Court Estates Reform Programme

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

On 14 December 2010 my predecessor announced to Parliament the final decisions following the consultation on the potential closure of 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts. This included the relocation of Rhyl county court to Prestatyn magistrates court (to be renamed Prestatyn law courts) in April 2013.

The work required to implement this decision has proved more difficult than anticipated. My officials are continuing to engage with local agencies and the judiciary about the best way to achieve this relocation. Pending the outcome of these discussions and any further consultation that may be required, I have deferred the relocation of Rhyl county court until no earlier than April 2014.

Criminal Justice System

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind her that the debate must finish at 4.50 pm?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I am grateful, Mrs Riordan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate. I am conscious that this may be one of the final times we hear from him. I want quickly to convey that he will be missed right across the House. I wish I had time to say more. There is so much to say and so little time.

I am delighted to be responsible for representing the needs of victims and witnesses in Government. I am committed to ensuring that they are high on the Government’s agenda, which is exactly where they belong.

At the beginning of the year, we launched a consultation that sought views on a far-reaching package of proposals. We called it “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, because that is what we need to do. Victims too often feel themselves to be at best an afterthought and at worst forgotten in the process of justice. Despite improvements over the past two decades, the system has continued to fall short, whether in relation to helping victims recover from the aftermath of a crime, supporting them through the inevitable stresses of investigation and trial, or providing the right services in the right place, funded as far as possible by offenders rather than the taxpayer. The urgent need to remedy the current weaknesses is why we are implementing the package of proposals that we committed to in our response to the consultation.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure that practical and emotional support is provided to help victims cope with the initial impact of crime and, in the longer term and as far as possible, recover from the consequences of crime. We are proceeding with plans to make improvements to the support available, raising up to an additional £50 million from the perpetrators of crime. On 1 October, the victim surcharge payable by an adult on a fine was increased. More than that, it has been extended to other disposals such as conditional discharges, community sentences and custodial sentences. Similar provision has also been made in respect of juveniles. The increase in revenue will increase the help that we can give to victims.

However, there is little point in ensuring that decent funding is available if we do not use it in the best way possible. That means prioritising support to those who truly need it: victims of the most serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and victims who are the most vulnerable in our society, and who may be isolated because of lack of support or family. That prioritisation of support underpins a second, related reform. For too long most funding decisions about victims’ services have been made in Whitehall. Past Governments have tested to destruction the virtues of monopoly purchasing of services, which I do not believe are in the interests of victims or taxpayers. We will take a more intelligent approach to victims and witnesses.

Under our plans, the Ministry of Justice will retain responsibility for commissioning services where either proven economies of scale exist or they are genuinely of a specialist nature. In our judgment, that means continued support from the Ministry of Justice for those bereaved through homicide, for victims of trafficking, and for rape support centres. We are also continuing to consider where else this approach would make sense.

Our coalition agreement also promised much needed stability for rape support services across the country, and we have given them long-term funding. We have also opened new support centres in areas lacking such provision.

For the bulk of victims’ services, however, funding will be devolved to democratically accountable police and crime commissioners. It is a plain fact that the needs of victims vary locally, and PCCs, much more than officials and Ministers in Whitehall, will be best placed to decide what their communities want and what they need. Hon. Members have raised the issue of national budgets and how much money will go to PCCs. I envisage that the majority of the budget will go to PCCs.

For many victims of crime, of course, their contact with the criminal justice system involves neither drawing on services to help them recover, nor—I shall come to this policy in a moment—seeking compensation. Rather, their priority is that the system treats them decently during the investigation and trial. It is unacceptable that victims still frequently feel that too little is being done. They have been given too little information and they are expected to sit next to the families of offenders. The Government are undertaking a review of the victims’ code and the witness charter to consider in detail how they can be made more effective and robust.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester Central will be pleased to know that we are taking a careful look at the operation of victim personal statements, which can be invaluable to victims in court, making sure that the impact of the crime upon them is really understood. We are committed to ensuring that offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes and do more to repair the harm that they have caused. I have already talked about the additional money that will be provided to victims through the surcharge. Restorative justice is something that could transform lives, and I will certainly be pursuing that.

The Government believe that the role of the victims’ commissioner is vital to making sure that victims’ needs are championed and their voices heard across Government. The announcement of our intention to fill the post of victims’ commissioner is another clear signal that the Government’s commitment to criminal justice reform is real.

There have been numerous contributions made today by hon. Members. I will quickly list them: the hon. Member for Manchester Central; my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel); the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw); my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes); the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran); my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston); and the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into detail and comment as I would like on the issues that they raised, but I assure them that I have listened very carefully indeed to everything that they said, and I may have to write to them to clarify issues.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to respond to the points made by three hon. Members about road traffic victims. Would she at least agree to meet a delegation led by British Cycling to discuss the issue?

[Mrs Grant]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree to meet a delegation.

I am right out of time, so I will just say that our package of reforms is designed to ensure that victims’ services are put on a more intelligent and sustainable footing. It is designed, in particular, to ensure that those in greatest need of help and support get what they actually need when they need it. It is not about one size fitting all. I am committed to these reforms.

Chancel Repair Liability

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on securing a debate on the subject of the approaching deadline for the registration of chancel repair liability. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for general land law in England and Wales.

The debate has highlighted the issues that people affected by chancel repair have to address in light of the October 2013 deadline. I do not underestimate the seriousness and difficulty of those issues, and the problems that they can cause for communities; I am, however, for reasons that I will explain, not persuaded that any change in the law is necessary. I know this conclusion will be disappointing to my hon. Friend, but I will keep the matter under consideration and will monitor developments carefully.

