Prisons and Probation

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak in this very important debate as the queen of prisons. I have the women’s prison of Foston in my constituency, and Sudbury open prison and Marchington prison on my border, so the area of Derbyshire and Staffordshire is well placed for prisons and for understanding prison problems. I do not agree with the motion on the Order Paper, as there is no real understanding of the changes that have been made to the prison system.

I will focus my remarks on Foston women’s prison because it is the one in my constituency. A number of changes have been made. There is help for the ladies who have financial problems, and care for those with mental health issues. There is also advice for those who know they will leaving, and what that will mean in terms of their family—whether they can still stay with them or whether they need to make new arrangements. They have also been given tools to help them not only with their numeracy and so that they are better equipped for reading and writing but, even more importantly, to cope with financial pressures when they come out of prison.

All that has been made possible by tremendous innovative thinking and, specifically, the excellent work of my local citizens advice bureau. We found that people were making repeat visits to the CAB, so it built up a dossier of the needs of women leaving Foston prison, after which it put together a bid, which I was delighted to support. The scheme has now gone out to other prisons throughout the country because it is working so well. The programme is totally cost-effective and it is not fluffy bunny stuff. Talking as the South Derbyshire MP, I can say that unless such a scheme is tried and tested, offers value for money and helps people in our society, it will not get my signature, but the programme ticks all the boxes.

I am proud that our Government are taking such an innovative approach because we do not want people to reoffend. We want people to go back to having a family life. We want them to give something back to society because that is a meaningful part of rehabilitation not only for them, but for their victims. The scheme should be considered even more deeply and I hope that more prisons throughout the estate will get the opportunity to adopt it.

In the couple of minutes remaining, I shall talk about victim support in the context of parole boards and prisons. Regretfully, I know of a horrendous constituency case, of which the Minister is aware, in which owing to a mess in the civil service, an inmate was allowed a second go before a parole board, despite having previously been turned down. He passed the second time, and of course went out and created mayhem, as we knew would happen. Fortunately, he has now been locked up again. I have not heard that the civil servant responsible for the mistake has apologised or been sacked. Even now, I have not heard any apology from the civil service for the fact that the prisoner could get out and create mayhem. I do not want the Minister to apologise today because that would not be fair on him, and that is not what we are here for—we are here to vote against this ridiculous motion. We are here because we want to ensure that people learn from mistakes and that victims are supported to the same extent as inmates through rehabilitation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

3. What plans he has for the future of the women’s prison estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

Our announcement of the closure of Holloway prison signals a new beginning in the way we treat female offenders. It reflects our commitment to hold women in environments that better meet their specific needs and support their rehabilitation, helping them towards better lives on release.

[Heather Wheeler]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I have Foston Hall ladies prison in my constituency. Can my hon. Friend outline how the changes that are happening at Holloway will assist the prisoners and staff at Foston Hall?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Foston Hall is now a resettlement prison, so it is much better placed to support inmates throughout their time in prison and back out into the community. My hon. Friend will know that many female offenders have complex needs, which is why we have introduced a personality disorder pathway and a centralised case management system for female offenders. We have also ensured that family engagement workers are in place at all public sector women’s prisons, including Foston Hall.

Burton Magistrates Court

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Griffiths]

While there might be a letter or two between my hon. Friend and I, there is nothing between us in our view of these consultations and the validity of the evidence they contain. They are riddled with mistakes; he is absolutely right. If the Minister and her colleague are to stick to their word, and if this consultation is to be based on fact and on evidence, they must reconsider the glaring inaccuracies in the proposals.

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Let me move on to the reasons why I think there are mistakes in the proposals for Burton. First, Burton magistrates court’s closure would require court users to make impossible or unreasonably lengthy journeys. The utilisation figures that the Tribunals Service has used to assess Burton magistrates court are incorrect. Burton magistrates court is, I believe, one of the best and most efficient in the country. According to the Tribunals Service’s own statistics, Burton magistrates court is performing better than the local and national average in terms of providing justice swiftly and effectively. The Tribunals Service has mischaracterised the quality of Burton’s facilities, which are much better than Cannock magistrates court, which is set to replace it.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As the people of South Derbyshire also use Burton magistrates court, will he assure me that in his strong defence of keeping the court open, he will bear in mind the importance of South Derbyshire folk’s not having to travel to Cannock, which would be utterly ludicrous?

[Andrew Griffiths]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and her strong support for this campaign. She, like me, understands the impact of this court closure on our constituents. It is true that closing Burton magistrates court would leave nowhere in the south-east of Staffordshire that is suitable for, for instance, family work, which I know she is particularly interested in.

Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of the facts that the Ministry of Justice is using to defend this proposed closure. The proposal contains travel times for each court. The Tribunals Service has included a chart detailing what percentage of people will have to travel 30 minutes, 60 minutes and so on. In order to work that information out, it is necessary to know where each individual is travelling to and from. In other words, it is necessary to know what the new local justice areas will be and where the replacement court will be. Of course, the new local justice areas are not established in the proposals. That information is not there, so the Department is sticking its finger in the air and guessing.

