. It shows that 20% of people experienced whiplash without the collision actually occurring. This is clearly a complex medico-social phenomenon. The polite way of putting it is that there is an asymmetry of information. It is close to impossible for an insurance company to prove that an individual did not experience whiplash, particularly at the three-month rate.

[David Hanson]

Could the record show, Mr Stringer, that the Minister, like his colleague in the House of Lords, could not indicate how many claims per annum are fraudulent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

With permission, I will proceed. There is still no answer to why the number of claims has risen, particularly when the number of road traffic accidents has dropped. The hon. Lady suggested that she would answer the question but did not. I look forward to someone answering that question, but I would like to make progress.

[David Hanson]

In Committee, it is normal to take interventions. As a Minister I never refused an intervention in Committee. I hope the Minister will accept this intervention. He mentioned the increase in claims being made. How many of those claims does he expect are fraudulent? That is the key. If they are not fraudulent, they are genuine claims, whether they are through a claims management company or from an individual.

[Rory Stewart]

The statistics suggest very strongly that what happened to an individual in a motor car in 2005 would, on average, have been much more severe than what happens to an individual in a motor car in 2018. A 30% reduction in the number of road traffic accidents, combined with the improvement in safety procedures, would suggest that an individual having a motor vehicle accident today would be considerably less likely to suffer whiplash than would have been the case in 2005. Therefore, the fact that the number of claims has increased by 40% is a very peculiar anomaly that requires explanation, which nobody has produced so far. Will somebody please explain why the number of claims has increased by 40% when there has been no physiological change in the human body since 2005 and motor cars have, if anything, got safer?

[David Hanson]

The Minister still has not answered the question. How many of those additional claims does he suggest are fraudulent? If a claims management company takes forward a claim, there might be issues about the claims management company but, ultimately, if the claim is not correct it will not be approved. Therefore, how many of those extra claims are fraudulent? He needs to tell the Committee.

[Rory Stewart]

In 2016, there were 7,572 confirmed fraudulent motor claims and 58,576 suspected claims, resulting in 66,147 detected motor fraud claims. However, my point goes much wider. Because of the asymmetry of information and because it is impossible to prove whether the injury has occurred—particularly at the three to six-month period—it is impossible to put a precise number on it. We can be confident, through the soaring inflation in the number of these claims, that many are exaggerated, to put it mildly, even though we cannot prove the exact number beyond the 66,147 that are actually fraudulent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

We certainly will move to introduce an amendment exactly in relation the hon. Gentleman’s question—he has campaigned well on this, as have other hon. Members—setting out that we should consult the Lord Chief Justice on the level of tariffs as well as on the percentage uplift for judicial discretion. Those are two important concessions that I hope will reassure the Opposition.

[David Hanson]

Before the Minister sits down, can he give some further detail about how he intends to consult the Lord Chief Justice on making the regulations? How much notice will he give the Lord Chief Justice? Will the Lord Chief Justice’s comments be public? Will they be published so that other hon. Members can see them prior to any decision being taken? What happens if the Lord Chief Justice disagrees with the Government’s suggestions? Could the Minister give some outline of those circumstances?

[Rory Stewart]

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, clause 5(5) merely states:

“The Lord Chancellor must consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations under this section.”

We intend that to be done in an accountable, responsible, transparent and predictable fashion that would give the Lord Chief Justice a serious amount of time to consider and respond, but, ultimately, it is a consultation and the power of decision rests with the Lord Chancellor, as is implied in the legislation.

[David Hanson]

Will the Lord Chief Justice’s comments on the consultation be public? Will other people apart from those two parties be able to see both their comments?

[Rory Stewart]

That remains to be determined by regulations introduced by the Lord Chancellor and is not included in the Bill.

Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Gloria De Piero]

Amendment 17 would require insurers to report on whether savings have been passed on to consumers. New clause 6 would require insurers to pass on all savings as a result of the changes to consumers. Unlike the Government’s over-wordy, over-complicated new clause 2, which I will discuss shortly, amendment 17 and new clause 6 are straightforward. They would require the Financial Conduct Authority to insist that insurers report on the savings they have made as a result of the Bill, and the extent to which such savings have been passed on to policy holders. There are no caveats, no get-outs—it is a straight-line requirement to do the right thing.

