Women Offender One-stop Shops

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Moon]

Absolutely. That is very much the direction in which I am hoping to take the debate, demonstrating exactly those points made by my right hon. Friend.

In many cases, we find that prison allows women to opt out of responsibility; to opt out of the life experiences that have often brought them into the criminal justice system. The one-stop shops get the women to the stage of beginning to see what they want for their future, beyond coping with the moment. That is an incredible thing to do; to help people move on from coping with the moment to seeing a life and the potential in the future, not only for themselves but for their children.

Many women offenders are also the victims of crimes that have left them with enormous problems in their lives, so a prison sentence presents a unique problem and difficulty for women. Up to 50% of female prisoners have experienced violence in the home, and one in three has been the victim of sexual abuse; up to 80% of women in prison have diagnosable mental health problems; 70% of women coming into custody require drugs detoxification, compared with 50% of men; 16% of the female prison population self-harm, compared with 3% of men; and the rate of suicide is higher among female prisoners than male ones, despite the opposite being the case in the general population. Women prisoners are also less likely than male prisoners to have settled accommodation, qualifications or experience of working, and they are more likely to have been living in poverty. Because there are so few women’s prisons, they are often situated further away from their children, friends, families and support networks, so they receive less help and support during their sentences and when they leave prison.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue she is coming on to, how prison takes women away from their families and from contact with and responsibility for their children, is one of the ways in which prison does not work for women offenders, because it does not enable them to take those responsibilities in the future or to manage normal lives, which is what those women need to learn how to do?

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even more devastatingly, prison sets up a future generation who, potentially, because of that trauma, will end up in the criminal justice system. That is the great failure we have to tackle.

In a lot of cases, many of the factors I have talked about—the sexual abuse, the violence experienced, the mental health problems, the drugs—are all experienced by individual women. It is not only a case of one woman having a mental health issue and one a drugs problem, with another having experienced sexual abuse: many will have all three combined. If they are to be rehabilitated, they will not be able to do it by themselves. Housing such women in a prison will not tackle those major issues, which is why we must deal with the problems that caused the offending if we are to look at rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. If we do not deal with the effects of these women’s life experiences as victims of abuse and suffering, we will not change their lives or the lives they are helping their own children to build. More importantly, we are doubly punishing those women, doubly victimising them—they are victims of abuse in their childhoods, then victims as adults in society.

Two thirds of women prisoners are mothers, and one third are lone parents. Only 5% of the children of women prisoners remain in their own home while their mother is in prison. Ninety-five per cent. must leave their home, to be looked after by grandparents or family friends, or to go into care. Eighteen thousand children live away from their home because their mother is in prison, setting up a future generation of damaged, disadvantaged and traumatised children. We could say, “Well, it’s only six months—such women mainly undertake short sentences,” but the sentence can be catastrophic for women and their families. The 2007 Corston report made the case for a completely new approach:

“a distinct radically different, visibly-led, strategic, proportionate, holistic, woman-centred, integrated approach.”

I recommend watching a short film on the Prison Reform Trust’s website called “Smart Justice for Women”. It makes a strong case for alternatives to custody, and sets them out visually so much better than I can in words.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Bradley and Corston reviews of the criminal justice system.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

15. What plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Corston report on women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Our plans are set out in our Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation, which was published in December, and they include identifying individuals with mental health problems at an early stage in the criminal justice process. The aim is to ensure that liaison and diversion services are available in police custody suites and at courts by 2014. We continue to develop our approach to meet the distinct and complex needs of women in the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

On that note, the Minister told the House on 20 July that

“a network of women-only community provision is being developed to support…community sentences.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 163.]

Can he tell the House now what that community provision consists of, where it is and how secure is its financial future?

[Mr Blunt]

I fear that I will not be able to explain the whole network without irritating you, Mr Speaker, but the Ministry of Justice has funded 44 separate projects in conjunction with the Corston independent funders. I have already answered the question about what will happen to the funding after March. We will continue a degree of funding—not on the scale that has happened before, but we are identifying the projects that are working best, which we will wish to continue to support.

Libel Law

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

If the world has a capital of free speech, it is Britain. If it has a centre of free speech, it is this Chamber, as you know well, Mr Speaker. Yet in the last few years, Britain has become a watchword for something else—the use of our libel law to suppress free speech.

This is not an esoteric philosophical issue. Free speech is the mother of freedom of thought and freedom of thought is the mother of many virtues, including integrity, individualism and creativity. That is why Britain has a vigorous and successful tradition of high culture and science, as well as of democracy. As I will demonstrate, all those virtues of British culture have been suppressed, to a greater or lesser extent, by our libel law.

