Courts and Tribunal Services (England and Wales)
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is obvious that a great many people wish to speak. However, we are not under huge time pressure this afternoon—the Benches are not overflowing—and I do not wish to impose a formal time limit. I therefore hope for the co-operation of Members, and if each speaks for between eight and nine minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have the chance to do so. Eight minutes is a considerable amount of time in which to put a succinct argument; we do not always need to hear the same points being made over and over again. I am sure that we shall not hear that from Mr Andrew Bingham.
Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
Keir Starmer
I hope that I have been faithful to my obligation to try to put this in a neutral, objective way, setting out the position.
As Director of Public Prosecutions I never expressed a view on the law; I faithfully applied the law. I have come to the position I now hold on the basis of my experience of the guidelines. It was not a pre-conceived view that I held back then, in answer to a comment that was made earlier; it is a view that I have arrived at on the basis of my experience.
My experience is that there are two inherent limitations in the guidelines that I issued. For the reasons I have explained, my understanding of the constitutional role of the DPP was that doctors and medical practitioners are more likely to be prosecuted. The first limitation is that, as a result, those who have reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end their lives can now be confident of the compassionate assistance of loved ones without exposing them to the law, but they cannot have the assistance of professionals. They can have amateur assistance from nearest and dearest, but they cannot have professional help in fulfilling their desire unless they have the means and the physical ability to get to Dignitas. One of the points that Debbie Purdy made to the judicial committee was that she wanted to live her life for as long as possible, although she wanted to end it at her own choosing, and that if she was forced to go to Dignitas she would have to end her life earlier because she would lose the physical means of getting there.
I understand those who say that we should revert to a position where nobody should be given any assistance at all, but we have arrived at a position where compassionate, amateur assistance from nearest and dearest is accepted but professional medical assistance is not, unless someone has the means and physical assistance to get to Dignitas. That to my mind is an injustice that we have trapped within our current arrangement.
On the second limitation in my guidelines, the only safeguard I could put into them was a requirement for an after-the-event investigation by the police into what had happened. Let me quote what the president of the Supreme Court said when he analysed that. This is what our most senior judge—not me—said:
“A system whereby a judge or other independent assessor is satisfied in advance that someone has a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to die and for his or her suicide then to be organised in an open and professional way would…provide greater and more satisfactory protection for the vulnerable, than a system which involves a lawyer from the DPP’s office inquiring, after the event, whether the person who had killed himself or herself had such a wish”.
I have heard the comments about the safeguards in the Bill and I know how hard it was to come up with the right safeguards in my guidelines. It took me time to arrive at safeguards that I think could be generally accepted.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of this sitting, we were told that 85 Members had put in to speak and we were given guidance on how long our speeches should be. I fully appreciate that the current speaker is making a valuable contribution, but please could you remind the House yet again of the time limit you think people should adhere to without a compulsory time limit having to be set? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am grateful for the advice of my hon. Friend. I would not have taken advice from any other Member of this House, as I am quite capable of judging how long a Member is taking. My hon. Friend is in the unique position of being able to offer me advice and I am taking it. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who currently has the floor—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is in a unique position of being able to give information to this House on this extremely difficult issue. I have therefore allowed considerable leeway for him and I am sure the House will agree with that. At the same time, I am also sure that he will soon conclude his remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. We are not wasting time this morning on points of order. There are many people who wish to speak.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will finish as quickly as I can. I understand the frustration of Members who are waiting to speak.
It took me a great deal of time and thought to arrive at appropriate safeguards in the guidelines. In my view the same amount of time and appropriate thought is necessary for the guidelines in the Bill. They have been discussed by others, so I will not repeat them, but what I will say is that I will be open to debate with anyone whether the safeguards are strong and robust enough, and I will work at Committee stage with anyone in this House to make sure not only that they are as strong and robust as possible, but that they have the best consensus possible among the different views held in this House.