The Bill is the latest in a long line of Government handouts to the insurance industry. Back in 2012 in a closed-door meeting at No. 10, the insurers—in return for being able to set the fixed costs in the new fast track that the new Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced—promised to reduce insurance premiums. Since then, insurers have saved more than £11 billion; those are Association of British Insurers figures, not my own. As the Minister must concede, motor insurance premiums are higher now than they were then. So much for those promises.

In the Bill, the Government have, again, swallowed hook, line and sinker the insurers’ promises that they will reduce premiums. History is repeating itself. Insurers are making record profits: Direct Line’s profits in 2017 jumped by 52% to £570 million and Aviva recorded a profit of £1.6 billion. No, that is not all motor related, but in the case of Direct Line it will largely be so.

Meanwhile, insurer CEOs are on multimillion pound packages—Paul Geddes from Direct Line and Mark Wilson from Aviva made more than £4.3 million each in 2017. We are now discussing measures that will save the insurers £1.3 billion a year. Of that, the insurers might—if the wind is blowing in the right direction and none of the ludicrously large get-out clauses in new clause 2 apply—hand across up to 80%. Notably, the cuts to insurance premiums of £35 a year, which insurers are promising now, are much lower than the previous estimates of £50 per year promised in the Prisons and Courts Bill. The Government represent a party that claims to oppose red tape: here is a chance for them to avoid it. Let us have a simple clause that does what it says on the tin.

That leads me to Government new clause 2, which is as full of red tape as it is holes. Perhaps my most fundamental question to the Minister is this: what is wrong with the word “will”? The new clause is peppered with the word “may”. If the Government are genuinely committed to ensuring that savings are passed to consumers, why do they not insist that that happens? Paragraph 3 includes provision for all kinds of ways in which, by regulation, insurers should provide information. Is there any reason why that information should not be made publicly available?

Paragraph 4 is a catalogue of reasons why insurers could wheedle out of being transparent and evade passing on the very substantial savings that the Government’s impact assessment makes clear they will be making. The truth is that all the Government have managed to extract from the insurers, who stand to gain massively from this Bill, is a vague promise that they will pass on savings.

Embarrassed by the lack of hard evidence for a commitment, the Government have tabled this new clause, which is riddled with get-outs and opportunities for insurers to worm their way out of the flimsy commitments they have made. We know—and if the Government are honest, so do they—that insurers will seek to avoid paying the savings that they make back to policy holders. That is what happened when they last made promises in 2012. Given the weakness of the new clause, that is what will happen again.

In truth, the Government have rolled over and the new clause is simply a fig leaf to cover their embarrassment. The answer, I suggest, is to include a simple clause that—and I use a phrase from Conservative Back Benchers on Second Reading—will

“hold the insurance industry’s feet to the fire.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 111.]

Our new clause would mean that any savings made by any insurer as a result of anything in this Act, or associated regulation, will be passed to policy holders by way of reduced premiums. What could be simpler? The Minister may notice that our proposed new clause quite deliberately refers to

“savings made…as a result”

of changes by this regulation.

The Government have refused to include in the Bill the small claims changes that they propose; we will come back to that issue later in our other amendments. What is crucially different between the Government’s new clause 2 and our new clause 6 is that our new clause is not only simpler but mentions the savings that insurers will make from the small claims changes.

In calculating the £1.3 billion in savings that the insurers will make every year, the Government’s impact assessment includes the savings created by the increase in the small claims limit as a result of the so-called wider package of measures. For the Government not to include the savings made from the small claims limit changes in their new clause 2 renders it virtually worthless, and undermines their much-vaunted and fundamental promise that motor insurance premiums will drop by £35 a year.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Henry.

I know it is a long time ago, but I will take the Committee back, if I may, to 25 November 2015, when George Osborne, as he is now known, was the Member for Tatton and serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. At that time, he said—it was recorded in Hansard:

“We will bring forward reforms to the compensation culture around minor motor accident injuries, which will remove… £l billion from the cost of providing motor insurance.”

And here is the crucial bit:

“We expect the industry to pass on this saving, so that motorists see an average saving of £40 to £50 per year off their insurance bills.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1367.]