As a Parliament, we have failed to defend one of our nation’s primary virtues—free speech. We have also failed in the duty to protect the weak and vulnerable from the rich and powerful. More often than not, it is the rich and powerful who use the libel laws to intimidate the less wealthy and the less powerful, as I shall demonstrate. Perhaps the best demonstration that English libel law has become a weapon of the rich and powerful is the extent to which they choose to use the English courts over any other option and over the courts of any other country. When Boris Berezovsky sued a Russian TV company, he did so not in Russia, where the deed occurred, but in England. Similarly, Roman Abramovich chose to sue an Italian newspaper not in Rome, but in London.

In 2004, the Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, launched a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, the American author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It”. The book claimed that Mahfouz financed al-Qaeda. It was not published here, but it was available online. Mahfouz brought the case not in America or Saudi Arabia, but in Britain, and the court awarded him substantial damages. As a direct result, New York law was changed to prevent British judgments applying in the US and American national law is undergoing the same change.

Those rich men each brought their cases under the English judicial system, rather than in the appropriate forum, because English libel law is complex, clumsy, expensive and draconian. It is 140 times more expensive to defend a libel case in England than in other European nations. As a result, it favours the wealthy man who has the most financial stamina and can afford the most expensive lawyers. Although libel tourism is not the most important weakness in English libel law, it is the starkest symptom of how unfair it can be, compared with every other jurisdiction in the modern world.

Perhaps the best domestic example of this grotesquely expensive system is the Naomi Campbell case. A newspaper wrote about her drug problem. It was sued and lost on the grounds of breach of confidentiality. Although the story was true, the legal fees alone cost more than £1 million.

How did all that come about? English libel law was largely developed centuries ago by English judges, as an alternative to duelling to protect the honour of gentlemen. I am sure that no Member wants to see Hampstead heath littered with the bodies of dead journalists, but I am not sure how much of an improvement that new law was. It has been compounded with undoubtedly well intentioned European Union and European Court of Human Rights law, and we have ended up with dreadful unintended consequences.

One of the most egregious consequences has been the rise of the so-called super-injunction, which bans any reporting of a case at all. The most extreme of those was the Trafigura case, which you will remember, Mr Speaker. Trafigura was accused of dumping toxic waste on the Ivory Coast, and for a while its lawyers secured a ban on the reporting even of questions in Parliament. In so doing, they overturned the absolute right to free speech fought for and won more than two centuries ago by John Wilkes. That is a suppression of free speech in this country that no one in the House should countenance or tolerate.

There is worse yet: the crushing of free speech in science and medicine. Both those disciplines advance by conjecture and refutation, through the advancing of theories and the testing of them by experiment. Free dispute and unfettered argument are essential to that process. Yet we are witnessing, time and again, the use of English libel law by powerful commercial interests to suppress legitimate discussion of scientific fact and medical effectiveness.

That is not entirely new. A famous member of this House, William Cobbett, was bankrupted by a lawsuit in 1797 after he pointed out that the practice of bleeding victims of yellow fever probably killed a number of them. He fled the lawsuit and the victims continued to be bled, and of course continued to die.

In modern times, the starkest example was the thalidomide case. For some time, The Sunday Times was prevented from publishing articles alleging negligence in the manufacture and distribution of the drug, which, as Members will remember, caused terrible deformities in the children of women who took it in pregnancy. That judgment was eventually overruled, and the law was rebalanced slightly to favour free speech in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Unfortunately, however, there are still actions by commercial companies and other vested interests to suppress criticism of medical products and practices.

I shall give an example. Henrik Thomsen, a Danish radiologist, raised concerns that Omniscan, a drug used to enhance medical scanner images, was causing crippling pain and even death in a few patients. Despite the fact that medicine advances by a process of critical appraisal, the maker of the drug, GE Healthcare, sued him in the British courts, clearly in order to silence him. The suit has been resolved, but another medical specialist, the eminent cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, has faced similar treatment. At a cardiology conference not in Britain but in Washington DC in 2007, he criticised a product made by an American company, NMT Medical, to deal with symptoms of hole-in-the-heart syndrome. NMT sued Mr Wilmshurst not in America but in the English courts. He courageously decided to fight the case, specifically to defend free speech.