It transpires that many of the estimated times are completely inaccurate. The Tribunals Service has included estimated times from Burton magistrates court to each of the replacement courts. As the proposal itself admits, not everybody lives in Burton town centre. For instance, my constituents would have to travel into Burton town centre and then get another bus to the replacement court, which would add a considerable amount of time. For the purposes of today, I have worked out travel times simply from the centre of Burton, where the magistrates court is.

Let us look at the travel times we would be considering for my constituents to reach Cannock magistrates court. By car, it would be 45 to 55 minutes, but of course, only 52% of my constituents own a car. That means that almost half would be forced to use public transport. The Minister will be shocked to learn that we are talking about a travel time by bus of one hour and 56 minutes to get to Cannock, including two changes, and one hour and 53 minutes to return. That is a total travel time of three hours and 49 minutes. It is hard to see how that is access to local justice. By train, it is little better; it is one hour and 51 minutes to get there, including one change, and one hour and 49 minutes to return—a round trip of three hours and 40 minutes. That includes, importantly, a 60-minute walk time, because there is no other way of accessing the court. Derby, of course, is much quicker, with a total travel time of one hour and 32 minutes. The other proposal is to send court work to north Staffordshire justice centre, which is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. By car, that would be a 45-minute trip each way, but by bus, it would be three hours and eight minutes to get there and two hours and 57 minutes to get back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I think we do need to revisit the Freedom of Information Act. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that the advice that civil servants give to Ministers of whatever Government is protected so that civil servants can speak candidly and offer advice in order to ensure that Ministers do not make mistakes. There has been a worrying tendency in our courts and elsewhere to erode the protections for that safe space for policy advice, and I think it absolutely needs to be asserted. There is no contradiction between making sure that we give civil servants the protection they deserve and also ensuring that the data—for example, the amount we spend in any Government Department—are more transparent than ever.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) to her new position. Does she agree about the importance of maintaining family ties and ensuring the rehabilitation of female offenders, as exemplified by the hard work undertaken at Foston Hall ladies prison in my constituency?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Yes, it is important to maintain family ties, and family engagement workers are in place in all public sector female prisons, including Foston Hall. They meet all prisoners on induction to identify any support required to maintain or establish family contact. Women’s prisons are also looking at other support for improved family links, including family days, child-centred visits, homework clubs and specific relationship and parenting skills programmes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

2. What factors the Parole Board took into account in deciding to release on parole Keith Williams who was convicted of rape in 1999.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Parole Board is independent of Government, but in all cases where the board has the power to direct release it issues guidance to its members on the range of factors to be taken into account in making an assessment of risk.

[Heather Wheeler]

Why was it that after his first Parole Board hearing, Keith Williams was denied parole, and after his second hearing, armed with the same facts, he was given it? Is it not worrying that two different groups of people can come to completely polar-opposite conclusions?

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand entirely my hon. Friend’s concerns about the case, and my sympathy and, I know, hers goes to the victim of Keith Williams who is her constituent. I understand the position in this case to be that a mistake was made in the first instance by those within the Ministry of Justice, for which I apologise, regarding the disclosure of the victim impact statement to the defendant and his solicitors; but the second time the matter was considered by the Parole Board, the board received different information, including a psychological report it had not seen before. My hon. Friend will understand that, because the board is independent and reaches its own conclusions, I cannot undo what it has decided. What I will do is make sure that the maximum reassurance over the licence conditions that were imposed is provided to her constituent.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I rather suspect, Mr Speaker, that you have anticipated how my ministerial career came to an end as well, delightful though it was at the time. I am happy to draw my remarks to a close, because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) has a great deal of expertise on this matter. I will also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), not least because his predecessor was a member of my chambers who led me on a number of cases, including some judicial review matters with which he dealt expertly. [Interruption.] I am sorry to have driven you from the Chair, Mr Speaker.

Let me conclude with these thoughts. The judicial process is important for its checks and balances. That position is not being changed by the Government’s proposals; what they are providing is a reality check on the process of judicial review. On the issue of interveners, if someone chooses to intervene in litigation, they should not do so without being aware of the costs that their intervention can bring. That is what we are seeking to do. It is often the intervener, rather than the initial parties, who takes up the bulk of the time in the case. It is logical for someone who seeks to intervene in a case—no one is obliged to do so, after all—to face the discipline of the potential costs.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. When constituents write to me about planning inquiries and the like, they want to know the true cost, because ultimately, one way or the other, the taxpayer is paying for all this. The facts must be clearly put out there. I thank my hon. Friend for the argument he is proposing.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful, and that provides a suitable point for me to conclude. The costs apply not just to individual litigants and therefore to companies and local authorities, because the cost to a local authority is ultimately a cost to the taxpayer, and then there is the opportunity cost to the planning system and the court system that comes from bringing needless judicial reviews. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a meritorious claim from coming forward and being heard, but it provides some checks and balances in the matter—a reminder that the common law does not exist independently of the House. Ultimately, accountability lies here through Parliament. The judiciary has an important role to play in interpreting the will of Parliament.