Paul Flynn
I will do nothing of the sort. I think it is an act of deception by doctors and the Church. They are allowing one doctor to make the decision and administer the lethal dose without any of the protections in the Bill. I have been to Oregon and discussed their law with them, and I believe we should follow their experience carefully. All the fears expressed in the House were expressed in Oregon in 1994. They had a referendum. We could follow their example and ask the public by attaching another question to the EU referendum question. In Oregon, the result was 51% to 49% in favour, but after experience of the Act—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I have not put my name down to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I did not stand up to catch your eye. I have been listening to the debate carefully, however.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman would care to wait, that is all right with the Chair.
John Woodcock
I am delighted to be called. This is the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been genuinely undecided when coming into the Chamber and I therefore wanted to listen to the entire debate. I have listened to every contribution so far, and I am still undecided.
I have been affected by the views of my constituents on both sides of the argument, and by the people who have spoken today. I have been particularly privileged to spend time with Clare Coulston, who is listening to the debate today. Her husband Paul died of motor neurone disease just two weeks ago, and she herself is in remission from a serious cancer and has two young children. She believes passionately that this Bill should pass, and has stated her views with wonderful eloquence, given the grief that she is suffering now. It would be easy for me to say that I of course agree with her, because she is my friend, but I am still utterly torn and still struggling. Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will let others who have prepared a speech take the Floor now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that it will be obvious to the House that there are well over 50 Members who still wish to speak. We have had some heavyweight speeches. I am sure that the whole House appreciates that sometimes it takes some time to make a complicated and difficult argument, but I challenge Members of the House this afternoon to try to test their powers of rhetoric and see whether they can make their arguments in two or three minutes. I can assure individual Members that anyone who manages to make their arguments in two or three minutes rather than five minutes will be considered a much better orator for it. I know that we will have an excellent example from the next person to speak. I call Sir David Amess.
Police
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Dromey
The Minister may be surprised to hear that the Labour party is united in defence of our police service. That is in contrast to what we see all over the country, which is Government Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), expressing growing concerns over what is happening to the police service. [Interruption.] Members will hear my speech. Now, there are alternative ways to make those savings—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House well appreciates that a little bit of banter is in order, but continuing banter from a sedentary position is not in order.
Jack Dromey
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate that this is an uncomfortable message for a Government who have been oblivious to the consequences of their actions. There are alternative ways to make smart savings, and that is what we will do. We will require forces to sign up to national procurement, and that would save—
Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment 2.
Chris Grayling
I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.
As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.
Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.
On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to
“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]
On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that
“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]
Those assertions are entirely without foundation.
I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.
Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.
Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.
That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.
Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.
We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.
When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting
“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.
My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting
“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”
That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.
That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]
The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.
The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I do not often feel compassion for the Lord Chancellor, but even he must have approached the Chamber this afternoon with how sad steps. Today, on the heels of the dismissal of the chief inspector of prisons comes the resignation of the conflicted chief inspector of probation, and so, on the first full day of probation privatisation, we have no one in charge of standards in the service.
The Lord Chancellor is scattering confidential data around like confetti, he appears to have changed at whim the burden of proof in criminal cases, and this afternoon, one of his favourite private contractors, Capita, was fined £16,000 by the president of the—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking to the Lords amendment. I normally give quite a lot of leeway for a general introduction, but he must speak to the amendment.
Mr Slaughter
Indeed, that is what I intend to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the point that, with all of that going on just in the past few days, here we are talking about the Lord Chancellor’s heroes Bill. He is fiddling while Rome burns: more Nero than hero.
We are all sick of the Bill. I suspect the Lord Chancellor is sick of the Bill. Like many of his projects, it began as an exercise in public relations and a nod towards the tabloids, and a coded attack on the rights of the individual to find redress through the law. Both the ridicule and the incredulity with which it has been met on both sides of both Houses, and from almost every expert commentator, has exposed its pointlessness and fragility.
The Bill will be locked away from public gaze, elided by the courts and ignored by everyone else until some future Government finds a space in the legislative timetable to repeal it. The noble Lord Pannick said that he could not
“remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 16.]