As we have heard, chancel repair liability is an ancient, but enforceable, part of the land law of England and Wales, whereby property owners can be compelled to pay for the repair of the chancel of a church. The liability is thought to benefit about 5,200 ancient churches, and to burden a large number of properties. Liability as between owners is joint and several. However, the present owners of the properties affected by the liability are not the only people to whom chancel repair liability and the approaching deadline for registration are important. Anyone seeking to buy a property will want to know whether it may be affected by chancel repair liability. Searches will be conducted and insurance may be taken out.

On the other side of the liability, the owners of the benefit of the liability will have issues to address. In England, the benefit is usually owned by the local parochial church council. The members of the council, who are essentially charity trustees in relation to their local church, have potentially difficult decisions to make about registration and, should it be necessary, enforcement of the liability.

[Nia Griffith]

Given the difficulties the Minister has just referred to, could there not be a simpler solution by doing away with the need to have the liability in the first place? It seems very unfair, and she has just pointed out why it would be very difficult to put a halfway solution in place. Perhaps a final solution needs to be made that actually gets rid of it.

[Mrs Grant]

The main issue, though, is that it is a valid property right that has been upheld by the House of Lords. I will say a little more about the hon. Lady’s point as my speech develops.

In most situations concerning private property rights, only the parties directly involved are engaged, but with chancel repair liability, the surrounding issues may be important for the relationship of the clergy, congregation and wider community in parishes where the liability exists and may be enforced. The approach of the deadline for registration may well have given everyone in those groups pause for thought.

In the midst of all the activity that registration or the consideration of registration may have produced, however, we should not forget the essential fact that the existence of chancel repair liability over a property is long standing. No new liabilities have been created. The registration of a notice of the liability or a caution against first registration on the land register merely preserves the right to make a claim. Properties subject to a notice or a caution are therefore not subject to a new obligation. In legal terms, in relation to such properties, nothing has really changed.

Of course, if the owners did not know about the obligation before registration, they will no doubt want to be sure that the registration is correct, but the issues brought out by registration would have arisen had the owner of the liability sought to enforce it. Failure to register may make a liability unenforceable, but registration does not guarantee that the claimed liability is legally enforceable. Whether a claim is sustainable will depend on the facts of the case. Homeowners and other landowners remain as free as they are at present to contest a claim. What registration removes is the uncertainty and unpredictability—the lack of discoverability—that currently surround the possible existence of chancel repair liability.

[Peter Luff]

What registration achieves is the unsaleability of property. Where a parochial church council wishes to give up the right in perpetuity, the Government have a moral obligation to enable it to do so.

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend met with officials of the Ministry of Justice yesterday and they had an opportunity to discuss that and other issues, but he might also find it helpful to meet me at some point in the near future. If he could be a little patient and let me finish what I have to say, I might cast some further light on the matter.

People should no longer be surprised to discover that their property is subject—or, rather, claimed to be subject—to chancel repair liability. It is a positive development for property owners in general that chancel repair liability will be brought on to the register or wither for want of registration.

Registration of chancel repair liability is of course distinct from actual enforcement of payment of the liability, which will only arise if the chancel needs to be repaired. The October deadline does not affect that or the type of decisions that parochial church councils and other owners of the liability will have to make when money needs to be raised. I do not deny that deciding whether to register a notice or caution is a new step for members of parochial church councils, but it is a one-off and should not be any more onerous than past decisions to do with enforcing the liability.

Such decisions may not be easy and legal advice may well be necessary, but the Church Commissioners, the diocesan authorities and the Charity Commission are available to help to some degree. For better or for worse, parochial church councils and others who own chancel repair liability have an asset entrusted to them for a specific purpose. I accept that they may not wish to enforce the liability to preserve the harmony of their local communities, but they cannot wish away their responsibilities and, in any event, the providers of public funding for the maintenance of historic buildings will almost certainly take a close look at the reasons behind any decision not to register or enforce the liability.

We need to be clear about the nature of the deadline of 13 October 2013. The date was the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002, and it is worth remembering why chancel repair liability became subject to a registration requirement. The need arose with the 2003 reversal by the House of Lords of the 2001 Court of Appeal decision in the Wallbank case. The Court of Appeal appeared to have resolved all the issues to do with chancel repair liability when it decided that the liability was not enforceable, and the Land Registration Act 2002 was drafted on that basis. The House of Lords subsequently decided that the liability was enforceable. In 2003, faced with a newly resurrected chancel repair liability, the then Government responded by making a transitional provisions order under the Land Registration Act, putting chancel repair liability on the same footing as other rights that had their status as overriding interests preserved for a period of 10 years.

Overriding interests are interests in land that bind a registered owner whether or not they are on the register. One of the aims of the 2002 Act was to bring more information on to the register, so that it formed a more complete record of legal ownership. Chancel repair liability is a good example of the kind of hidden burden that the policy was designed to expose. The October 2013 deadline for registration is a deadline in the sense that the liability needs to be registered before that date to ensure that it affects those who subsequently buy the land involved. No fee is payable for applications or registrations made before that date. Registration will generally still be possible after that date.

Naturally, the approach of the deadline has brought about a number of registrations and, unsurprisingly, issues around chancel repair liability have been awoken as the owners of the burden consider what to do, and those subject to it are reminded—or perhaps learn for the first time—that their property is claimed to be subject to chancel repair liability.

No doubt property owners subject to chancel repair liability would be delighted if the liability were to cease to exist. The Law Commission recommended abolition or apportionment of the liability as long ago as 1985. Abolition, however, would probably have to be accompanied by some form of compensation for the owners of the liability, and that money would have to come from somewhere.

There is no need to invent ways to release properties from the liability. It can be done by private treaty, although there are pitfalls, or under the formal procedure provided by section 52 of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure 1923. I am not suggesting that they are easy or inexpensive options, but they are possible.