Time and again, commercial companies take such action to silence critics. The proper, responsible, scientific way of dealing with criticism in medicine is tousb present the data and confront the argument. Using the law to silence legitimate criticism is to put shareholder interest above public health and, sometimes, public safety.

The best known case in England, of course, is that of Simon Singh, who essentially called some of the claims of chiropractors bogus. The British Chiropractic Association sued him and, after a protracted legal battle, lost. Nevertheless, he ended up hundreds of thousands of pounds out of pocket in addition to losing two years of his life—two years of stress, anxiety and the prospect of financial ruin. A less courageous man would have buckled, and indeed most do. That, of course, is the purpose: to intimidate critics out of saying anything, or to force a humiliating retraction, effectively gagging the press from reporting such criticism.

The tactics used are carefully refined. They are known as “lawfare” and are designed to focus the financial intimidation on the individual who is least able to bear it. The most recent demonstration of that nasty tactic would be ludicrous—bordering on the farcical—were it not so serious in its wider implications. It involves a product, elegantly called “Boob Job”, sold at £125 a jar and produced by a company called Rodial. The Daily Mail sought the advice of a leading consultant plastic surgeon, Dr Dalia Nield, of the London Clinic. As one might expect, she questioned its effectiveness and suggested that if it had the physiological effects claimed for it by its producers, it might be dangerous.

Rodial threatened Dr Nield with legal action. It has not threatened the Daily Mail, which carried her comments, because it has the resources to fight back, just Dr Nield, to get the maximum intimidation for the minimum risk. The proper response of any self-respecting company would be to publish the detailed composition of its product and the data supporting its claims, and engage experts to test those claims and carry out safety tests. That would be the approach of a respectable company, but I am afraid that Rodial has not taken such an approach—it has taken instead the approach of a charlatan and a bully.

Of course, Rodial is not alone. When NMT threatened Peter Wilmshurst with a lawsuit, it did not threaten the BBC, which broadcast his comments, because the BBC can fight back. When the chiropractors sued Simon Singh, they did not sue The Guardian, which published his comments, because The Guardian can fight back. That is why it is called “lawfare”—it is the deployment of judicial shock tactics against the most defenceless part of the opposition. It is a disgraceful tactic, and it should not be possible under any decently balanced judicial system.

The effect of “lawfare” is to chill free speech in science, medicine and many other areas. In this age of the internet, that chilling effect does not stop at our borders. We should remember that English is the language of science. The impact of our dysfunctional laws will become more global as more corporations come to understand what they can do to use our laws to suppress criticism.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I wanted to highlight the fact that “lawfare” operates not merely in science. My constituent, Hardeep Singh, has been battling for four years in the ludicrously named case of His Holiness v. Singh. He has been accused by a sect leader in the Sikh tradition of libel, and it has taken up four years of his life and thousands of pounds to defend his claim in a religious dispute that, in my view, is not able to be decided by the courts.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. I used science and medicine to demonstrate the starker effects of “lawfare”, but she has demonstrated one of the reasons why we debated the law on religious hatred: to allow unfettered discussion of religion, which is another great tradition of British democracy. I apologise to her constituent because I think of his case as Singh II, but it is just as important as the Singh case I cited, because both demonstrate only too clearly that we must get a grip on British libel law to prevent it damaging every aspect of our culture and tradition of free speech.

That brings me to what we should do. Regrettably, there is no single, simple solution. This week is the first anniversary of the Libel Reform Campaign, which encompasses campaigning organisations such as PEN, Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and others. There are a variety of issues that we need to address.

The cost of defending libel cases should be brought down. One step would be not to remove jury trial, but to introduce a tribunal process to deal with all but the most serious cases. The Minister might also care to tell us about his Green Paper—published a few weeks ago, I think—in which he talks about contingent fee arrangements and their possible reform, which might be another way of reducing costs. The law should focus on protecting individual reputation, without allowing heavy-handed commercial intimidation. One step towards that might be not to allow commercial companies above a certain size—in fact, really rather a small size—to bring such suits unless they can, in advance, demonstrate financial damage.

The public interest defence—again, this is something that the hon. Lady will be interested in—is too vague and unhelpful to authors of legitimate criticism. A stronger and clearer defence than that provided by the so-called Reynolds defence should be instituted. In particular, there should be a broader definition of what constitutes fair comment. In the light of what I have said about scientific and medical concerns, such a definition should be designed to exclude scientific and medical dispute from the courts completely. There should be intelligent limits on what constitutes multiple publication. For a court case to be brought in Britain, a significant proportion—certainly more than 10%—of the publication should have been in Britain. As the House can see, there are many proposals—I have given only a short list—that need to be considered. I should like the Minister to confirm that the Government will be introducing a Bill in 2011; that he will consult Index on Censorship, PEN, Sense About Science and other campaigners before publishing it; and that the Government will correct this unintended and unwanted systemic failure in our judicial system.