The chair of the Law Society policy board today wrote that there were two views of the Bill: that is was
“vague, meaningless and otiose”
or
“so ill-defined that it is dangerous to the point of mischievousness”.
Given that history, do the two minor amendments do anything to improve the Bill? They certainly do not make it any worse, if that is any comfort to the Lord Chancellor, so we have no reason to vote against them.
Amendment 2 has been urged on the Government since Second Reading on 21 July 2014, when the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out the unhelpful nature of the final words of clause 4. I moved to delete the offending words—
“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”—
in Committee, supported by a very strong argument from St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross. However, it was not until Report in the other place that the Government finally gave in, stating:
“This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 44.]
I am not sure that that was the point of the objections; rather, it was concern that the Government were encouraging bystanders to intervene, even when it was not safe to do so, and when more lives might be placed at risk, including those of professional rescuers. The Government have at least removed one howler, whatever their motive or excuse for doing so, so we welcome amendment 2. It is just rather late in the day in coming.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 74 and proposes amendment (a) in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider: Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, and amendments (a) to (k) in lieu.
Government motion to insist on its disagreement with Lords amendments 103 to 106, and amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Chris Grayling
We need to focus on two areas of the Government’s programme of reform: secure colleges and judicial review. This House has divided on both matters on several occasions, and backed the Government each time. I have listened carefully to all the arguments made in this and the other place, and I have introduced amendments, which I am confident will provide a practical approach in each area sufficient to reassure hon. Members.
On secure colleges, the provisions reflect our ambition to improve the education and reoffending outcomes for young people in custody. Secure colleges represent a step change in youth custodial provision, putting education and training at the forefront, and moving away from the traditional environment of iron bars on windows. Almost all of the provisions that related to the introduction of secure colleges have now been approved by both Houses of Parliament. There is one matter that remains for this House today, which is whether girls and under-15s should be detained in secure colleges.
Members will recall that, at the beginning of December, this House overturned an amendment made by the House of Lords to prevent the accommodation of boys aged under 15 and girls in secure colleges. I am disappointed that we are discussing that same amendment, but I have considered carefully the concerns raised. Since the last time the matter was debated in the House, my noble colleague Lord Foulkes has committed to publish and lay before Parliament a report before any of those two groups are introduced to the first secure college. The report will explain the arrangements to be made for girls and under-15s, including how those groups will be safeguarded. Despite that commitment, the House of Lords nevertheless insisted on its earlier amendment to exclude them from secure colleges.
I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that we do not want to prevent in law girls and under-15s from in future being able to benefit from this pioneering approach and enhanced provision. We do not intend to put them in a secure college from day one and we do not intend to include them unless it is a project that is clearly demonstrating benefits. Therefore, I am entirely relaxed about the idea of Parliament considering this issue fully, because if it works, we will all support the idea of allowing those two groups to benefit from the change.
However, there is still some concern about the accommodation of those two groups, particularly alongside older boys. It is worth saying that girls and boys are accommodated alongside each other in secure training centres at the moment. I propose that we amend the Bill to make the commencement of the power to provide secure colleges for the detention of girls and under-15s subject to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That seems a simple solution. None of us will want to put them in the accommodation if the system is not working. If it is working, I cannot believe that any Government of whatever persuasion will want to deny those two groups access to what I believe will be a positive environment that will help them both to develop their skills and to fulfil the terms of a sentence of the court.
I hope that hon. Members welcome the significant steps that we are taking to address concerns while protecting the opportunity for girls and under-15s to benefit from the transformed provision secure colleges will deliver. Our measure will require the approval of this House but not the lengthy time frame that new primary legislation entails. I therefore ask the House to accept this amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 74.
Most of the Government’s proposals for judicial review reform have now been approved by both Houses of Parliament and two issues remain. Let me start with financial information. Our intent on this is entirely sensible. It is to ensure that there is less chance for those who fund and control a judicial review to escape their proper measure of costs liability, but the amendment is not about costs; it is purely about information. Let me stress to the House that this particular amendment, and the debate between us and the House of Lords, is about information and not costs. Concerns have been raised that requiring applicants to give the court information on how a judicial review is funded might discourage people from making a small contribution to help fund the litigation. That was never my intention. My intention is to avoid a situation in which people can shelter in anonymity, behind someone else, while funding all or most of a judicial review process.