In conclusion, the requirement for registration will achieve a much better balance in the law between the interests of the owners of chancel repair liability, the interests of those who are subject to the liability and the interests of those who may at some time in the future become subject to the liability. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before us today. We have had an intelligent and informed discussion. I am not persuaded that the case for a change in the law has been made, but I shall of course keep the matter under careful review.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing (Female Offenders)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

It is equally important that the hon. Lady listens to what I am saying rather than wrapping herself in her brief from the Prison Reform Trust. We have all heard it once but I will repeat it for her benefit. The Ministry of Justice’s own publication, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System” says:

“Of sentenced first-time offenders (7,320 females and 25,936 males), a greater percentage of males were sentenced to immediate custody than females (29% compared with 17%), which has been the case in each year since 2005.”

To suggest that more female first-time offenders are more likely to be sent to prison than men is not the case. The hon. Lady says that a higher proportion of women in prison are first-time offenders, but that is because they are less likely to be sent to prison unless they commit particularly serious offences and leave the courts no option but to send them to prison. It is a complete distortion of the facts, and the Ministry of Justice publication makes that perfectly clear.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether all those statistics take into account the type and gravity of offence, previous offending history and all relevant mitigating factors, which sentencers are required to consider? It would be an unjust system if they failed to do that.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, they do. I will happily supply the Minister with the relevant information from the House of Commons Library, which goes to show, beyond all doubt—I am sure that she trusts the figures from her own Department—that for every single category of offence, for all ages and in all types of court, men are more likely to be sent to prison than women. There is not one blip anywhere. For every single offence, for every age and in every type of court, women are less likely to be sent to prison than men.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, I will not, because that is a debate for another day. These are all important issues, but this particular debate is about the sentencing of female offenders, and I am concentrating on the likelihood of people being sent to prison. If my hon. Friend was listening carefully at the start of the debate, he would know that the myth that I am currently exposing is that women are more likely to be sent to prison than men. As the figures that I have just quoted show, that is palpably not the case. I will go through other myths as we go through the debate, but there may not be time to go through every aspect of the criminal justice system at the moment.

[Mrs Grant]

It is important to clarify something. Regarding mitigation, does my hon. Friend not accept that there may be some factors that are more relevant to women than to men and hence the difference—for example domestic violence, self-harm, mental ill-health and caring responsibilities?

[Philip Davies]

I will come on to some of those points later. However, as the Minister will know from her Department’s own figures, quite a lot of victims of domestic violence are men. In fact, for certain ages—I think that it is between 20 and 30—there are more male victims of domestic violence than female victims. The point is that all the things that apply—

[Mrs Grant]

indicated dissent.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister shakes her head. I know that she has not been in her post for long, but I advise her to go and look at the figures from the Ministry of Justice on domestic violence for different age ranges, because they were the figures that the MOJ quoted to me in a parliamentary answer about three or four years ago. They may well have changed, but I urge her at least to go and look at them before she shakes her head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

We are getting slightly off the point, but I will respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention. The statistics do not suggest that. They suggest two things. The first is that people should perhaps have longer sentences, for which the reoffending rate is lower, not that they should have no sentences at all. The high reoffending rate for short sentences is an argument for longer sentences, not for no sentences.

The second point is that, in the main, someone has to have committed many offences to get to prison. If someone goes to court with more than 100 previous convictions they are more likely not to be sent to prison than to be sent there. People have community sentence after community sentence, and the only reason they go to prison is that those community sentences have not worked—they have not prevented them from reoffending. The reoffending rate for that cohort of people in prison, therefore, is lower than for those people when they were on community sentences.

[Mrs Grant]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am very conscious of time, Mrs Osborne. I will give way one last time, otherwise no one will have spoken in the debate, bar me.

[Mrs Grant]

I understand. My hon. Friend has been very reasonable. Clearly, he has worked extremely hard on collating the statistics. I wonder, however, whether he has actually visited a female prison, or some of the alternatives to custody, one of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

[Philip Davies]

I have indeed. I have visited the intensive alternatives to custody in my part of the world and have visited 12 UK prisons, including Holloway and a women’s prison up in Yorkshire—so I have visited two women’s prisons in the UK. I have also visited prisons in Denmark and the USA, to see what they do. If my hon. Friend was trying to suggest that I did not know what I was talking about, I hope that I have made her aware that I have some experience in this field.

Interestingly, no one has, as yet, managed to tell me which of those people I listed should not be in prison. Perhaps we have a consensus that they should be in prison. If people want to limit the debate to the 1,800 women I have mentioned, let us continue to consider which of them should be let out. Perhaps it is the 91 arsonists, the 24 people convicted of violent disorder, or the 45 serving time for kidnapping and blackmail. Perhaps it is the 192 people who are in for serious fraud and forgery, the 320 who have been convicted of importing drugs that end up being sold onto our streets, or the 111 serving time for other serious drug offences. If we do not want to let all of them out, we appear to be running out of options. Perhaps people will tell us which of those women they think should not be in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My point is that men are parents as well as women. The problems that the hon. Lady articulates apply to men as well as women. The argument goes that this is all about women; it is not all about women. Let us not focus just on the very small proportion of women who are in prison. Let us also think about all the men, too. The whole point of the debate is to make people aware that where there are issues they apply equally to men, and that some of the issues are not even issues at all because the facts do not back them up.

[Mrs Grant]

On mother and baby units, it is not, with the greatest respect, all about the mother. The principal criterion for entering a mother and baby unit is that it must be in the best interests of the child. That is the most important criterion. Does my hon. Friend not accept that?

[Philip Davies]

The point is that 66% of women sent to prison who have children are not actually looking after their children when they are sent to prison. That is the point I am making, so I am not entirely sure why we are all pulling our hair out about people who are not even looking after their children. Those children have probably either been put into care or are being looked after by other family members, probably because the mother is considered unfit to look after the children. Why should the courts treat her less harshly when the children have already been removed from her? It is a completely spurious argument.

When it comes to the minority who are looking after their children, we should not assume that they are all fantastic mothers and role models for their children. Many will be persistent offenders with chaotic lifestyles. Some will end up dragging their children into their criminal lifestyles and some will scar their children for life along the way. We presume it is in the children’s best interest to stay with those mothers. It may not be in the best interest of the child for the mother to be released. It may be in their best interests for their mother to go to prison in some cases.