When this Bill was introduced to the House of Lords and subsequently to this place, the Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment indicated at first that the figure would now be £40, not £50—not between £40 and £50, but £40. However, when the general election was fought last year, the figure had miraculously gone from £40 to £35.

In October last year, one of the insurance companies that the Minister in another place, Lord Keen of Elie, has been fond of quoting—Liverpool Victoria or LV=—spoke. Caroline Johnson, director of third party and technical claims at LV=, spoke at the Motor Accident Solicitors Society’s annual conference in Sheffield, which must have been an important place to say this; it was not just said off the cuff, but at the conference. She said, “The £35 may or may not be achievable”.

I ask my first question today in support of the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield and to start the testing of the Minister’s new clause. In his response, can the Minister give the latest Government assessment of what the £50/£40/£35/possibly-not-achievable £35 is as of today? We are expected to take on trust the figures that he has given.

There is no doubt that the insurance companies will save £1.3 billion a year. That figure has been accepted by the Government and the insurance companies, and I suspect that it will be cited again—not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield, but by others who will say that it is the saving, the prize, that the Government seek. My concern is not the insurance companies and the £1.3 billion; my concern is how much, if there are savings to be made in the areas we are concerned about, of that £1.3 billion will land in the pockets of those individuals who would then have lower premiums as a result.

I am very pleased to sit on the Justice Committee, just as I was very pleased to sit coterminously this morning with this Committee; I have to say that was very interesting. The Justice Committee carried out an investigation into this area and came to a conclusion as a whole—it was not just the Labour members of that Committee. It is chaired by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is a Conservative; it has a Conservative majority; and it has unanimous support for the recommendations it made in this very area. The Committee said:

“As obtaining insurance involves a commercial transaction with a private sector body...there is little that the Government can do to enforce lower premium rates without significant change to present policies.”

My question to the Minister is about his proposed new clause 2. There is something I cannot find in it—it may be hidden in there within the legalese—but, if it is, could he please put it in simple language for the Committee? What happens if this investigation proves that the insurance companies have made a saving of anything between nothing and £1.3 billion? What steps will the Government take at that stage to enforce their policy objective of ensuring that £50/£40/£35/possibly £35 goes into the pockets of individuals who pay the insurance companies?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Hanson]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point; it is one I had not thought of and I am grateful to him for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. If this saving is going to be made, it would be sensible to say whether it is made early on, because downstream, as my hon. Friend indicated, there will no doubt be a tapering.

To be honest with the Committee, the Minister is only proposing new clause 2 because he got done over in the other place by Members of the House of Lords and could not get the Bill through the House of Lords without this new clause. He got done over in the other place because the Justice Committee unanimously called for

“the Financial Conduct Authority to monitor the extent to which any premium reductions can be attributed to these measures and report back to us after 12 months.”

I go back to the all-party Justice Committee, chaired by a Conservative MP, with a Conservative majority, which said in its report on this Bill that there should be a report within 12 months. We have been helpfully reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown why we suggested that at the time: because we wanted to see the impact within 12 months.

On the amendment tabled by Lord Sharkey in the House of Lords, Lord Keen, the Minister dealing with this in the other place, said on Report:

“the Government are not unsympathetic to the underlying intention of Amendment 46, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The point is that having made a firm commitment, insurers should be accountable for meeting it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1632.]

That is what this Minister’s colleague said in the House of Lords, and I do not disagree with it. I only say to the Minister that April 2024 seems a tad far in the future to secure the proposals that he is putting to the Committee today.

The Minister needs to say firmly to the Committee what he anticipates the savings to be now, how he will monitor what the insurance companies are making—not just now, but in the next five years—and how he will hold the insurance companies to account. How will he ensure that, whatever date we end up with—be it 1 April 2024 or, if the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield is accepted, as I hope it will be, an earlier date—they meet their obligations and give the money back to the people who are funding it in the first place?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for bringing proposing the amendments and new clauses.

Effectively, as the right hon. Member for Delyn has pointed out, new clause 2 was introduced with a lot of influence from the House of Lords—it was driven by Opposition Members of the House of Lords to meet exactly the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members. Therefore, I am tempted to argue in my brief argument that amendment 17 and new clause 6 are, in fact, unnecessary. The noble Lords did a good job in new clause 2 of addressing many of the concerns raised in the debate, which is why the Government are keen to ask for the Committee’s support.