We have explained before that we would take a “light touch” approach when specifying what information would be required. We now intend to address the concerns by ensuring that there will be a limit on the level of contributions that trigger the requirement to identify those who have provided funding. This amendment was introduced in the other place the last time it considered the Bill and was narrowly rejected, but I am confident that our approach is sound and will provide the protection we desire for smaller contributors, without allowing those with a larger interest who control litigation to avoid their due level of risk.
The debate in the other place was about how we could give comfort regarding the level at which the threshold will be set and how we will arrive at that number. I propose to set out the answer to that question today. I am content to say that the Government will commit to a consultation on where and how the threshold will be set. I am also content to inform the House that we will approach the consultation with a suggested figure of £1,500 in mind, and we are minded additionally to test a figure of 5% of the available funds.
Let me reiterate that the clause does not alter the courts’ existing powers to consider these types of situations and to make or to not make costs orders against third parties, if they consider it appropriate. Also, there is nothing in the clause that would cause an otherwise meritorious claim to be refused permission simply because the claimant was of modest financial means. The provision is about ensuring that a judge, in exercising their discretion on making a costs order, has all the information they could reasonably expect to have in front of them. I trust I have further reassured hon. Members that we will work to ensure that those who provide small amounts of funding do not need to be identified as providing financial support and are not likely to face costs liabilities.
The second judicial review topic—procedural defects—has prompted greater debate. I should start by apologising to the House for my confusion the last time we debated this issue in mixing up my highly likelies and my exceptional circumstances. Although I note that Opposition Members did not notice at the time, let us be clear this evening that I made that mistake and apologise to the House for it.
I think that our proposal on procedural defects is an equally common-sense reform as the one on financial information. We are trying to ensure that where a judicial review concerns a slight error—so slight that it is highly unlikely to have made a difference to the applicant and where the decision would have been the same regardless of that procedural defect—it will be deemed not to be a good use of court time for that judicial review to continue. It is not sensible to use tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money fighting judicial reviews when that money could be used to better effect in supporting our public services.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 73, 75 to 96, 108 to 126 and 132 to 143.
Andrew Selous
We have heard today passionate arguments from all parts of the House on parts 2 and 4 of the Bill on secure colleges and judicial review. The Government amendments made to parts 1 and 3 of the Bill in the House of Lords have significantly enhanced it. I do not intend to explain every amendment at great length, but I will touch on some.
Lords amendments 70 to 72, 116, 117, 126 and 142 introduce important changes to the law by creating a new criminal offence that specifically targets the behaviour commonly referred to as revenge pornography. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will agree that this behaviour is intolerable.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served in Committee, spoke on Report and took part in the debates on the Bill. It has benefited from the interesting and lively debate that we have had—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Lord Chancellor but will Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and swiftly and show due deference to him?
Chris Grayling
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretaries of State for Justice, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). Their excellent work in Committee and on Report has guided the Bill to this stage. I also thank members of the Bill team and the Clerks for their advice and support.
This is an important Bill that toughens up sentences for serious and repeat offenders and strengthens the justice system. I have always been clear that those who break the rules should face the consequences and that protecting the public is our top priority. As a result of the action that the Government are taking, we are reducing crime, toughening up the justice system and giving victims the support they both need and deserve. We are making sure that hard-working families feel safe and secure in their local communities. This Bill is yet another step in delivering our promises and guaranteeing that security.