I shall finish by quoting the Appeal Court judges in the Simon Singh ruling. Speaking about the words used by Simon Singh in his criticism of the chiropractors, they said that his

“opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced…to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth.”

The judges went on to quote Milton, writing about his visit to Italy, from 1683 to 1689:

“I have sat among their learned men…and been counted happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan the servile condition into which learning among them was brought…that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was…I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought.”

When the judges had finished quoting Milton, they said:

“That is a pass to which we ought not to come again.”

I say to the Minister: it is a pass that the coalition Government ought not to allow to come again. To achieve that, we need clearly thought through and thorough reform of this bad law, to put free speech back at the pinnacle of public life in Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Unfortunately for my hon. Friend, I am afraid that that agreement does not come into force until December 2011. I note that the Irish apparently have an opt-out on it and that it will take five years for the Poles to make it fully applicable, but with those exceptions aside, I assure him that we will implement that agreement absolutely as soon as it comes into force.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the retiring chief inspector of prisons Dame Anne Owers that a reason for the reduction in young people coming into the criminal justice system is the effect of Sure Start? If he does agree with her, will he speak to colleagues across the Government about investing in Sure Start, rather than in youth jails, because it is cheaper and works better?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We are, of course, having to address Sure Start, as with every other programme, in the light of the resources—or rather lack of them—that we have inherited as a result of the economic situation, but the Government are concentrating Sure Start on its original priority purpose, which was particularly to target areas of deprivation and social difficulty. That part of Sure Start’s work does indeed have some relevance to what we have been talking about in our exchanges on youth justice and how to keep people out of criminality in their youth.

Legal Aid Payments

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The contract operation is based on both quality and quantity. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will certainly ensure that the Legal Services Commission follows through on the fact that there are meant to be quality standards; it is not just a matter of making bids for the work. However, we cannot intervene and take money out of the legal aid fund to rescue one voluntary body. That body is briefing everybody through very extensive public relations activity: archbishops are writing to me, and everybody seems to be informed that the body has gone broke, but someone is still producing a great deal of campaigning material on its behalf. It does very valuable work, but it is no good diverting money from the fund to it because it is the only one that has gone bust.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

What this high-quality body has done is highlight a problem that is not restricted to it. In my constituency, which has high immigration advice need, there is no LSC-funded adviser. Will the Secretary of State bring together those Members who have a large number of such cases to discuss with him whether there are better ways of funding immigration advice in our constituencies?

[Mr Clarke]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be only too happy to meet the Members of Parliament particularly affected by the issue. We will have to take advice on whether we will be subject to any kind of legal review if we do that in the middle of the bidding process but, subject to that, we would welcome advice from Members who have particularly large numbers of such cases to deal with, because we will have to look at the whole provision of legal aid in this and other areas.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We must improve the multi-agency approach to tackling reoffending. That means bringing together the police, probation, prisons and local authorities, and ensuring that they work together more effectively. The key is to get offenders off drugs and into work, and, in particular, as he says, into housing. If we can do that, we have a chance of reducing the unacceptably high reoffending rates that we currently experience.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

But how will the cuts that have just been announced to the future jobs fund, which provides employment for ex-offenders in my constituency—a third of a million pounds comes from Connexions and an equal sum from Positive Activities for Young People—contribute to reducing reoffending in Slough?

[Nick Herbert]

Clearly, the Opposition still have not grasped the scale of the fiscal deficit that the country faces or their responsibility for creating it. Reoffending costs the criminal justice system and wider society billions of pounds a year. If we can succeed in reducing reoffending and capture some of that money to invest in rehabilitation services through a payment-by-results model, which we proposed in our rehabilitation revolution, we have a chance of producing the rehabilitation services that the previous Government lamentably failed to provide.

Rape Defendants (Anonymity)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Flint]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend her for all the work in this area that she has done in Scotland. I very much welcomed the time when, as a Home Office Minister, I worked with her. She is right: more and more these days, we hear of people coming forward later, when they have developed the confidence to do so and to talk to others about the crimes that have been committed against them. Again, the serial nature of the crime that we are talking about is important, because when a crime is reported and people hear the name of the person who has been charged, they feel confident to come forward and stand by the victims in the modern day, rather than just in the past.