Others will have committed very serious offences. The same official from the Ministry of Justice said recently of women offenders:

“They can be very damaged and also very damaging.”

That is absolutely right. Sarah Salmon of Action for Prisoners’ Families said:

“For some families the mother going into prison is a relief because she has been causing merry hell.”

That is another worthy point we should consider. Let us, finally, not forget those who are in prison for being cruel to their children—for abusing their own children.

The final myth is that women are generally treated more harshly than men in the justice system. It is clear that women are less likely than men to be sent to prison. Therefore, we need to look at other court disposals to see if they are then treated more harshly than men in other areas. If they are not being sent to prison as frequently as men they are presumably being sentenced at the next level down—a community order. They are not. The Ministry of Justice’s figures yet again show that men are more likely than women to receive a community order: 10% of women sentenced are given a community order compared with 16% of men. The Ministry of Justice goes on to confirm that

“these patterns were broadly consistent in each of the last five years”.

Women are less likely than men to go to prison and less likely to be given a community order. That is not all. Of those who are given a community order the ones given to men are likely to be much harsher. The Ministry of Justice says:

“The average length of all community sentences for men was longer than for women…For women receiving a community order, the largest proportion had one requirement, whereas the largest proportion of men had two requirements.”

I do not want to veer into the realms of domestic violence that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle tried to go down; that is a debate for another day. However, one thing worth noting about sentencing is that despite all the evidence that shows women as the perpetrators of domestic violence in far more cases than some would like us to think, the community requirement imposed on those who commit an offence in a domestic setting is imposed only on men and cannot be handed down to women. As usual, this shows that the whole issue of equality works only one way, even when we are dealing with exactly the same offence.

Given the more severe sentences for men at the higher end of the sentencing spectrum, it is unsurprising that women are more likely to receive low levels of punishment at courts. It is a fact that a higher proportion of female defendants receive fines. All of that shows that throughout the court sentencing regime men are on average treated more severely than women.

Before I conclude there is another interesting statistic that is worth sharing. There is even an imbalance in the number of women reaching court compared with men, as more females than men were issued with pre-court sanctions. That has been consistently the case in recent years according to the Ministry of Justice. That is the evidence.

All the hysteria surrounding women in the justice system is completely without foundation, yet people want to be seen to be doing something about the so-called problem. We have the Together Women project, women-only groups for community sentences, a criminal justice women’s strategy unit, women’s centres, a proposal for women-only courts and, just the other day in Manchester, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) proposed a women’s justice board. That is all on top of the Corston report, which looked at the whole issue of female offenders and came up with even more suggestions.

Looking at the evidence, there appears to be sex discrimination in the sentencing of offenders, but the people being discriminated against are men not women. Women cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to be treated equally in everything in society except when it comes to being sentenced by the courts for the crimes that they commit. People may want to argue that it is reasonable for women to be given lighter sentences than men, and that it is right that fewer women are sent to prison than men. That is an argument for another day, but at least when we have these debates about sentencing for men and women let us stick to the facts as they are and not what we would like them to be. Men are treated more harshly by the courts than women. If we can at least have debates that flow from that, based on the facts, we will have made a good start today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on securing this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the steps that justice agencies are taking to address women’s offending. Before doing so, I want to set out two important parts of the wider context on female offenders: to explain how our current sentencing framework deals with gender and to show how important it is to look carefully at the evidence on how women are sentenced by the courts.

To begin with, therefore, it is important to be clear about how our sentencing framework is gender-neutral: everyone is absolutely equal before the law. The same criminal offences and maximum penalties apply to every case, regardless of the offender’s gender. Alongside that, however, we also need to remember that every offender who is brought before the courts is unique. A long-standing principle of our justice system is that courts should consider the full circumstances, not only of the offence but of the offender, when sentencing. A sentencing framework that did not allow courts to take into account individual circumstances would not be a just one.

In many cases, an offender’s personal characteristics, such as previous convictions, failure to comply with earlier court orders or abusing a position of trust, can all be treated as aggravating factors when sentencing. Other personal characteristics, however, may provide mitigation. Previous good character, age, physical or mental health and caring responsibilities are all factors that courts can take into account when deciding the appropriate sentence.

All such factors may apply to both male and female offenders. For example, that an offender is a primary carer for dependent relatives is the important fact for the court, not whether the offender is the mother or the father. Probation pre-sentence reports give courts the detailed assessments that they need to make informed judgments about the factors that they should take into account.

I should make it clear that courts need to weigh mitigating factors against the others circumstances. For example, although it is recognised that parental imprisonment can have considerable effect on the lives of children, caring responsibilities will not necessarily mean that an offender will be spared prison. The overriding aim of the courts will always be to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and that is proportionate to the culpability of the offender and the harm caused.

We need to bear in mind all such issues when looking at the sentences imposed on male and female offenders. Differences in the type and severity of sentence given to men and women may be attributable to a wide range of factors, such as the type and gravity of offence committed and the individual’s previous offending history.

[Philip Davies]

Is the Minister therefore conceding—the main purpose of my debate—that for each category of offence men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? She did not say so explicitly, but she was about to give reasons for that being the case.

[Mrs Grant]

No, I do not accept that at all. What I have just said is that the sentencing framework and guidelines are gender-neutral: everyone is absolutely equal before the law. That is exactly what I said.

[Philip Davies]

I will give the Minister one more chance, because I do not want her to mislead the House inadvertently. She can use her Ministry of Justice figures for the answer. Does she accept that, for each category of offence, men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? We can take all the reasons why that may be the case and we can put in all the mitigating factors, but will she confirm for the benefit of the House, as the Minister in this Department, that for each category of offence men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? The reasons are irrelevant; it is only the facts that we want at this stage.