We are not a Government who legislate without taking into account the views of Parliament. We have listened carefully to the valuable discussion and debate in this House and the Bill has been improved as a result. Many colleagues in this House have rightly expressed concern that sentencing for those who cause death or serious injury by driving while disqualified has been inadequate. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. That is why we have added measures to the Bill to ensure that the courts have the power properly to penalise those who step back behind the wheel after being disqualified from driving and cause death or serious injury. It is right that they should face a longer sentence for doing so. It is clear from the discussion on Report and in previous debates that concerns remain about the penalties available for other serious driving offences. That is why we have committed to carrying out a wider review over the next few months, which we hope will address many of the points that have been raised.
We also had a very interesting debate in Committee and on Report on child grooming. In an age of constantly changing modes of communication, it is vital that our laws provide the utmost protection for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) suggested changes to the law on malicious communications. We agreed that that offence should be triable either way and subject to a higher penalty. In doing so we have also provided the police with more time to investigate those offences. That is a step forward in keeping children safe in the modern world and I commend my hon. Friend for her contribution to this Bill.
To be bipartisan, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) also suggested changes to the law on child grooming following her excellent work with Barnardo’s on child sexual exploitation. The Government have committed to considering whether changes to the law on meeting a child following child grooming are required and we are open to the arguments she has been making.
Let me turn to the provisions on secure colleges. I can only say that I am disappointed by the position taken by Opposition Members on the proposals. Youth reoffending rates are far too high and the system as it stands is not working well enough. Secure colleges represent an opportunity to change the way we detain and rehabilitate young offenders and prevent them from embarking on a life of crime. My vision is for young people to have access to high-quality education and training that will allow them to fulfil their potential. My vision is of detaining young people in an environment that is less like a prison and more like an educational institution with a fence around it, where we can ensure not only that they lose their liberty as per the orders of the court but that we maximise the time we have them with us to ensure that we equip them in the best possible way so that they do not reoffend afterwards. That is all the more important if a young person has set out on the wrong path in life. It is beyond me how the Opposition can criticise these once-in-a-generation reforms, which put education at the heart of youth custody, which seek to equip young people with the skills they need to turn their backs on crime and which give those who have broken the law the opportunity to make a fresh start in life.
There has been much debate about the detail of the secure college regime and the pathfinder college. Let me be clear that no final decisions have been made on who will be accommodated in the pathfinder. Those decisions will be taken as plans for the pathfinder are developed and in light of careful analysis of the needs of the youth custodial population and the impacts on different groups. Our plans for the rules that underpin the secure college provisions will be subject to public consultation. They will be published during the passage of the Bill to benefit from the wealth of expertise within the youth justice sector.
I hope that hon. Members from all sides recognise the genuine opportunity that such a new regime offers us to tackle youth reoffending and to help make a positive impact on the future for young offenders. Of course we are still developing some of the details, but the Bill lays down the foundations for a transformative approach to youth custody. I urge the Opposition to think again before they play politics with the future of young people who will genuinely benefit from both the education and the regime that the Bill is designed to provide, and to turn away from the siren voices that say that this is a new brutal regime. It is about a positive experience for young people in the hope that we can turn their lives around. Who can disagree with that?
Finally, I turn to judicial review. I fully recognise that judicial review is an important issue, which has been reflected by the debate and the interest that the House has shown. I remain firmly of the view that the Government are right to take action. Too often unmeritorious cases clog up the system, wasting time and taxpayers’ money. Judicial review is important. It should always remain available for well-founded challenges that raise issues of genuine significance. It also enables individuals to sort out a situation where they have faced, for example, maladministration from a public body, but I do not accept that the system should allow pressure groups to use judicial review as a PR stunt, or as a means of delaying properly made decisions—often decisions made in this House—while the taxpayer foots the bill.
The recent case concerning the remains of King Richard III illustrates exactly why we need reform. My decision to grant a licence to exhume Richard III’s human remains was challenged by the Plantagenet Alliance. It was a spurious and nonsensical claim brought as a stunt, and those bringing the claim hid behind a shell company to avoid facing the costs of doing so. They all claimed that they were members of the family of the Plantagenets. Well, I suspect that most of us in the Chamber are to some extent descendants of the family of the Plantagenets. It was not an issue in which there was any obvious family involvement. It was, as I say, a stunt. Because the company did not have any assets, an absolute protective costs order was sought and granted.