At the heart of this, the Committee will discover, is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of markets, which will be difficult to resolve simply through legislation. There are profoundly different views on both sides of the House about what exactly is going on in a market. Again and again, all the arguments—from the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) right the way through to the eloquent speech by the right hon. Member for Delyn—rest on the fundamental assumption that every company, insurance or otherwise, in the country is simply involved in trying to charge their consumers as much as possible and provide as few services as possible, and that there is nothing to prevent their doing that.

Of course, what prevents companies from doing that ought to be competition. It does not matter whether that is the insurance industry or, to take a more straightforward question, why Tesco’s does not charge £50 for a loaf of bread and try to produce one slice. In the end, the decision on what premiums are charged will be driven by competition between different insurance companies. All the arguments, whether in relation to these or other amendments, are based on that fundamental misunderstanding. The Labour party is again effectively pushing for a prices and incomes policy. They are trying to get the Government to fix the prices of premiums and control the prices that insurance companies charge because they simply do not trust the Competition and Markets Authority, the FCA, the insurance industry or any other business to pass on savings to consumers.

[David Hanson]

With respect to the Minister, in this case the Labour party is just asking for confirmation of what the Government want to do. They said that they want to save £1.3 billion, and in November 2015 said that they would give back £50 as premiums. That figure has changed. All I am asking is this: what is their estimate of the figure today? The Minister should be able to give an estimate because he has done so on two previous occasions—in an assessment of the Bill’s financial implications in the Conservative party manifesto, and in the Chancellor’s statement to the House of Commons.

[Rory Stewart]

Unfortunately, something is being missed in the way the right hon. Gentleman is framing his arguments. He is suggesting that there is a fixed, stable situation—the Chancellor of the Exchequer offered £50, nothing changed, and now it is £35. If that were true, it would indeed be a disgrace, but the reality is that, following the negotiations that took place in the consultation and in the House of Lords, the savings that the insurance companies will realise and will be in a position to pass on to the man or woman paying the premium have been considerably reduced.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman might be interested in listening to the answer rather than talking to somebody else. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, he of course suggested that all general damages would be entirely removed. His proposal was that there would be no general damages at all. It is therefore perfectly reasonable. If no general damages at all were paid, the insurance company’s savings would be considerably larger, and the savings passed on to the consumer might indeed have been £50.

Due to the very good work that the Opposition and the noble Lords put in, there have been a number of compromises to the Bill, which mean that the savings passed on to the insurers, and from the insurers in the form of premiums, will be considerably reduced. One of those compromises is that, whereas in the past there were going to be no general damages paid to anybody getting a whiplash injury of under two years, there is now a tariff for money to be paid out. As it gets closer to two years, the tariffs paid out will be much closer to the existing Judicial College guidelines, so the savings will be considerably less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I will return to the fundamental disagreement between right hon. and hon. Members. We can all agree that there were significant savings to the insurance industry. We can all agree that some of those savings were passed on to customers and that premiums ceased to rise at the rate at which they had been. There is some disagreement between the two sides of the House about whether enough of those savings were passed on—we argue that the industry passed on sufficient savings—and whether premiums went up more than they should. However, without Government new clause 2, the evidence or information will not be available to people in order to make such arguments.

It is not enough to produce a general figure, saying, “Here is £11 billion, and this is how much was passed on in premiums.” That is why the new clause has no less than 11 subsections that detail the kind of data that would need to be extracted from the insurance industry by the date recommended in order to prove that case. I was asked why reporting would not be done annually. The answer, of course, is that a claim can be brought any time within three years of an accident. The date takes into account that the law is due to come into effect in 2020. We add three years to that for the claim, and then time for the data and evidence gathering in order to report in 2024.

[David Hanson]

If the Bill comes into effect in 2020 and we add three years, that is 2023. However, new clause 2(7) says:

“Before the end of a period of one year beginning with 1 April 2024”.

That means that the report may not be done until the end of March or April 2025. It may be published by the Government after that, and then there will be discussion. Therefore, even on the Minister’s timetable, we are talking about three years past the 2023 deadline that he indicated to the Committee a moment ago. He should reflect on that and table an amendment to his new clause on Report that brings forward the proposed date considerably.

