Andrew Percy
Main Page: Andrew Percy (Conservative - Brigg and Goole)Department Debates - View all Andrew Percy's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lay magistrates normally sit in threes, as opposed to the stipendiary district judges who sit alone. Despite that fact, lay magistrates are considerably cheaper than stipendiary judges. I am not suggesting that they do a lesser job, however. Both are integral to our criminal justice system.
Another great challenge that our magistrates face is the cutting of 93 magistrates courts. That has been debated at length in this place and in Westminster Hall, and it is a matter of great concern. I do not have much difficulty with the reduction in the number of magistrates courts, but I accept that many people are concerned about the ability to deliver local justice and about the extra strain that this will put on our lay magistrates, who are volunteers, through the extra mileage and work that they will have to do.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
My hon. Friend is entirely right in what she says about magistrates. She has mentioned court closures, and we are losing our magistrates court in Goole. When that happens, it will be quicker for some of my constituents to get to King’s Cross than to the replacement magistrates services in Beverley.
Anna Soubry
I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I am grateful for it. I would counter it, however, by saying that those of us who are familiar with the Crown courts will know that defendants and witnesses who appear in them make the effort and appear there without too much difficulty. I struggle to see how there will be much difference when a defendant or witness has to travel to a magistrates court that is further away following the closure of a more local one.
There are many myths surrounding our lay magistrates. The days of the stereotype of the middle-aged lady—not that there is anything wrong with middle-aged ladies—are long gone. The days are gone when women of a certain age and from a certain social class dispensed justice, usually wearing a hat—not that there is anything wrong with hats, I must also swiftly add. We now see magistrates drawn from all walks of life, and rightly so. Their experience and knowledge is also often brought to bear in the Crown court, when they sit with a Crown court judge to decide appeals. They perform an invaluable role there.
I have only one complaint, and I am grateful to my constituent, Mr Roy Plumb, in this regard. He lives in Kimberley, and he served as a magistrate for many years. He performed the role admirably. However, at the age of 70, he was forced to retire. The irony of the situation is that he was born on the very same day in the very same ward of the very same hospital as our esteemed Lord Chancellor. It is somewhat ironic that, while our Lord Chancellor was being appointed to his role, in which I hope he serves for many years, Mr Plumb was being forced to retire, as are other magistrates who reach their 70th birthday.
I am against ageism—of course, I would say that as I get older. It is wrong to assume that, just because someone is of a certain age, they will perform in a certain way. Just because someone who is under 30 is appointed to serve as a lay magistrate, which Governments of all persuasions have sought to encourage, it does not mean that they will necessarily bring to the bench more youthful ideas or be able to identify more closely with young people. I subscribe to the notion that it does not matter what it says on someone’s birth certificate; the test is whether they are young at heart and fit in mind, and whether they have all the faculties to exercise sound judgment.
I know that the previous Government were questioned by people of all political persuasions—this is not an issue of party politics—on whether magistrates should have to retire at 70. Crown court judges can often sit until they are 73 and I believe High Court judges do not have to retire until they are 75, or at least they can sit in court until that age. I would suggest that this seems a little unfair to magistrates, especially, as I say, with our great Lord Chancellor being able to continue to serve for many years to come.
I am sure that all would agree with me in celebrating and thanking our lay magistrates. I urge the Government to view ageism as a thing of the past, so that our magistrates should not have to retire at 70. Mr Plumb might be able to return to the bench. We should certainly give great credit to his campaign and wish it well for the future.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I shall speak about the compensation scheme for the victims of overseas terrorism. Before I do so, I would like to pay tribute to a number of Members from different parties who have worked hard on this issue—not least the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who would have spoken in this debate were it not for the fact that he thought he would have to be in the Finance Bill Committee. I thank him and his staff for the support they have given. I would also like to thank my Lincolnshire colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who has secured meetings with Ministers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I also thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) and the former Member for Makerfield, Lord McCartney, who have both worked hard on this issue over the years. Above all, I pay tribute to the families of the victims of terrorism who have also worked incredibly hard over a number of years and continue to campaign vigorously on it; some of them are present today. Let me outline some of the issues and problems connected with this matter, before looking at the history and putting some questions to the Minister.
Since the Bali bombings in 2002, there have been 58 deaths and 37 serious injuries arising from terror attacks against our citizens overseas. It is my view, and that of many Members, that the British Government continue to have a responsibility for their citizens even when they leave these shores. British victims of terrorism in the UK are eligible for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but that does not extend to victims of terrorism overseas. Travel insurers do not normally pay out for death, injury or costs associated with terror attacks, as they do for death, injury and some costs associated with other violent crimes suffered abroad. Similarly, many foreign Governments do not compensate foreign nationals who are attacked on their territory. This is particularly true in countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey and India, where there are many Western tourists, including our own people, and multiple terror threats.