[Mrs Grant]

We could go round in circles, but I shall repeat myself: the sentencing framework and guidelines are gender-neutral and everyone is equal before the law. The sentencer has an obligation to take into consideration all factors relating to the offence and to the offender. In our judicial system, if the sentencer failed to do so, we would have an unjust system.

We need to be careful when interpreting the statistics, many of which have been cited by my hon. Friend today. At a high level, for example, the figures show that 10% of male offenders and 3% of female offenders were sentenced to immediate custody in 2011. The average custodial sentence length for males was longer than for females, at 15 months and 10 months, respectively. Equally, however, proportionally more males than females received sentences in 2011 for serious offences such as violent crime, sexual crime and robbery. There were also differences in the severity of offences committed within the groups. For example, 343 offenders were sentenced in 2011 for murder, but only 23 were female offenders.

The available statistics on aggravating factors suggest that a similar proportion of males and females sentenced to short custodial sentences are persistent offenders. In June 2011, around half of both men and women serving sentences of six months or less in prison had 15 or more previous convictions.

A number of mitigating factors are particularly associated with women offenders, including the high prevalence of mental health needs and child care responsibilities. Prisoner surveys tell us that more than a quarter of female prisoners reported having been treated for a mental health problem in the year before custody, compared with 16% of male prisoners.

Women are also more likely than male offenders to have child care responsibilities, and 60% of mothers with children under the age of 18 lived with those children prior to imprisonment, compared with around 45% of fathers. So there is a nuanced story behind the statistics, which reflects the fact that every offender, whether male or female, is a unique individual. Whether offenders are punished in custody or in the community, the Government are committed to ensuring that both men and women who offend are successfully rehabilitated.

For those offenders who are best dealt with out of court, we are piloting mental health and substance misuse liaison and diversion services in police custody and at courts by 2014. We are also developing intensive treatment options in the community for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services in Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside.

In prisons, we are piloting drug recovery wings for short-sentence, drug and alcohol-dependent prisoners at three women’s prisons: HMPs New Hall, Askham Grange and Styal. We are also ensuring that courts have the right mix of punitive and rehabilitative requirements available when sentencing female offenders to community sentences. The National Offender Management Service is providing £3.78 million in this financial year to fund 31 women’s community services that can be used as part of, or in conjunction with community sentences. To protect the provision of services for women in these times of financial challenge, that funding will be embedded within the baseline for future probation trust settlements with a requirement that it results in enhanced services for women.

We have issued gender-specific standards in all areas of the prison regime, including training for staff working with women offenders in prisons, now extended to services provided in the outside community, and new search arrangements, ending routine full searches of women prisoners.

Seven mother and baby units in England and Wales provide an overall total capacity of 77 places for mothers, with capacity for up to 84 places for babies to allow for twins. Mother and baby units provide a calm and friendly place within prison for babies to live with their mothers. They enable the mother and child relationship to develop, thereby safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.

In closing, I thank the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), as well as the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for contributing to the debate. We can continue to improve how we tackle offending together only if we continue to address the wide range of factors associated with offending, whether the offenders are male or female. I welcome the constructive and knowledgeable contributions from all hon. Members this afternoon, as they have highlighted how important it is to continue to focus on responding to the specific circumstances of women offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

2. What recent progress he has made on changes to the arrangements for no win, no fee agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government have made it a priority to reform the costs of civil litigation and, in particular, the no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. A package of major reforms is being implemented in April 2013, under the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I would also refer my hon. Friend to two written ministerial statements, dated 24 May and 17 July.

[Iain Stewart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role. Will she give the House an estimate of the cost of the current no win, no fee arrangements to the NHS, and of the savings that might consequently be achieved by the changes?

[Mrs Grant]

Defendants such as the NHS were required to pay inflated success fees under the old regime, as well as after-the-event insurance premiums. In 2010-11, the NHS Litigation Authority paid £200 million to claimant lawyers. Under the new reforms, those costs will be reduced, allowing more money to be spent on patient care.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her new job. I am sure that she will be an absolute star. May I urge her, however, to think carefully about no win, no fee agreements? Last week, scurrilous and despicable low-lifes in France invaded the privacy of a young woman who is able to take legal action because she is very wealthy, but many people in this country, including the Dowler family, would never have been able to take legal action in a privacy case had it not been for no win, no fee arrangements. Can we please, please ensure that we do not chuck the baby out with the bath water?

[Mrs Grant]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we firmly believe that, while meritorious claims will continue to be made, unnecessary and avoidable claims have to be deterred. Legal aid will, of course, be available for those who need it most, and for the most serious cases, under the exceptional funding rules.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect on victims’ services of the work of police and crime commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the language services for courts provided by Applied Language Solutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The hon. Lady may be aware of problems that occurred when the contract started in January, but the National Audit Office’s recent report, published on 12 September, showed that ALS was filling 95% of its bookings and complaints had fallen. The Department continues to monitor the performance of ALS against the key performance indicators. We published a statistical report in May and plan to publish an updated report later in the year.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her post. She brings a unique expertise to the team. May I also pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He was a good Lord Chancellor.

The Minister will be aware that there is a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to provide interpreters, and a judge last month said ALS was dreadful—a plague on the courts and incompetent. What steps will the Minister take to ensure there is no waste of public money in delayed and adjourned cases?