[Rory Stewart]

The reason why I respectfully request that the Government amendments are supported and the Opposition amendments are withdrawn is that pushing for one-year rather than three-year reviews and attempting to price fix the result would leave the opposition amendments open to judicial review and create an enormous, unnecessary burden on the market. Our contention is that the market already operates—we have the Competition and Markets Authority to argue that that is the case—and, by introducing our new clause, we will be able to demonstrate that over time. It is a very serious thing.

I remain confident that, if insurance companies are compelled to produce such a degree of detail and information to the Financial Conduct Authority and the Treasury, they will pass on those savings to consumers because, were they not to, they would be taking a considerable legal risk. The industry initially resisted this move, and understands that it is a serious obligation.

Victims Strategy

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. I am grateful for the work that many charities have done to help us to prepare the strategy, and I look forward to them continuing to play a central role as we deliver it.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The independent advocate for major tragedies is an important and welcome development. Given the Minister’s announcement today, could he indicate the proposed budget for that position?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises several important points, and I will try to address one or two of them. On the need for us to work across Government, many issues are not just for the Ministry of Justice, but for the likes of the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. It is also the case that we want to work upstream, because if we can address the complex problems that exist, we can stop people committing crimes in the first place.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Effective employment via the Through the Gate programme depends on effective community rehabilitation companies, which the Select Committee on Justice recently described as “wholly inadequate.” What plans does the Secretary of State have to fix community rehabilitation companies in Through the Gate?

[Mr Gauke]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Through the Gate service needs to improve, and we are engaging with CRCs on that issue. We recognise it does not meet the standards we require, and it is important that we engage. We have been clear with the CRCs that they need to improve their performance, and we are in commercial negotiation with providers to secure the quality of services, including Through the Gate services, that we need.

Privately Financed Prisons

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I think that is something we share across the Benches. Both sides of the House share a common desire: to reduce crime and reoffending, and turn around people’s lives. It is a terrible waste that nearly 40% of our prison population have been in care, that nearly 50% have been excluded from school, and that the literacy level of nearly 50% is lower than that of an 11-year-old. The rates of reoffending have been stubbornly high for 40 or 50 years.

We need to work together to crack these problems. Decent, clean, well run and well managed prisons are part of the key. Another part is getting cross-party consensus on the difficult and brave political choices required to begin to reduce the prison population and protect the public through a reduction in reoffending.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Minister confirmed that the Carillion contract for facilities had not been managed well by his Department and had resulted in additional costs to Carillion. What guarantees can he give the House that the contract for the new prison will be managed in an effective way? Will he ensure that the contract is published and subject to freedom of information, so that we can scrutinise his decisions?

[Rory Stewart]

The right hon. Gentleman has enormous experience of the issue, having been the prisons Minister responsible for managing private prisons. He is therefore aware that one reason we can stand up in front of the House and say we are confident we can do this is that we have been doing it for 25 years.

Some 14 private sector prisons are operating, with good reports from the inspectors. We have a lot of experience of how this is done. This is not a new area of Government activity; the right hon. Gentleman himself managed exactly these prisons. The key is balancing proper competition, which brings in diversity and innovation, with the right key performance indicators to make sure that we stay on top of that performance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for visiting Pentonville prison. I was lucky enough to be there two weeks ago, and I pay tribute to its excellent governor for the very good work he is doing. It is one of the most testing, busy London local prisons, and it faces a huge number of issues, but protecting prison officers is fundamentally about having a predictable, stable regime, enough prison officers on the landing, the right kind of training and relationships to calm things down, and, ultimately, protection.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the number of assaults on prison officers has risen by 23% in the past 12 months, what assessment has the Minister made of new psychoactive substances causing that problem? When does he expect the roll-out of body-worn cameras to be complete?

[Rory Stewart]

The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced predecessor in my job. Clearly there is a strong correlation with these new psychoactive substances; it is difficult otherwise to account for the huge rise in violence. The substances seem to drive both self-harming behaviour and extreme violent behaviour. I will give a written answer on exactly when we will fulfil the body-worn camera programme.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money)

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 out of money so provided.—(Rory Stewart.)