Occasionally, I look at judgments in judicial review cases and gain the impression that one or two of the senior judiciary have rather concluded that the common law somehow exists in isolation. The development of case law is important, as suggested, but it should happen within the framework set by this democratically accountable House. We need to redress the balance to ensure that while the House is accountable, a democratically elected local authority is the right primary accountable body in its sphere of competence. I thus commend both the planning and the judicial review provisions.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), not so much for the content of his contribution as for its tone and humour. I am afraid that I will not be able to match his humour. He beat me to the punch by telling us about his friendship and legal partnership with my distinguished predecessor, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I suspect from the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that he must have learned it at the feet of my predecessor. The general tone of this debate has been very constructive, so I hope the Minister will respond positively to the constructive contributions.

I particularly commend the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—I was about to call him my hon. Friend—who contributed progressively and constructively to the work of my Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier in this Parliament.

I shall propose my own amendments 42 and 44 and speak in support of amendments 24 to 32 and 36, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair. Let me remind everyone that the Joint Committee is made up of members of all parties and that the majority of its members are from the coalition parties. When a report from our Committee is unanimous, it means that it was supported by Government Members.

My Committee has done a lot of work on the implications for access to justice of the Government’s proposals to reform both legal aid and judicial review, and we continue to take evidence on these important matters. Earlier this year, we concluded a detailed inquiry into the Government’s judicial review reforms. Our report, which came out in April, pointed out—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith in this debate—the crucial importance of judicial review to upholding the rule of law in this country. It is, I believe, one of the fundamentals that seems to be in everyone’s list of “British values”—much discussed of late.

Amendments 42 and 44 were recommended in my Joint Committee’s report. They are necessary to ensure that the Bill does not go too far in curtailing one of the most important developments in recent years, which has increased effective access to judicial review to hold the Government to account. The courts have carefully developed costs capping orders, which are also known as protective costs orders, to ensure that meritorious challenges to the legality of Government action are not prevented by the fear of a crippling bill for costs. In appropriate cases, they remove the disincentive to litigation of the ordinary “winner takes all” costs rules.

Corner House Research, a non-governmental organisation with expertise in countering bribery and corruption, brought judicial review proceedings against the Department of Trade and Industry for not doing enough to counter bribery and corruption through its export credits guarantee scheme. The courts believed that the legal challenge raised important issues of public interest that needed to be decided. The case was, however, brought only because of a costs capping order limiting the costs exposure of this important NGO.

The Government are concerned that the test for providing such costs protection has become increasingly flexible, as a result of which costs capping orders are being granted too frequently. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said that they seem to have

“become the norm rather than the exception”.

According to his way of thinking, a lot of well-off campaign groups are bringing cases safe in the knowledge that their costs exposure will be kept down by a costs capping order. My Committee looked into this issue in detail and found the Lord Chancellor’s concern to be exaggerated. The senior judiciary, in its response to the consultation, also doubted the Lord Chancellor’s claim. Other than in environmental cases, where a special cost regime applies because of the UK’s EU obligations, the judges’ experience is that the use of costs capping orders is not widespread.

We welcome much of what is in the Bill on costs capping, including the Government’s decision to put costs capping orders on a statutory footing and to enshrine the common law principles into a statutory code. This seemed to my Committee to be a welcome recognition in principle of the importance of costs capping orders as a way to ensure practical and effective access to justice. We also found that the new statutory code in clauses 59 and 60 is a broadly accurate reflection of the principles developed by the courts, and for the most part merely reflects the restrictions on the availability of costs capping orders that are already applied by the courts.

In one very important aspect, however, the Bill includes a restriction that has the potential to limit very severely the practical effectiveness of costs capping orders. Clause 59(3) provides that a costs capping order may be made by the courts

“only if leave to apply for judicial review has been granted.”

The Government’s justification for this restriction is that only cases with merit should benefit from cost capping orders, and the test of whether a case has merit is whether it is granted permission to proceed by the court. In practice, however, this provision seriously undermines the utility of costs capping orders and may lead to meritorious judicial reviews not being brought because the cost risk is too great.

[Heather Wheeler]

Can the hon. Gentleman provide any examples of where that might have occurred? I am finding it very difficult, and I think the taxpayers of South Derbyshire will find it very difficult, to think that people’s rights to open justice are being curtailed in any way when we are not seeing meritorious cases that ought to come to court. Judicial reviews have got out of hand, my friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I beg to disagree. I entirely understand what the Government are trying to do. They are trying to warn certain potential users of judicial review that it is a fatuous process if it turns out that the original decision was perfectly reasonable, although there may have been some difficulties with the process. If too many decisions are subject to too much court examination continuously, it is often possible for a clever and well-paid lawyer to find something slightly inappropriate or questionable in the way in which a council or Government Department made a decision, although the decision itself was correct. It might be better if the money were not spent, and if the courts’ time were not taken up with applications when the position cannot be improved for a litigant who remains in dispute with the council or the Government, and who will not secure a reversal of the original agreement.

The bulk of the work to which the new clauses and amendment relate lies in the intricate and sometimes opaque drafting of new schedule 3, with which we non-lawyers are perhaps struggling a little. It is a complex piece of work, because it amends various pieces of underlying legislation. I have one or two queries with which the Minister may be able to help me, knowing as he does that I approve of what he is trying to do, and am merely trying to clarify some of the ways in which it would operate. For instance, I do not quite understand the logic of paragraph 4(7) of new schedule 3, which provides for new subsection (6) of section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to state:

“The High Court may not suspend a tree preservation order under subsection (4C) or (5)(a).”