In the end the High Court upheld my decision as lawful, rational and fair, but we and our constituents were still left to pick up the tab for defending the challenge. At a time when difficult decisions are being taken across the public sector and when people are losing their jobs because of the need to rationalise to tackle our deficit, can Members honestly say that that was a good use of the judicial review process and of hard-working taxpayers’ money?
Applications for judicial review for cases that stand little prospect of success put undue pressure on the courts and on other essential public services and can unduly frustrate decisions that were properly made. The reforms in the Bill were developed following a full public consultation. They are aimed at improving, not scrapping, the judicial review process so that it is not open to abuse, and so that genuinely arguable cases can proceed quickly to final resolution.
In summary, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that has benefited from the scrutiny of this House and the additions that have been made as a result. In this legislation, the Government are ending automatic early release for dangerous criminals, child rapists and terrorists, we are restricting the use of cautions for serious offences, and we are toughening up sentences for prisoners who go on the run. We are taking the action that the public expect to help keep them safe and secure.
The Bill will also help us to modernise court processes and to work to break the cycle of youth reoffending. It is about rehabilitation as much as it is about tough action in our justice system. That is the mix we need in our justice system. People need to be properly punished when they offend, on behalf of the victims as well as on behalf of justice, but we also need to do everything we can to turn their lives around once they have offended so that they do not come back and commit crimes all over again. That is the philosophy of this Government. That is what underlies the Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Sadiq Khan
I appreciate that a reshuffle is due and the hon. Gentleman needs to impress the Whips, but he will recognise during a quieter moment—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) knows that in all professional practice one stands when one is speaking; otherwise one does not speak.
Sadiq Khan
I was reminding the House of the 18 new clauses that the Justice Secretary brought before the House today, 14 of which we have seen for the first time and many of which have not been debated. His lack of respect for due process has led to him crow-barring many new proposals into the Bill. Some of them have merit, but we should at least have been able to debate them in detail. We have been deprived of that opportunity.
The clauses on wilful neglect by social care workers are a welcome move, as is the new offence regarding police corruption. However, without further scrutiny we do not know whether they, or the changes to planning decisions and personal injury claims, will do as the Government claim or whether there will be any unintended negative consequences. What is more, there are no impact assessments, so there is no sense of how much they will cost and who will benefit.
Efforts to tackle repeat knife crime are to be welcomed, even though the Government could not come to an agreed position. I am disappointed that during the course of his speech the Secretary of State made no mention of knife crime—that is one of the downsides of other people writing your speech for you. Ministers should give up any pretence that this Government are any longer a coalition. They are not; they are disintegrating by the day.
Unlike this Government, we have focused on the issue at hand, as it is only right that the seriousness of a second knife offence is recognised. It is crucial to send a strong signal that carrying a knife is unacceptable, even more so for those who repeatedly do so. The new clauses still give judges the power to apply important discretion as there may be circumstances when a prison sentence might not be appropriate. More importantly, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will still have complete discretion to decide whether somebody should be charged with the relevant offence, despite what some would have us believe.
However, Labour Members know that it is a huge disservice to victims of knife crime to pretend that this change in the law is a panacea; it is not. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who is now in his place, recognises, as he said, that we need to do much more to educate people that carrying a knife is unnecessary and unacceptable, working in schools, colleges and youth clubs, and with families, to tackle the problem. Those approaches are not mutually exclusive. Only then will we divert people away from a destructive lifestyle.
Given the long list of unanswered concerns and late additions to the Bill that have passed without scrutiny, Labour Members cannot give it our support. Once more, we will be looking to the other place to refine and improve on these proposals and rescue the Government’s Bill from mediocrity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Lady responds to the intervention, I must remind her that at this point in proceedings we are discussing what is in the Bill, not what is not in it. I am sure she will bring her remarks around to what is in the Bill.