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was about to put the Question, but Mr Hanson wishes to speak.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I was simply going to ask the Minister how much.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

This is about bringing in new technology. What this is really about is powers that will enable the Secretary of State to spend money, once the new technology is developed, to insert the new material. The approximate cost would be in the low millions per site, but we do not have the exact costs at the moment.

[David Hanson]

Well, I am grateful for that. If that is the low millions per site for every prison in the United Kingdom, perhaps the Minister can tell me, as I asked, how much and when.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I rise to respond to the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) and the question asked by the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson).

[David Hanson]

Again, I am interested to know how much. It is important that there is some context. I support the objectives of the Bill; I just want to get a flavour of the amounts involved.

[Rory Stewart]

This is a sensitive issue. We are clearly trying to prevent organised criminal gangs from using mobile telephones in prisons, for all the reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford East. We therefore cannot be too specific about exactly where we are going to put these devices or exactly how we are going to interfere with mobile telephones. The answer that I have given is a broad figure in the ballpark of a few million pounds per site. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would wish me to share with the House the exact number of sites at which we are going to do this and which sites we will target first.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) for all her extraordinary work as a Conservative Back Bencher to introduce the Bill. As the hon. Member for Bradford East pointed out, this is vital. There is a plague of mobile telephones that are being used to deal illicit drugs and to fuel violence. We need to cut down on them with better searching both at the prison gates and in cells, and we can also do much more to block the technology. With many thanks to Members, I commend the money resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am aware of the case and I was very pleased to discuss it. Police dog Finn did a remarkable thing, and I know that he has been recognised for his work. The Government are looking at the issue.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

But will the Minister support the Bill on Friday?

Leaving the EU: Justice System

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 29th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I welcome the Minister to her role in the Ministry of Justice. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—as a member of the Justice Committee, he is my hon. Friend—and his introduction to the work we have undertaken. I want to focus on a couple of the issues we have raised in the Justice Committee report and some of the issues with the Government’s response.

We set out four principal aims in the report that should be central to the Government’s approach to justice post-Brexit: continuing to co-operate as closely as possible on criminal justice; maintaining access to the EU’s valuable regulations on inter-state commercial law; enabling cross-border legal practice rights and opportunities; and retaining efficient mechanisms to resolve family law cases, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

If I may, I will focus on criminal legislation and criminal law. In our summary to the report, we said:

“Crime is ever more international.”

Self-evidently, crime does not respect borders. The EU mechanisms to combat illegal activities across borders include many EU institutions. For example, through the European arrest warrant, we have facilities to extradite and bring back to this country people who have committed or are suspected of having committed serious offences. We have investigative resources through the European agencies—Europol and Eurojust—that support police, prosecutors and judges. We also have information-sharing tools that give rapid access to suspects’ criminal records and biometric information. All those things are extremely important in ensuring that our constituents have justice and that we have the opportunity to deport people who have committed serious offences in this country to face justice back in their home jurisdictions in Europe.

We put those agenda items on the table, and the Government responded in December, before the Minister came to her post. I want to quote a couple of the Government’s comments and test them with the Minister a little bit more. In the first appendix to the report, they said:

“For criminal matters, we want to continue to cooperate across a range of tools, measures and agencies and continue the facilitation of operational business across borders. We believe that the UK and the EU should work together to design new, dynamic arrangements as part of our future partnership that would allow us to continue and strengthen our close collaboration on criminal justice.”

That is all well and good—it is a great aspiration—but my questions to the Minister are: how, when and what progress? We are 365 days from when we potentially leave.

The Government response went further:

“The UK will therefore be approaching negotiations on the future partnership with the EU as an opportunity to build on what we have already achieved through decades of collaboration, integrated working, and joint systems and procedures…the UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security.”

That is all well and good—nobody would disagree with that—but my questions to the Minister are: how, when and what progress?

The Government response gets more worrying. They said they acknowledge that

“when we leave the EU, the legal framework that currently underpins cooperation between the UK and the EU on security, law enforcement and criminal justice will no longer apply to the UK. As part of a deep and special partnership, it will be in our mutual interest to agree new arrangements that enable us to sustain cooperation across a wide range of these structures and measures, reflecting the importance of preserving the extensive collaboration that currently exists between the UK and the EU.”