That is not entirely similar to some of the other proceedings.

I am also interested in the timings. The period during which due consideration must take place seems generally to be specified as six weeks, but I wonder what the overall period will be when the High Court finds that the judicial review process should proceed. In the case of planning issues in particular, delay can impose complexity, blight and difficulty in the area involved, and if the end result is that the development goes ahead anyway, it becomes a real issue. I am sure that questions of timing and delay lie behind some of the work that the Government have been doing.

[Heather Wheeler]

I think that my right hon. Friend has hit on a very interesting point. It seems to me iniquitous to build in delay in cases in which the result could not have been changed in the first place. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why he considers this to be such an important tidying-up mechanism.

[Mr Redwood]

I do wonder whether a period of six weeks is required. Presumably the proposal relates to a typical case in which those who are likely to object have followed the earlier processes of the application in great detail. After the original decision there may have been a planning appeal, and they will surely have all their arguments prepared and be ready to move before six weeks have passed. That period seems fairly generous in the circumstances. I wonder how much longer the process is likely to take, and how much High Court capacity there is for dealing with such cases expeditiously.

While I am keen to defend the green fields in my patch from inappropriate development, and am very accustomed to the techniques that we sometimes need to use for the purpose, I am also aware that we need land for building, and that people sometimes object to developments in certain locations that independent-minded people would deem perfectly reasonable. I suspect that in the case of applications of that kind, we might get into difficulties. I am pleased to see that you know exactly what I mean, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we seek to represent our constituencies, we all try to balance such considerations. I am strongly in favour of new growth and new development, but I am equally strongly against its taking place in certain localities where I would find it objectionable, as would many of my constituents.

Let me make two more brief points. I note that new schedule 3 proposes an amendment to the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990. It states, of course, that leave cannot be granted without the High Court’s approval, but I think that the main issue is whether it poses problems of a different kind, which, given that hazardous substances need to be controlled carefully, might make a more timely result even more crucial.

The new schedule also refers to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether any different considerations apply when someone’s property is the subject of compulsory purchase. I would expect a higher standard of proof, and more rights for people to object, to apply when the estate or the council envisages a better use for land that they own than when a piece of land which is near to where they live, but which belongs to someone else, has been subject to various planning processes and the owner wishes to develop it. I think that those are slightly different cases, and that litigants should be given more protection when they are subject, under the Act, to a compulsory purchase to which they object or which they do not welcome.

I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of those points.

Female Genital Mutilation

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. I had the opportunity through Hilary Burrage, who has campaigned tirelessly on female genital mutilation, to meet the leading French prosecutor. What the hon. Lady suggests is exactly the action being taken in France. Working in that way clearly helps to prevent perpetrators from committing the offence.

I am pleased that we now have a victims commissioner. It is not a party-political point, but it has taken at least 12 months for that to happen. I am sure that Baroness Newlove will do an excellent job and continue the good work of Louise Casey. I want to know the Minister’s thoughts on how much the victims commissioner should prioritise female genital mutilation.

Over recent months, we have heard many positive words, but I am concerned that positive words are not reducing the shocking number of victims on the ground or delivering the justice that victims deserve. The NSPCC rightly states that preventing future victims should remain a priority, but we need to see justice for the 50 victims who will suffer the abuse this very day.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other measures ought to be brought into play? In other countries, nurses in schools automatically have to ensure that the authorities are informed about such matters. That does not seem to happen in this country.

[Karl Turner]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the authorities need to work more closely together, and to share information with teachers, nurses and GPs. I have spoken to many professionals who avoid the issue either because of the sensitivities or, as was suggested to me recently, because they are struggling with their departmental budgets. They avoid dealing with the matter. The hon. Lady does not seem terribly impressed at that comment, but that point was put to me very recently. The reduction in social services budgets is definitely an issue, because female genital mutilation is not the priority that it should be.

The lack of evidence and witnesses is also an issue. The lack of prosecutions is compounded by many factors. The police are not investigating FGM with enough vigour, as was suggested earlier. It is estimated that of the 20,000 suspected cases some 6,000 will be based in London. The Metropolitan police’s Project Azure was set up to tackle the problem, but a freedom of information request showed that the team consisted of only two police officers—one full-time and one part-time. It is ridiculous to suggest that such policing is sufficient to tackle this shocking issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

I hear everything that my hon. Friend has to say, and I am aware that she knows a considerable amount about the matter. I do not accept that there is a lack of will, but I hear what she has to say, and I will make sure that as much action as possible is taken to deal with the issues that she highlighted.

I very much welcome the action plan that the Director of Public Prosecutions published recently, with a view to bringing a successful prosecution for female genital mutilation. The willingness of victims and others to come forward and give evidence in court is crucial. We need to create a climate in which victims, and those close to them, feel able to report offences to the police and to receive the help and support that they need to give evidence, so that perpetrators of this unacceptable, dreadful practice can be brought to justice.

Of course, the law is only one part of tackling the problem of female genital mutilation in this country, and prosecution after the fact does not relieve the victim from a lifetime of pain and discomfort. Ideally, we want to prevent the mutilation from happening in the first place. We need to educate people and change their attitudes— sometimes long-established attitudes. A holistic approach and a multi-agency response are vital.