If we understand what the evidence actually shows—that women are no more likely falsely to report allegations of rape than any other crime—what possible justification is there for giving those accused of rape anonymity? The only other possible explanation is that the stigma associated with being accused of rape is of an entirely different order to that associated with any other serious, violent or sexual offence, but unless we seriously think that there is less stigma attached to being a paedophile, wife beater or murderer than to a rapist, or that society is more understanding of those who sexually abuse children or kill in cold blood, we cannot have anonymity in rape cases without granting anonymity across the board. That principle is totally alien to our system of open, transparent justice, where anonymity is granted only when there are overwhelming, compelling reasons to do so.

I understand that the coalition may be shifting on this matter—I would welcome that—and that it is perhaps considering limiting anonymity to defendants between arrest and charge. That may be worth looking at, but only if the same rule is applied to defendants in all violent crimes, not just rape.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is it not true that it is very often between arrest and charge, when people hear that someone has been arrested for something, that other people come forward with similar patterns to create the weight of evidence that enables the prosecuting authorities successfully to proceed with the charge.

[Caroline Flint]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Where do we draw the line in establishing someone’s identity—whether on arrest or charge—and then allowing other victims the time to present their experiences? We are meddling in something that should not be meddled in. Plenty of other parts of the justice system need to be attended to, and this is not one of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Complainant anonymity was introduced against a background of public concern about the lurid reporting of the cross-examination of complainants in rape trials. Of course, the protection from reporting provides the inducement to complainants to come forward. The underlying problem of exposure to publicity applies to defendants and complainants alike, and I want to make it clear that we have no plans to withdraw in any way the rights of complainants to anonymity. Our proposals are based on sound precedents. Defendant anonymity was the norm in rape cases for many years, and, of course, defendant anonymity continues to be the rule in all criminal proceedings in the youth court.

Let me address some of the points that the right hon. Lady made. She said this morning on the radio, in The Independent and repeated this evening that we know from the evidence that many rapists are serial offenders. I feel this to be true, but when I asked for evidence of how many rapists were serial offenders, and what proportion of convicted or charged rapists might fall into that category, there appeared to be insufficient data to form a reliable evidential picture.

Furthermore, in trying to acquire accurate detail on the number of times that convictions have been obtained because the identity of the defendant was known and further complainants came forward who were crucial to securing a conviction, I have again been unable to get a reliable picture or—

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunt]

Let me continue.

I have again been unable to get a reliable picture or, indeed, any firm evidence at all in the time available. I would welcome help from the right hon. Member for Don Valley, and those of her right hon. and hon. Friends who are supporting her this evening, in identifying serious analysis that can help us to discuss these issues on the basis of evidence rather than supposition.

The right hon. Lady referred this morning on the radio, in her article in The Independent and again this evening to the Worboys case. The facts of that case are that it was the police who finally identified a mode of behaviour from several different complainants, identifying 12 offences. It was that mode of behaviour which led to the charging and subsequent conviction of John Worboys on 19 counts. The police were criticised for the length of time it took them to identify Worboys, but that name would have meant no more to the complainants than it did to the police. It was the manner of the offences that led to his conviction.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Blunt]

No.

Shortly before John Worboys’ trial, the police appealed, with the assistance of the media, for further victims to come forward. The appeal identified 70 to 85 further complainants—to use the right hon. Lady’s numbers; it is 81 according to the briefing that I have received—who recognised his modus operandi. However, none of those was central to his conviction as the police already had sufficient evidence, and had he been granted anonymity until conviction, it would still have been possible to identify those further complainants, and he would still have been convicted. So to understand the issues as perfectly as possible, if the right hon. Lady, and all those who have helped her to prepare, can identify cases where anonymity until conviction would have prevented an initial conviction being secured, I would be anxious to learn of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he concludes?

[Mr Blunt]

In conclusion, the Government want informed contributions on the basis of evidence which will help us to bring forward proposals that will command the confidence of the House. The right hon. Lady has contributed to that process today; I rather regret that one or two of her right hon. and hon. Friends have not conducted themselves in the manner that this subject merits. [Interruption.] I am inviting the right hon. Lady, and other right hon. and hon. Members, to contribute evidence properly and sensibly rather than simply proceed on the basis of supposition. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has contributed to that process, and I am grateful to her. The Government have the interests both of victims and of unconvicted defendants fully at heart, and the Government will proceed upon the evidence.