I ask the Minister: where are we on agreeing those new arrangements? What discussions have there been? When will they publish their view? Does the EU have a timescale to agree the new arrangements? Will they be agreed before the deal in September or October or November is put to the House? Will they be agreed 367 days from today, after we have left the European Union? Those things matter.

Other members of the Committee will comment on the European arrest warrant in due course, but in 2016, 13,797 requests came to the UK from European partners for arrest warrants. UK police forces made 1,843 arrests in respect to those warrants. Many of those arrest warrants were put out across all countries because the host nation did not know where the criminal suspect was, but UK forces made 1,843 arrests, and we surrendered 1,431 suspects. We requested of our European partners 349 arrest warrants in 2016, of which 185 resulted in arrests, and 156 suspects were surrendered to the United Kingdom.

From 2010 to 2016, which I have figures for, 1,773 warrants were requested and 1,101 arrests were made. I expect that co-operation in the future, and I know that the Minister would seek it, but as of today, I do not know the road map to achieve it, and the Minister has a duty to tell us what it is. In my area in Wales, we surrendered 151 suspects, and 25 people were arrested and sent in the other direction. Such people are warranted because they will potentially be charged with serious crimes such as child sexual abuse, terrorism, or serious organised crime.

I am old enough to remember the Costa del Crime in Spain. People scarpered to Spain when they committed offences in this country and lived a life of luxury, because we did not have those arrangements. That does not happen now. I have seen police in Spain knock on doors in villas in Marbella and bring people back to this country. I ask the Minister: what will happen on that, when, how, where, and when will this House know? The London bombers, for example—I know you will be interested in this, Ms Buck—were brought back under an arrest warrant to this country, and are now in prison in the United Kingdom serving a very long sentence because of that European co-operation. Let us have some information about how we are going to progress that.

I take a great interest in Europol. We cannot get away from the fact that, as it says on Europol’s website today, Europol

“is democratically managed on the basis of a system of controls, checks and supervision of governance”

but is governed by

“EU justice and interior ministers, MEPs”

and “other EU bodies”. I ask the Minister: when we wake up, 366 days from today, on 1 or 2 April 2019, what will our relationship be with Eurojust under the new regime in the transition period? How will Ministers influence Eurojust and Europol?

Those are key issues, because we are part of 44 crime workstreams in Europol: economic crime, excise fraud, money laundering, trafficking in human beings, facilitation of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, synthetic drugs, cannabis, cocaine and heroin, other drugs, terrorism, organised property crime, illicit firearms trafficking, intellectual property crime, counterfeiting and product privacy, cybercrime, high-tech crimes, social engineering, child sexual exploitation, online sexual coercion, forgery of money, payment fraud, euro counterfeiting, money mulling, corruption, sports corruption, environmental crime, illicit trafficking in endangered animal species, illicit trafficking in endangered plant species, maritime piracy, stolen vehicles, illicit tobacco trade, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mobile organised crime groups, mafia-structured crime, forgery, illicit trafficking in cultural goods including antiquities, illicit trafficking in hormonal substances, and crime connected with nuclear and radioactive substances. Those are just some of the 44 workstreams we are part of, and over which we have governance. We have access, we share information, and operate with European partners.

This time next year, we will not be part of the European Union—we will be in transition, but we will not be part of the European community. I therefore ask the Minister again: what progress will be made, and how, where and when? I expect co-operation and a willingness to co-operate, because that is in everybody’s interests, but I am not yet clear on the road map or the final decisions.

I am not clear on that because the head of Europol is not clear on it. Rob Wainwright, who is British, is currently the head of Europol—he will no longer be, very shortly, for self-evident reasons. He spoke to the House of Lords Committee the other week, and I will put a couple of his quotes on the record in this place. He said that:

“The UK will face ‘impediments’ to receiving high-quality information from the EU’s law enforcement agency after Brexit”.

That is what Rob Wainwright said only the other week. He said

“it was not realistic for there to be no change to the UK’s relationship with the organisation after Brexit, given that only full members of the EU currently have unrestricted access to its databases…One can assume that the [European Commission] will somehow insist on some change”.