[Mrs Grant]

The Ministry of Justice acted quickly to put a plan in place when it became obvious that there were performance problems. We are not being complacent and we will continue to monitor performance, but we are seeing some substantial improvements. The framework with ALS is intended to provide better value for money. It also provides an opportunity to reduce a great deal of the administrative burdens that were placed on the justice agencies under the old system. The contract is also expected to save the Ministry of Justice in the region of £15 million a year.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister must be irritated to be spending her first few days in office reading NAO reports detailing her predecessor’s cock-ups. Does she agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the NAO inquiry into the language service contract has uncovered some shocking failings which have had a dreadful impact on clients of the Court Service and people who work in the interpretation service? If she does, will she now suspend the contract with Applied Language Solutions, or is she happy to see interpreters with no experience, qualifications or criminal records checks being used in serious and sensitive criminal cases?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with that. We are seeing significant improvements—

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Really?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes we are, and the Opposition also need to accept that the NAO report accepted that the Government had good reasons for making changes from the old system.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

7. How many staff posts have been abolished in youth offending teams in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the need to review the law on chancel repair liability; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Chancel repair liability is a long-standing interest in land under the law of England and Wales, and the Government have no plans to review the law relating to it.

[Peter Luff]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her richly deserved appointment, but I am rather disappointed by her answer. As the October 2013 deadline for the registration of liabilities under this archaic law approaches, more and more parochial church councils will face the kind of acute dilemmas faced by my constituents in Broadway. I urge her to bear it in mind that this law does need fundamental reform, for the sake of fairness and justice.

[Mrs Grant]

I am aware that my hon. Friend has an ongoing interest in this area, and I thank him for drawing it to my attention. However, chancel repair liability is a valid property right, which has been upheld by the House of Lords. Properties have been sold subject to the liability, and insurance can be made available. The requirement for registration will help greatly in dealing with the problem of discoverability, but I will, of course, keep the matter under consideration and monitor developments carefully.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What progress he has made on televising court proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

12. What estimate he has made of the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Estimating the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence is difficult, as the information is not recorded centrally. However, surveys tell us that half of female prisoners report having been the victims of abuse of some kind. That includes abuse at any age, and is not necessarily domestic violence. The figures could also be a significant underestimate, as the hon. Lady knows, because admissions from victims of domestic violence are not always forthcoming.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her responsibility; she is a rare creature who cares seriously about this issue in her bones and not just in her words. If it is right that half or more of women in prison have been victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and other kinds of violence, should not those victims be diverted from the criminal justice system rather than incarcerated in it?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable on such matters, having worked hard and effectively for a number of years, campaigning for both victims of domestic violence and female offenders. It was to my absolute delight that I was given this brief as a new Minister by the Secretary of State and I hope to draw on some of my experience before I came to this place while I undertake the role. Tackling domestic violence and women’s offending are priorities for the Government and me, and I am delighted to note that the National Offender Management Service has been working very closely with Women’s Aid to develop policies, strategies and training to support women who are in prison and to identify domestic violence. Considerable work needs to be done and I look forward to working closely with the hon. Lady and other Labour Members to drive through change and make a difference in this area.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

14. What plans he has for the future of the role of the victims commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Ministry of Justice often receives representations regarding coroners.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I add my welcome to the Minister in taking up her new role and also welcome the new chief coroner, who of course takes up his role this week. Will she take the opportunity to disassociate herself from the actions of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who did much to obstruct the role of chief coroner, and will she welcome the extra accountability the role will bring to the coroner service, particularly in assisting bereaved families?

[Mrs Grant]

The chief coroner will take up his role either tomorrow or the day after, and the Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting him shortly thereafter. The first of his new powers will come into force next week. The Government are determined to improve the coroner system. There needs to be much more focus on the bereaved and we must ensure that we minimise delays.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

In welcoming my hon. Friend to her new post, may I ask her what is the average length of time for an inquest and whether there is anything she can do to speed up the process? Will she meet me to discuss the case of a young boy who died on the A64 and the trauma suffered by his family during the course of the inquest?

[Mrs Grant]

The average inquest lasts for approximately 27 weeks. On the matter my hon. Friend refers to, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

16. If he will take steps to ensure that time served in prison by a prisoner reflects the sentence handed down to that prisoner by the court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

There are British girls at risk of being taken abroad to be subjected to horrific, permanent violence. I know that the Ministry of Justice has been working with the Home Office on a draft declaration against female genital mutilation for at-risk girls to carry in their passports. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends ensure that the most robust legal language possible is used to maximise the document’s deterrent effect and better protect British girls?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked long and hard for many years to stamp out this abhorrent practice and that it affects a large number of women and girls in Britain today. I assure her that I will look very carefully at the language of the declaration to make sure prior to its being signed off that we will achieve optimum effect.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T2. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who sit on jury service are not in the country illegally? That point was raised with me by a member of the judiciary.

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Crown court carries out checks on jurors on their first day. Passports, national identity cards or Home Office documentation confirming their immigration status must be produced.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T5. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons recently said of HMP Liverpool that“resettlement resources were not adequate to meet the needs of the population held, with backlogs of the reviews necessary to address offending behaviour and little planning for short-term prisoners.”Given that HMIP report, what comfort can the Minister provide to my constituents that he is taking seriously the important issue of an overstretched service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new ministerial team, because I am ever hopeful that, unlike his predecessor, the Secretary of State or a relevant Minister will meet me to discuss the scandal of 10,000 people driving legally with more than 12 points on their licences. Will he do so?

[Mrs Grant]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Chief Coroner's Powers

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and I wish to make the following statement to the House regarding investigations into service personnel who have died overseas:

On 24 September 2012 the Government will commence powers under sections 12 and 50 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to enable for the first time deaths of service personnel killed abroad to be investigated in Scotland under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 where appropriate.

His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, who has today assumed the role of chief coroner of England and Wales will be able to recommend that investigations be transferred from England and Wales in appropriate circumstances, for example where the deceased’s family is based in Scotland.

The provisions aim to reduce the additional distress that can be caused by ensuring that bereaved service families from Scotland do not have to travel long distances to England or Wales to attend an inquest.

Defamation Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the kind and generous sentiments that have been directed towards me and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). My fellow new Minister has been sitting beside me for most of the afternoon, but he has just left his place. It is a great honour and privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box.