[Heather Wheeler]

The Minister talks about a multi-disciplinary approach. I wonder whether she could open up discussions with the health authorities, because I understand that, under the NHS, restorative medical treatment is not granted automatically.

[Mrs Grant]

I note what my hon. Friend says. I shall come on to health and cross-Government, inter-agency multi-practice in a moment, but if I do not cover her specific point, I will be happy to write to her.

A joined-up approach within Government is also important. The Government’s approach to tackling female genital mutilation is set out in our “Call to End Violence Against Women and Girls” action plan. Our key focus is prevention, and cross-Government work, co-ordinated by the Home Office, has seen significant progress in raising awareness of female genital mutilation and supporting professionals to intervene. Central to that work are the multi-agency practice guidelines on female genital mutilation, which were published in February 2011. They highlight the risk factors that teachers, nurses, GPs, police officers and social workers should be looking out for in their work, and they set out what action they should take. Above all, they stress the need for a collaborative effort to protect girls at risk. A review of the use and effectiveness of the guidelines was launched by the Home Office in August 2012, and a report on the findings of that review will be published later this year. Additionally, over 40,000 information leaflets and posters about female genital mutilation have been distributed to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country.

We also continue to support front-line organisations that work with communities to challenge their long-held beliefs about the practice. The Home Office launched a £50,000 fund in November 2012, from which organisations may bid for grants of £2,000 to £5,000. That follows from the success of the 2011 fund, which supported 10 organisations working to tackle FGM across England and Wales. Another recent initiative is the declaration against FGM launched by the Home Office in November. Based on the Dutch document known as the “health passport”, it sets out the law and penalties for female genital mutilation. It is supported by and carries the signatures of relevant Ministers, including my own and those of the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), as well as that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Department of Health continues to ensure that health professionals are able to respond appropriately to girls and women who may be at risk of genital mutilation and to those who have already been subjected to it. In May 2012, the then Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), wrote to the royal colleges and NHS agencies encouraging them to raise awareness of the problem among professionals, and the Department’s chief medical officer and the director of nursing, with the support of the royal colleges, wrote to health professionals drawing their attention to the multi-agency practice guidelines. It is clear from the responses received that all are committed to playing their part in eradicating this dreadful practice.

Work is continuing across Government to look at all possible ways of tackling this complex issue. To that end, in two days’ time, the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention, my honourable Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, will be co-hosting, with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, a round-table meeting with key professionals. The meeting’s purpose is to explore how those working with children can work together to detect potential victims of FGM and deter those from considering carrying out the act. The public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, and the Minister with responsibility for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), will also be attending.

Ultimately, the eradication of female genital mutilation in this country will require the practising communities themselves to abandon this awful practice. It is a sad fact that older women, who are themselves victims of genital mutilation, are often the strongest advocates for the continuance of the practice. Such attitudes are deeply ingrained.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked what the victims commissioner’s role might be in relation to the issue. The victims commissioner has a statutory duty to promote the interests of victims of crime, including victims of female genital mutilation. I hope that she will be taking up her position later this month, and I look forward to working closely with her on those matters. He also asked about my role as victims Minister, with particular reference to female genital mutilation, and I can tell him that I will be working closely with the Home Office in a cross-Government capacity on an issue that, as I think he knows, is also very close to my heart.

In a wider context, I am responsible for looking after victims and doing everything that I can to care for, support and help them, including, of course, victims of female genital mutilation. I will be working with the police and crime commissioners to make sure that they do everything that they possibly can to eradicate the practice, and working with the police in their new capacities. We will be reforming the victims code, which will hopefully make it easier for victims—including victims of female genital mutilation—to navigate their way through the criminal justice system, which can often be very confusing and intimidating, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, having worked in it for many years.

In conclusion, the Government remain committed to protecting young girls and women from the abuse, and to ensuring that those living with its consequences get the care and support that they need and deserve. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I hope that it will serve to keep this important issue firmly on the agenda.

Claims Management Companies

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for securing this debate on the activities and regulation of claims management companies, and I apologise that I cannot stay until the end. I have students from Pingle school coming to see me at 4 o’clock, so I must leave, although perhaps we will have finished before then—I certainly hope so. This subject is of particular interest to me, as an officer of the all-party group on insurance and financial services. Our group has held many meetings with people involved in such issues, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured the debate.

Claims management companies have grown considerably over the last five years. As we heard, in 2007, it was estimated that there were 400 CMCs, and today, there are over 3,000 subject to Ministry of Justice regulation. Such companies serve a purpose: people who have little time and have a claim can pay CMCs to work on their behalf to pursue claims for them. The huge number of PPI claims has been interesting, as PPI clearly has been one of the biggest financial mis-selling scandals ever. CMCs can now be used for personal injury claims, too. If people are time-poor, they should absolutely use a good claims management company. However, it is the hard sell, the rogue traders, and the targeting of the vulnerable by some companies that makes both our debate and reform in this area so necessary.