The real issue is that this is not just about British citizens being caught up by accident in attacks while overseas, as many of them have been targeted precisely because they hold Her Majesty’s passport. In Mumbai, gunmen in the Taj Mahal hotel said, “We want US and British,” before inspecting passports, and they then targeted individuals. That is why it is not appropriate for Ministers back here in the UK to bracket terror attacks with other crimes in their correspondence with victims. Terrorism is of a totally different order to other violent crimes suffered abroad. Surely our Government should bear some responsibility for our citizens when they are attacked overseas for nothing more than being British.
Nick Boles
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue, and also the hon. Gentleman—the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont)—whose constituency I should not even venture to try to pronounce. I would like briefly to thank the Minister for agreeing to meet me, some victims and their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that as people are targeted, as he suggests, simply because they are British citizens, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right to make a clear commitment to put in place compensation retrospectively for past victims, and a future scheme for any—God forbid—future victims of terrorism abroad? Does he agree that this clear commitment is based on a moral obligation that we all have to stand by our fellow citizens when they are caught up through no fault of their own in such attacks?
Andrew Percy
I entirely agree. We compensate people who are victims of terrorism on our own soil, but we do not compensate our own citizens when they are victims—simply because they are British—in other countries.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue. Does he agree that, in a sense, if United Kingdom citizens are fearful of travelling abroad, the terrorists win? Government compensation will not remove that fear entirely, but a sense among British citizens that their Government will stand behind them when they leave these shores is an important part of the wider effort to combat terrorism wherever it occurs.
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done in this regard. We certainly expect the British Government to stand behind our people wherever they are in the world, particularly if they are attacked, and it is true that if British citizens are put off the idea of travelling, the terrorists win. Many people travel to countries to which the Foreign Office has advised them not to travel. There is at least some implication that their travel is safe and that the British Government will support them if the need arises, as we do through our consulates, embassies and high commissions around the world.
Victims of the bombings in Sharm el Sheikh in 2005 were told by Ministers at the time that they should seek redress from the perpetrators of the attack. Given the time constraints, I cannot give all the details, but let me talk about one family in particular: the Bennett family from Durham, who were bombed on a minibus in Turkey in July 2005, suffering considerable injuries, and one of whose members, Helyn Bennett, was killed. The family pursued the Turkish authorities through the court system for six years following that advice, and it is only thanks to the generosity of the insurers and of Turkish courts that they have been protected from crippling legal costs. However, despite the award of £1 million reflecting the gravity of the injuries, the Turkish authorities have refused to pay out, and an appeal is in progress.
Stephen Lloyd
Does my hon. Friend agree that the coalition has a responsibility to deliver on the last Government’s commitment to pay compensation? British citizens who were victims of attacks from Bali to Sharm el Sheikh have yet to receive a penny, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), will soon put that dreadful injustice right.
Andrew Percy
Again, I entirely agree. Those three interventions illustrate the cross-party support for the campaign.
Although the award to the Bennett family was made 18 months ago in the Turkish courts, no funds have been made available to them. They are exceptional in pursuing international litigation, which, as we know, is incredibly complicated and beyond the means of most people. That is why victims were delighted when, in October 2005, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House:
“officials are considering the possibility of introducing a scheme to provide compensation for…UK victims of terrorism”
—crucially—
“ wherever that may happen.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2005; Vol. 437, c. 839.]
It took a long time for that pledge to be fulfilled, and victims and their families continued to campaign. They worked successfully with some of the Members whom I named earlier to establish the humanitarian assistance scheme, and in 2010 the then Home Secretary and Justice Secretary provided for a statutory compensation scheme as part of the Crime and Security Act 2010. That would have enabled victims to be compensated with tariffs identical to those offered by the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Subsequently, 37 survivors of terrorist attacks abroad were written to and informed that they would be eligible to claim. Sadly, however, the change of Government has delayed the process somewhat, and the picture is a little unclear. Families are not sure where we are heading.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made with the review that was announced some time ago, whom is he consulting, and when he will make a statement to the House on the issue? Will the issue of the retrospective ex gratia payments promised to existing terror victims and their families be settled at the same time as the review of any future statutory compensation scheme? Will he confirm that the Government accept the principle that terrorism is distinct from other forms of crime, and that Her Majesty’s Government have a responsibility to our citizens who are attacked overseas on the basis of their nationality? Finally, may I urge the Minister to address this matter quickly, so that victims and their families receive the justice that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)
I shall address each of the issues raised in turn. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) again raised an important issue that has featured prominently in the press in recent days and weeks. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is of the greatest importance that people should be able to discuss and debate issues as freely and openly as possible—and as frequently as possible, I might add as I am returning to the Chamber to discuss this matter again following yesterday’s performance.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in response to yesterday’s urgent question, there is a balance to be struck when the issues concerned relate to a person’s private life. That has always been the case, and now, in the current context, the European convention on human rights specifically establishes the article 8 right to respect for private and family life, alongside the right under article 10 to freedom of expression.