New clause 4 and other amendments in the group relate to the defence of responsible publication in the public interest, as set out in clause 4. The new clause represents a significant shift in the law towards the interests of defendants. To obtain any remedy beyond explanation, contradiction or correction, the claimant would have to prove malice—a high test that would require the claimant to prove the defendant’s state of mind, which in many cases is likely to be impossible. It could lead, effectively, to people printing what they liked and arguing it was a matter of public interest.

In his very good speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned the Flood case, but that does not change the core element of the defence of responsible publication. From my experience, courts will continue to interpret editorial discretion, and I therefore think that the Flood case is reflected in the Bill. My right hon. Friend also mentioned an early strike-out, and again my initial response is that courts already have that power under rule 3.4 of the civil procedure rules, which I have witnessed on numerous occasions. Indeed, such action has been threatened against me, and it can be quite intimidating.

The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were concerned—among other things—about the narrowness of the list of factors for consideration. The list in the Bill has been drawn flexibly. It is illustrative and not exhaustive, and in any event the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

I will not comment on all the points raised today, but I recognise the wide range of opinions about clause 4 and the issues underlying them. This is a complex area about which there are well-argued and deeply held views on both sides of the House. The Ministry of Justice has a largely new ministerial team, but we are determined to get the legislation right and would therefore like to reflect further in light of the helpful points that have been raised by hon. Members in this debate and in Committee, and by stakeholders more generally. If we conclude that there is a better way forward, we will table appropriate amendments in another place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, and may I say on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we welcome the approach that she and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), have taken in picking up this brief and this Bill?

When reflecting with advisers, and hopefully with outsiders, will she ask whether, if the Bill becomes an Act, it would be possible to dispose of the case I mentioned—El Naschie v. Macmillan, the publishers of Nature? Would it be possible to dispose early of the Rath v. Guardian case, the British Chiropractic Association v. Simon Singh, or NMT Medical’s case against Peter Wilmshurst? By the time the Bill gets to the other place and amendments come back to this House, we ought to have an understanding that cases with no merit whatsoever will be recognised as such by the courts early on.

[Mrs Grant]

I cannot comment on the details of individual cases, but if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at what he says.

In the light of the assurances I have given the House that the Government continue to look broadly at how a public interest defence might be framed, I hope hon. Members agree not to press their proposals to a Division.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be brief in winding up this valuable debate. I am grateful to colleagues, who have expressed different views on how we should proceed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) said that it would be best to leave it to common law, but the problem with the common law argument, as he conceded, is that someone is required to go to court to take the law on and test the case. Libel and defamation cases are hugely expensive. I and many hon. Members are trying to ensure first that the law is clearer, and secondly that we protect our constituents from having to go to court to assert their rights.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) argued for a differential test for those in public life and those not in public life. Those of us in public life are much better equipped and able to go to law if we want to do so. If the bar were to be lower for people in public life, so the capacity to respond would also be easier. I do not necessarily accept that that is where we want to go, but that is another debate. The bulk of my constituents and the hon. Gentleman’s are not in a position readily to go to court to defend their interests, and nor could they get an adequate remedy. The new clause therefore seeks to find a remedy outside the courts.

I hear what my hon. Friend the new Minister says about the level of evidence needed to establish malice, and therefore understand that we need to have a debate on that. However, I am encouraged by the fact that she and her colleagues are willing to draw breath, as it were, and to look at the arguments as they have been presented and at the unanswered questions that both current and previous Ministers have said they will address.

There is one last thing to say before asking the House for leave to withdraw new clause 4. Will Ministers look at the big question of the timetable for the Bill, and particularly this part of it, in the light of the Leveson report? We need to ensure that we are seen to be legislating carefully, but we would perhaps make ourselves look foolish if we tried to legislate this year or a few months into the next year in the certain knowledge that we would need to return to the matter. The House and the Government should reserve a space to legislate in the light of Leveson. It would be unacceptable for anybody in the months ahead to put the argument that we cannot return to the matter because we have addressed it in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for raising this subject. His amendment refers to there being

“a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory”.

I think that is right. People ought to ask themselves whether there is a reasonable probability that the claim will be successful. In criminal cases, people are not brought to court unless there is a 50:50 chance or more of conviction.

We need to go further than the prima facia case, however. The court ought to hold that there is defamation, that it is actionable and that it is likely that a court case would end in success for the claimant. Too many cases are brought that will clearly not be successful when they come to a full hearing. That applies not only to booksellers—the category this amendment specifically addresses—but all the other types of case about which I have been concerned.

[Mrs Grant]

Amendment 8 would add two additional hurdles to overcome before a court had jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim against someone who was not a primary publisher. We do not consider this amendment to be appropriate. It would significantly limit the circumstances in which a court would have jurisdiction to hear an action against a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of a defamatory statement. To provide that an action against a secondary publisher can only be brought where it can be proved that the secondary publisher had knowledge that the statement was defamatory and that there was no defence would raise the bar for establishing jurisdiction to a very high level, and would tip the balance too far against the interests of the claimant. It could leave them with no means of restoring their reputation.

In addition, it would be very unusual to require a court to consider the substance of a case at the same time as determining whether to grant jurisdiction for the action to be brought. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Robert Flello]

I hear what the Minister says. However, I urge her to consider the amendment again, if I am not successful in the Division I shall now seek.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Helen Grant Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

This has been a short but interesting debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on securing it. I have listened very carefully indeed to everything he has said.

Support for victims and witnesses of crime is a priority for this Government. That is why, for example, we have provided Victim Support with £114 million in grant funding spread over three years, enabling it to invest in long-term service provision. The victim and witness general fund provides £5 million a year in grant funding to voluntary sector organisations supporting the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims.

We are spending £2.75 million on individuals bereaved by murder and manslaughter in 2012-13, while in line with our coalition commitment—I am personally proud and pleased to announce this—we have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing, with 65 centres around the country receiving total grant funding of nearly £3 million a year until 2014. Over the past year we have funded the establishment of four new centres, and a further five will open in March 2013. Last but certainly not least, we aim to raise up to an additional £50 million from offenders, which is a very significant sum. It is to be spent on services for victims, along with the existing central Government spend of £66 million. I shall return to that in a moment.