Citizens advice bureaux in my constituency do excellent work to support constituents who have been targeted by claims management companies, and to raise awareness of fraudulent and rogue traders. It is clear, however, that the Government need to do more to stamp out such practices altogether. Who here has not received one of those messages reading, “There is £2,167 waiting to be claimed in your name for the mis-selling of PPI on your loans and credit cards. To get this as soon as possible, reply to this message quickly.”? Three in four people continue to receive unsolicited texts or phone calls from claims management companies offering them the chance to claim compensation, and nine in 10 people who receive such a message say that it is not relevant to them at all. Although that issue was addressed in the House of Lords on Monday, it is also worth mentioning today in Westminster Hall. Some of the companies pursue a range of communications such as cold-calls, text messages and even e-mails to encourage individuals to make a claim. The Government need to look at what can be done to stop the selling of personal information to be used by such companies.

However annoying those text messages are, they are only part of the problem. I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr Prince, who has given me permission to use his story. He was a victim of an unscrupulous claims management company called Lifestyle Money from Swansea, a little down the road from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans). Lifestyle Money called Mr Prince emphasising that they were acting on behalf of ordinary folk like him who may have been mis-sold PPI by the banks. They kept plugging the fact that they were registered by the Ministry of Justice and the Financial Services Authority to act on their behalf in collecting money owed to individuals that were mis-sold PPI. They told him that no money was to be paid up front to them, but that they required credit card details to hold on file, so that once a claim was successful, they could take a percentage, but would forward the rest to him. They also promised to send him an information pack with further details about how to proceed with making a claim.

That all seemed very fair to my constituent. No money was required up front. If the company was successful in winning him back compensation for his mis-sold PPI claim, only then would money be taken from his account. Some 10 days later, his information pack duly arrived. Lifestyle Money had gone to the trouble to mark pages to be signed and returned if he wanted to continue with the claim. However, Mr Prince decided not to proceed, and he thought that that would be the end of it. A phone call, an information pack received but not signed, and no money passed on—case closed.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. Several weeks later, Mr Prince received his credit card statement, which showed that Lifestyle Money had taken £359.98 from his account. He was completely shocked and confused about why that money had been taken out. On the phone, the company said that no money would be taken, and in the information pack, £359.89 was not mentioned at all. Following further investigation, he found that the sum was taken as an admin fee, but he was told that it would be returned in full should his claim prove unsuccessful.

Mr Prince was rightly annoyed and angered by that. To add to his anger, by the time he received his credit card statement, he was, of course, outside the 14-day cooling-off period, and he was told by Lifestyle Money that it would not return his money until he had made a claim. How was Mr Prince to act within the 14-day cooling-off period when the first he knew about the money being taken out was upon receiving his monthly statement, a good three weeks after that had happened? That money had, in fact, been taken on the day of the cold-call, even before he had received the information pack and before he could decide whether he wanted to pursue a claim with the company.

Luckily for Mr Prince, he was able to get the money back, after the intervention of the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who kindly got his officials in the claims management regulation unit to conduct an investigation on behalf of Mr Prince into the specific complaint. They proved successful in getting Lifestyle Money to pay Mr Prince back his money. Burton upon Trent is next door to my constituency, and I praise the hard work of the officials who work in the unit there, as well as the previous Minister, of course.

All that shows that greater regulation is needed. How can it be that a company can take over £300 based on one cold-call and on sending out one information pack, which was not signed? Even if Mr Prince had decided to go ahead and make the claim, the chances are that Lifestyle Money would not have been successful in winning him compensation. A recent web-based public survey undertaken by Citizens Advice showed that only 5% of respondents reported that the claims management company that had engaged them had managed to obtain any compensation for them. Rogue traders pursue everyone, regardless of whether they have a legitimate claim or not, taking fees up front to ensure payment even if they do little or no work, as in the case of Mr Prince.

In 2010-11, the MOJ received 12,504 complaints about companies offering financial products and services. Most of them did so by cold-calling and taking up-front fees. It is a pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her position. I ask her to continue work on strengthening the regulation in this industry. In particular, we need to consider banning up-front fees, so that there is no longer an incentive to pursue individuals who do not have a legitimate claim. We need a more effective cooling-off period, so that clients do not have to pay anything up front until after that period has ended, and in no circumstances should a company be able to take money from someone’s account without explicit consent to do so. More should be done to ensure that people know that they do not have to go through a claims management company to make a claim; they can do it themselves and for free. Perhaps the Minister will consider imposing a levy on companies that use unsolicited calls and text messages in order to discourage them from doing so. I am sure that if we tighten up the regulation, the Minister will find that many of the rogue traders will be stamped out, leaving genuine claims management companies to go on providing a legitimate service that helps many people who do not want to pursue a claim on their own to do so.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for initiating the debate and I thank you, Sir Alan, for the way in which it has been conducted. I hope that I might be able to hear the Minister’s words at the end.

Defamation Bill

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. My recollection—it is only that—is that the Committee was unanimous on almost all points. I think there was one division—and one only—on the final report; I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) nodding. Unlike with the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon sat, there is considerably more cross-party agreement in this area.

The Bill of course comes at an interesting and even opportune time, as, indeed, we are all aware. A mile or so down the road—a little less far than the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) suggested—Lord Justice Leveson is sitting in a far more high-profile environment, examining the culture, practices and ethics of the media. The legitimacy and desirability of what an untrammelled free press has recently been up to, for which we as politicians bear some measure of the blame, has rightly been called into question by recent events, which few can have viewed with anything other than horror and disgust.