I ask the Minister again: what change will the European Union insist on? What will happen with regard to the high-quality information we currently receive? Again, I quote for your benefit, Ms Buck, and for the benefit of Hansard:

“Mr Wainwright said the UK was not likely to have direct access to Europol databases.”

That is what the head of Europol said: the UK is not likely to have direct access to Europol databases on the 44 areas I skipped through, each of which has a serious crime cohort underneath. I ask the Minister: what will happen? What is happening now? What will happen before next year? Will we have access? If not, what access relationship will we have? What will our access cost us? Will that access slow down criminal activity contact between various organisations fighting crime in this country?

Finally, Mr Wainwright

“added that Britain’s waning influence”—

just let it sink in for a moment that the head of Europol used the phrase “Britain’s waning influence”—

“over European policing could affect the country’s efforts in other areas, including modern slavery”,

which was a personal priority of the Prime Minister when she was the Home Secretary.

I believe that these matters will be solved, but it is incumbent on the Minister to give some road map on the solving of these problems. This is not a game. It is about protecting children, protecting people from modern slavery, catching criminals, stopping terrorism, ensuring that drugs do not enter this country, and helping our European partners to fight crime in their countries as well. That is in all of our interests. I know that the police and intelligence services will want to do it, but ultimately the Minister needs to tell us how.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

As I said, I am very relaxed about European Court of Justice jurisdiction generally, but the hon. Lady and the Committee report make a case, specifically with regard to matters of procedure or even jurisdiction, for there being no reason for the Government to be overly concerned with the role of the Court at all.

The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, also rightly flagged up the issue of clause 6 of the exit Bill. I agree that it is unhelpful and needs to be strengthened; instead of guiding or directing judges, it seems to be buck passing. We need to protect judges from accusations of making political decisions, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham rightly explained.

The right hon. Member for Delyn flagged up the question of whether all this can be managed in less than two years. I stand to be corrected, but with justice and home affairs being areas of shared competence, I understand that agreements on participation in some of these schemes may well need approval both from the EU institutions and from individual member states. Conceivably, in some of those member states, that could mean parliamentary ratification or even a referendum. Will the Government give some clarity on whether that is their understanding, and on what contingency plans exist for that possibility?

[David Hanson]

It would also be helpful to have clarity on whether there is a cost for the UK to access these services in the event of any co-operation in due course and, if so, what estimate the Government have made of that cost.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a very fair point, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that regard. What are the contingency plans if it becomes apparent very soon that we will not be able to secure all these arrangements within the current proposed timeframe?

Finally, although justice is a devolved matter and Scotland has its own distinct legal system, it will be UK Ministers doing the negotiating. As ever, I take the opportunity to exhort the Minister and her colleagues to work as closely as possible with counterparts in Edinburgh, to make sure that the implications for the Scottish justice system are properly taken into account and reflected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend should not assume that those points have not yet been considered. We are moving from an EU perspective to discuss these issues, and they will be considered.

[David Hanson]

I am concerned and interested in whether the matters we have debated will form part of the agreement to be put to Parliament in October or November, if we have a final vote then.

Worboys Case and the Parole Board

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

First, let me put on record my tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless work on this case, as he has been a very strong advocate for the victims. On transparency, as I said, I hope that we can make progress in the course of the next few weeks. It is not for me to determine when the Parole Board will next look at John Worboys’ case, but I would be astonished if it were before we had new rules on transparency in place.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Let me place on record, if I may, that Nick Hardwick is a decent man whom I have known for a long time professionally and personally. He has taken his resignation seriously today. With regard to the Secretary of State’s abolition of rule 25, he used the words “in its current form”. What areas of transparency does he expect still to be exempt?

[Mr Gauke]

The challenge in this—having seen in this case the decision notice by the Parole Board—is that there might be, for example, information provided by the prisoner to a psychologist, as part of the risk assessment, that is deeply personal. In order to have openness between, say, a prisoner and a psychologist, it must be possible for some of that information to remain confidential, so we cannot put everything out there. Indeed, there may be information relevant to victims that they would not want to be put into the public domain. As I say, a summary of the conclusions that the Parole Board has reached should be made available. The points made by Members on both sides of the House in saying that greater transparency is needed are absolutely right.