The proper protection and support of those who have suffered at the hands of criminals is a fundamental and essential part of our civilised justice system. We are determined to provide the best possible support for the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime, helping them to cope with and recover from what are often terrible experiences. However, because of the financial climate, we cannot be blind to the question of which policies are feasible and which are not.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is demand-led, and the cost to the Government is more than £200 million each year. Historically, the scheme has been underfunded. Funding allocated at the beginning of the year has often needed to be topped up at the end of the year to enable the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, to continue to make payments for claims as and when they fall due. Last year the authority was provided with additional funding, and a total of £449 million in criminal injuries compensation payments was made, the largest ever in a single year.

Despite that cash injection, total liabilities currently stand at around £532 million. That includes an estimate of the claims for which payments are likely to fall due in the future but which have not yet been lodged with the authority; it also takes account of the remaining rump of pre-tariff cases. With new liabilities arising at a rate of about £200 million a year under the current scheme, that is simply not sustainable in the present economic climate. The scheme must be put on a sensible, sustainable footing so that timely payments can continue to be made.

Against that background, it made excellent sense for the Government to look carefully at the scheme and consider certain reforms. We concluded that the scheme needed to focus resources on the victims who are most seriously affected by injuries that they suffer as a result of deliberate violent crime committed in England, Wales and Scotland. We believe that the provision of support services for victims at the point of need is a much better use of money than providing small amounts of compensation, in some cases long after the incident involved, for relatively minor injuries. For that reason we are removing payments for less serious injuries such as sprains and fractures.

However, we concluded that, as well as protecting injury payments to victims with the most serious injuries, it was right and proper to protect tariff payments to the bereaved, to all rape victims and victims of other sexual assaults, and to those—including victims of domestic violence and children—who are subjected to a repeated pattern of abuse. We have also retained the vast majority of special expenses payments, with the exception of payments for private health care. Those are fair and sensible policy decisions.

Some Members may have seen one or two briefings about our reforms, including papers produced on behalf of postal workers and shop workers. While I am more than happy to acknowledge the valuable, indeed essential, role that many of those people perform, sometimes in the face of challenging circumstances, the Government do not believe that a compelling case has been made for maintaining payments for minor injuries, which is what has been asked of us. As with other applications to the scheme, if postal or shop workers’ injuries are sufficiently serious, they will be eligible. As I said earlier, our aim is for additional services to be funded by offenders, which will provide better support for those with minor injuries.

Another key part of our reform package results from our view that payments should be made only to blameless victims who co-operate fully with the justice process. Those with unspent convictions will not be able to claim if they have been sentenced to a community order or imprisonment, and those with other unspent convictions will be able to receive an award only in exceptional circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman made important points about loss of earnings. We believe that our proposals are the fairest way to achieve the necessary reforms and to create a sustainable system. I also wish to clarify the position on dog attacks, which he also raised. The purpose of the scheme is to compensate for injury caused by deliberate violent crime, and there are other avenues that people can pursue, including civil remedies, in relation to these incidents.

We envisage that the cumulative effect of our reforms will help deliver savings of an estimated £50 million per year to the taxpayer. That does not mean that we are reducing the overall spend on victims—our aim is to keep overall spend on victims the same. That is to be achieved by offsetting the £50 million reduction in the criminal injuries compensation scheme with a similar amount raised from the offenders for victims’ services.

The Government’s intention is that the new scheme will be implemented around the end of September. For that to happen, it requires the approval of both Houses. There was a debate in the Lords on 25 July and there will be a debate in this House next week, on Monday 10 September. On that occasion, I will go into more detail than I have today about the changes to the scheme and I will also be seeking the House’s approval for our statutory scheme which will compensate victims of future overseas terrorism. In conclusion, the draft criminal injuries compensation scheme represents a coherent and fair way of focusing payments on those most seriously affected by their injuries, within an affordable budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

But the whole point of the change is to ensure that there will be accountability for the provision of victims services, which will lie at local level with people who are already responsible for the police and who will be champions for victims. The cross-party Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has already welcomed the proposal, and the youth charity Catch22 says it believes that police and crime commissioners generally have the potential to bring real coherence at the local level to the planning and commissioning of services designed to reduce and prevent crime and support victims. I am sorry that Opposition Front Benchers do not support what I believe is a very good idea that will strength victims services at the local level.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that community women offender facilities, in which this Government have invested substantially, provide a real alternative to custody for many women in the criminal justice system?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of women in custody has been declining, in contrast with the number of men. We have been developing intensive treatment-based alternatives to custody for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services in Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside. They are an important part of our strategy to ensure that offending by women is dealt with as effectively and appropriately as possible.

Defamation Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The decision is deliberately left to discretion, so in the end an experienced judge will have to decide whether a case is suitable, but one can conceive of a few exceptional cases whereby the whole thing depends on a question of the veracity of two teams of hard-swearing witnesses, and whereby the judge is persuaded that, because of the particular nature of the case, he would be helped by the judgment of a range of men and women, from a variety of backgrounds, who would bring their collective wisdom to deciding which side to believe.

That is simply one off-the-cuff example which comes to my mind, but if the whole thing turned on an elaborate argument about the application of the defamation laws to the particular circumstances of the publication of a scientific journal, for example, that would be a wholly unsuitable case to leave to a jury, and the whole thing would take longer and cost a lot more, even if the jury got it right in the end. That is the problem we are trying to address.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal could assist with earlier settlement, not just with reducing the length or cost of a hearing?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree strongly with that extremely good point. The more these things can be dealt with by way of a preliminary judgment by a judge, the more settlements we will get, because sometimes the whole thing really turns on one point, which can be dealt with much more quickly if a jury is not involved.