As we have heard in this debate, another Joint Select Committee of this Parliament in the previous Session, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon sat, has now reported to both Houses on the subject of privacy and the use of injunctions. New technologies have thrown up new challenges in a number of areas. That they are being addressed piecemeal, although not entirely desirable, as hon. Members have indicated in their contributions, is understandable. That they are being addressed at all is a matter for congratulation, I venture to suggest, for all concerned. Where precisely we will find ourselves at the end of the process is no doubt a matter of debate, but the overall aim is clear: to preserve free speech while respecting other competing rights and the responsibilities that each of those rights entails. For my part, I merely add that this is unlikely to be the end of the process. As the report of the Joint Select Committee on which I sat indicated, there is still work to be done on the issue of parliamentary privilege, just as there remain loose ends to be tied up in relation to those parts of the common law of blasphemy and sedition which remain part of our law.

Thus far, I have dealt in generalities, but the greater raft of problems—at least in terms of number, if not seriousness—relates to the specific difficulties encountered with the mechanistic aspects of the law of defamation. The second issue with which it is necessary to grapple in any reform in this area is, therefore, the cost that is associated with defamation litigation and, when necessary, court proceedings. The evidence taken by the Committee demonstrated that those costs were prohibitive to the defence of reputation by the majority; but, even more important, they are inimical to free speech itself.

Few individuals, save perhaps the very brave such as Dr Ben Goldacre, have been prepared to put their lives and fortunes at stake and raise their right to express the truth above their own financial security and that of their families. As anyone who does not enjoy the luxury of parliamentary privilege is all too well aware, the powerful have deep pockets and frightening lawyers with heavy notepaper and even heavier language. The costs associated with defamation not only prevent ordinary people from defending reputations that are so easily damaged in an age in which anonymous posting online can wrongly create a rapist or a paedophile at the click of a mouse, but prevent public figures who lie, cheat and steal from being revealed for what they are.

How, one is driven to ask perhaps all too often—even if rhetorically—have the individuals who have been involved in many of the scandals that we have seen in the past got away with it for so long? The truth, frequently, is that they had, and continue to have, good lawyers who are adroit at putting those who might otherwise hold them to account through the preventive mills of cost and stress. Any reform of the law of defamation needs not only to take account of that, but to address cost at each and every turn. Yes, legitimate reputation is important in a civilised society, as is the prevention of false accusations which damage it; but such protections ought not to be purchased through prevention of the exposure of that which ought to be in the public domain, something which is perhaps all too often a result of the chilling effects associated with any defamation litigation. Indeed, as the Committee concluded in its report,

“the reduction in the extremely high costs of defamation proceedings is essential to limiting the chilling effect and making access to legal redress a possibility for the ordinary citizen.”

This is, none the less, an appropriate moment at which to pause and recognise a fact that—given the evidence taken by the Committee and the views of many commentators—may be obvious, at least to practitioners: the fact that the true problem with the costs associated with defamation proceedings is driven not by substantive rules but by procedure. Any significant reform to reduce cost is therefore not something that can be exclusively, or even primarily, driven by Parliament. As has been pointed out by Members on both sides of the House today, what we need are reforms of procedure to provide new and effective procedural mechanisms that will level the playing field as between those with deep pockets and those without them.

Much, in general terms, was achieved in that respect by the reforms of civil procedure for which we are eternally in the debt of Lord Woolf, but I should like the Minister to state categorically that the Government, in the person of the Lord Chancellor, will instruct the Civil Procedure Rule Committee—if, indeed, they have not already done so—to review the civil procedure rules relating to defamation proceedings, as well as the pre-action protocol, in an attempt specifically to strengthen the parts of the overriding objective that are directed to addressing the cost associated with litigation and the necessity of ensuring equality of arms between litigants.

The third difficulty, which both the Committee and the Government have sought to address, is one that I have already mentioned: the difficulty posed by technological and other advances. The last statutory intervention in that regard was made in 1996, under the Administration of Sir John Major, mention of whom is, perhaps, opportune today. Even I can remember vaguely what the world was like then, and it was different. For a start, there was no Human Rights Act—legislation on which, as many know, I have my own strong views, but which, in terms of general principle, has had a significant effect on the law of defamation by recognising privacy rights that have been used as a back door to circumvent free speech protections developed in the arena of defamation over centuries. That affords yet another reason why the 1996 Act is, at the very least—I put it neutrally in deference to my hon. Friends—problematic. We had human rights in this country before the Act was passed, but we did not recognise them in the way that we have now, which has enabled judge-made law in one area to trespass on the will of successive Parliaments and higher courts in others.

What is even more important in the present context, however, is the fact that when Parliament last considered this issue in 1996, the internet was in its infancy. Nothing was known of how matters would develop.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Given that technology is moving so fast, as others have pointed out, does my hon. and learned Friend think that, like anti-terrorism legislation, this legislation should be reviewed and renewed more often than annually?