Ann Coffey
I welcome the additional support for victims and their families, but the Bill would have been improved slightly if my new clauses 8 and 9 had been inserted. I was trying to explain what is happening because I wanted to make the point that although I welcome many of the things in the Bill, there are limitations to how it deals with vulnerable witnesses going through the courts.
We legislate, and sometimes we think that legislating is enough, but of course it is not. The Bill will not have the impact it should have on vulnerable young witnesses in court if some of the underlying issues are not dealt with. For example, the number of requests for registered intermediaries for young vulnerable witnesses in court has increased, but the number of registered intermediaries has decreased. The Government need to look at that issue if they want to support the measures in the Bill and to improve the situation for victims and their families.
The same applies to the pilots currently being undertaken in three courts under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. I hope that they will show that pre-recording cross-examination of witnesses, as well as of their statements, will improve the quality of such cross-examinations and improve witnesses’ experience of giving evidence. At the moment, they sometimes have to wait for years—up to two years—before they come to court, which puts their life on hold and prevents them from being able to recover from their very traumatic experiences.
I fully accept that the Bill is designed to improve the support given to witnesses in court, but I hope that the Government will look at the effectiveness of, and learn from, the measures already in place. They must understand that legislation by itself is not enough unless there are the means to implement it, with both the resources of registered intermediaries and the sympathetic environment in which section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination of witnesses can take place.
As the Bill goes through the Lords, I hope that the Government will look at the use of remote sites, such as the sexual assault referral centre in Manchester, which is one of the best SARCs in the United Kingdom—it would provide a very good environment for rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination—and at how to extend the use of pre-recorded cross-examination, which would benefit many young witnesses.
Finally, what goes on in our courts is not very transparent. It is very difficult and expensive to get transcripts of court proceedings. I know that there has been some talk of filming court cases, but a first step might be to make transcripts available online. It cannot be right that what goes on in our courts is only visible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady might be making a very interesting—and possibly worthy—point, but it does not relate to the Third Reading of the Bill, so I am sure that she will conclude her remarks with that matter.
Ann Coffey
I entirely accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will appreciate that it is sometimes very difficult in the House to say what you want to say at the point when you can say it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Lady replies to that intervention, I know that she will be careful to stick to discussing secure colleges which is a matter in the Bill, rather than straying back to the subject of sheep stealing, which is one of the few things not in the Bill.
Yasmin Qureshi
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She and I were on the Bill Committee and I know that the Government members on it could not have helped but be struck by what was said by the experts—different people such as probation officers—who were dealing young people. They were all saying that secure colleges were a bad idea.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(9 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—Penalty for driving while disqualified—
‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;
(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and
(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.
(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.
(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.
Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.
Government new schedule 2—‘Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments.
Amendment 9, in clause 28, page 26, line 31, at end insert—
‘(c) a submission from the DVLA to inform the court of any penalty points endorsed on the driver’s record.’.
Amendment 8, page 26, line 35, at end insert—
‘(3A) For cases involving driving offences, where the accused has 12 or more penalty points currently on their drivers’ record, any exceptional hardship plea previously made by the accused must be disclosed to the court.’.
Government amendment 7.
Government new clause 10—Term of imprisonment for murder of a police or prison officer.
Government new clause 11—Committal for sentence of young offenders convicted of certain serious offences.
Jeremy Wright
Over a period of months, we have listened to concerns raised by the families of victims and hon. Members acting on their behalf about disqualified drivers. They have said that the current maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for causing death by driving when disqualified does not adequately reflect the tragic consequences of the offending. I am particularly grateful to, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for keeping the issue firmly on the agenda. In our view, disqualified drivers who flout court bans, continue to drive badly and cause death should be treated far more seriously by the courts than they are at present, and I am pleased to say that new clause 14 and new schedule 2 will effect that change.