[Stephen Phillips]

I should like to say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has put me on the spot with a point that I do not think that the Government would like. I suspect that whatever legislation is in place, we will need to look at it from time to time to ensure that it correctly balances the right to free speech with the right to reputation in the light of the technological developments that will take place over time. How the Minister and his colleagues will want to do that, and whether it will be dealt with in the winding-up speech, is a matter for them. However, I see the force of the point that has been made by my hon. Friend and, indeed, other Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). I come at the Bill from a completely different perspective, because I am definitely not a lawyer. I am very much a poacher turned gamekeeper on this matter, because in another life I was an insurance broker—even worse than a lawyer—and I used to place libel and slander policies at Lloyd’s. When I saw this debate on the Order Paper, I therefore thought, “You know what? This is one for me.”

Having sat here since half past 3, I have been considering whether to give the five-minute speech, the 10-minute speech or the 15-minute speech. I have not had the nod and the wink from the Whips to say that it should be the three-minute one because we are getting to the later stages of the debate. As has been said, there is cross-party agreement on this matter. Is that not a breath of fresh air in this Chamber?

Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 9 are particularly helpful. They have all been expanded on by learned friends, so as a mere humble Back-Bencher and political hack, and not a lawyer, I do not need to expand on them further.

[Bob Stewart]

And not learned.

[Heather Wheeler]

Indeed, not learned at all.

What is fascinating to me is that the Bill is drafted so clearly that the person on the Clapham omnibus will be able to understand it. Two years into this glorious coalition Government, is it not something that we are finally getting a Bill about which the person on the Clapham omnibus will be able to say, “That protects me. I understand that.”? It can be understood not only by lawyers, but by MPs and ordinary people who do not earn their money by standing before people with wigs—you are not wearing a wig tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I can genuinely say that. We have found a Bill that the people will rejoice at. There should be greater publicity about the process by which this Bill has come about. It should be held up as a burning light to demonstrate what Parliament can do when it does the right thing and gets behind something.

It is an even better Bill because it fits with the great coalition pledge of one-in, one-out. We are getting rid of a horrendous piece of law that has been in force since goodness knows when.

[Michael Ellis]

Since 1891.

[Heather Wheeler]

Since 1891—what an amazing piece of legislation to be getting rid of! Again, that is something of which this House should be eminently proud.

Ministers have been asked a few questions and for a few clarifications. I will sit here to the bitter end, because I want to see the Bill through. To repeat myself, it is interesting that we finally have a Bill that lay people can genuinely understand and say, “Well done.” I thank everybody who has been part of the process of putting it together. I look forward to hearing the winding-up speeches from the Front Benchers in due course and I commend the Bill to everybody.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Heather Wheeler Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Beith]

Yes I do, and I was just coming to that as my final point. First, just let me complete my earlier point by saying that the absence of qualified one-way cost shifting leaves an imbalance in the implementation of the Jackson proposals. It is not even clear from the Bill precisely what the Government are doing.

Finally, let me address what I, too, have described as the scandal of referral fees under which insurance companies and some other bodies, such as trade unions, make money from selling the details and claims of the victims of accidents. It will not be enough merely to ban referral fees, because the Government and the industry must deal with a system of fees that has a fundamental fault. If there is a system of fees in which a lawyer can still make a profit from a relatively small claim having paid hundreds of pounds for the privilege of pursuing that claim, then we have to address the fixed costs as well as the referral fees.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

No, I am sorry.

One solicitor wrote to me saying that referral fees are no more than a “form of legalised bribery”. He is right. They are the parasites eating away at the integrity of the whole of the motor insurance industry and associated professions, including lawyers. Their effect is to drive up costs, and therefore premiums, and actively to encourage individuals—

[Heather Wheeler]

rose—

[Mr Straw]

I am sorry—I am running out of time.

Referrals actively encourage individuals to try their luck in making claims for fictitious or wholly exaggerated injuries. I accept, and do so publicly, that that comes as a result of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which was based on recommendations from Lord Woolf. It gave rise to expectations that have not been met. I was clear when I established Jackson, endorsed it and set up an immediate consultation process that the system needed root-and-branch reform. I am perfectly happy to accept that.

I was glad to hear the Secretary of State’s words about that. With respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), however, referral fees are not, as he said yesterday, a small part of the problem; they are a central part of the problem. Removing them is not a magic bullet, and other actions will also need to be taken. Unless he deals with referral fees, among other things, as well as changing the whole system, he will not deal with the extraordinary abuse that is taking place.

There are other changes that I ask the Secretary of State to consider. First, there could be legislation, possibly in this Bill, to prohibit the payment of damages for so-called whiplash injuries, save where there is other objective evidence of serious injury, as other jurisdictions have already done. The regulators, the Information Commissioner and Ofcom should crack down hard on the patent abuse of individuals’ personal data. I have taken up the issue, and I hope that, as the Secretary of State responsible, he will do so, too.

There should be an urgent review of the effectiveness, or rather the lack of it, of the regulation of claims management companies, as established under the Compensation Act 2006. That, too, is not working as effectively as it should. In Blackburn and in many other urban areas, honest drivers with impeccable driving records are facing huge increases in premiums, not because of any risk that they have any control over but because of the level of claims by other people. It is a form of collective punishment, and it needs to be outlawed.

Over the past 20 years, as a result of taxpayer investment in safer roads and driver investment in safer and more secure cars, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of accidents and the number of thefts from vehicles. There should not be a steep increase in the insurance premium—instead, there should be a fall. It is time for major reforms so that, at long last, motorists can benefit from this investment.