We should also concern ourselves with disqualified drivers who cause serious injury. It is, after all, often a matter of chance whether the victim lives or dies. If there is no evidence that the offender was driving dangerously, the most with which he or she can be charged under the current law is driving while disqualified, which incurs a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. That is plainly inadequate. It does not reflect some of the horrific and life-changing injuries that can be suffered by road traffic victims, or the terrible toll that this can take on their families. That is why we are also introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, which will incur a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
We thought carefully about whether these changes should apply to unlicensed and uninsured drivers as well. We decided to limit the changes to disqualified drivers, because we think that they have a higher level of culpability than other illegal drivers. A driving ban would only be imposed on an offender following the commission of a series of motoring offences or a single serious offence. If such an offender flouts a ban imposed by the court, continues to drive badly and causes a death or serious injury, it is right that he should feel the full force of our proposed new provisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Robin Walker. Sorry, I mean Chris Skidmore. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.
After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.
Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.
Police
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keith Vaz
The Minister nods in agreement. That is a good idea, but that will cost more money, and I am not sure that the grant will cover the ambitions that the Minister and we all have to ensure that our police service is properly equipped.
The new landscape is welcome. The cuts have probably gone as far as they should have done. I want to see better engagement with the police service. We have a debate tomorrow on the Police Federation, but that is a separate issue. At the end of the day, policing is about what happens locally, and if local people and local police feel that they are not being well served, that is a problem for all of us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the draft Public Bodies Order. The Ayes were 289 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 89. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall cause the appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.
Clause 151
Compensation for miscarriages of justice
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 112.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this is will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 112.
Damian Green
I should add that I wish the House to agree to amendment (a).
Clause 151 defines what amounts to a “miscarriage of justice” for the purposes of compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There has been much debate about the clause, both here and in the House of Lords, and I am indebted to all who have contributed to examining this important issue. The Government have taken account of all the points that have been made and all the concerns that have been expressed, and our position has changed as a result of the very good debates that have taken place in Committee here as well as in the House of Lords.
I was pleased to note that Members of both Houses and members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with us that that the current definition set out by the divisional court in the case of Ali was not clear enough, that we needed to legislate for a clear definition of a miscarriage of justice given the ongoing uncertainty and reinterpretation of definitions by the courts, and that our aim was not to seek to restrict compensation, but to provide clarity. The question that remains before us is how it can be determined whether someone has suffered a miscarriage of justice.
This is indeed a complex issue. When a case is properly brought to court—that is, when there is evidence of a crime on which it is right to ask a jury to adjudicate—there is no miscarriage of justice when the result of the trial is an acquittal, or even in very many of the cases in which a guilty verdict is later quashed as unsafe. The Government believe that a miscarriage of justice arises only when there is in existence a fact which entirely exonerates the accused: in other words, a fact which makes it unquestionable that the accused did not commit the crime. In such cases, it is only the ignorance of this fact that allowed the accused to be convicted in the first place. What we are seeking to define is something far more than merely a failure in the investigative or trial processes. We are seeking to define a clear miscarriage of justice which is—and, in our view, can only be—the wrongful conviction of the innocent.
Our aim is to create an unambiguous statutory description of such a situation for the purposes of compensation. The fact that the definition inserted in the Bill by Lords amendment 112 is open to various interpretations is obvious from the significant number of judicial review cases awaiting consideration by the administrative court—13 at present—in which the aim is to challenge the Secretary of State’s application of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Adams. That number excludes the three cases that are awaiting judgment from the challenge to the divisional court’s decision in respect of Ali and others, which was heard by the Court of Appeal last December. A test similar to the “Adams test”—the definition that is at the heart of all these cases—is the test that is now being proposed in Lords amendment 112.
It is vitally important for us to ensure that the definition that is introduced into statute for the first time is “fit for purpose”. It must be clear and robust enough to avoid the need for further judicial interpretation, and, as far as possible, to limit the scope for argument about what will amount to a miscarriage of justice. The amendment that we propose would leave applicants in no doubt: if the new fact that led to their conviction being quashed showed that they did not commit the offence—for example, if it were shown that they had been somewhere else at the time, if someone else was proved to be the perpetrator, or if the courts acknowledged that no offence had in fact been committed—they would have suffered a miscarriage of justice, and would be likely to be compensated.