County Court Judgments

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris Evans]

Just before the bell rang, I was about to say that a recent investigation published by the Daily Mail found that 900,000 CCJs were issued last year, a greater than 33% increase on the previous three years. The investigation highlighted the particular case of ParkingEye, a company responsible for many private car parks in this country and a significant user of CCJs to enforce fines. In the past three years, the company has made more than 60,000 county court claims against drivers, including one uncontested case in which it was awarded only 1p in compensation. Some of my constituents have written to me seeking advice after being threatened with CCJs and other heavy-handed tactics used by that company.

Duncan Bannatyne, writing in his book “Anyone Can Do It”, says that if a person does not honour their contract with his gymnasium, he will have no hesitation in taking them to county court. Again, I find that practice rather sharp. It is clear that civil court actions must have justice at their core, but can we really call it justice when a person has a CCJ on their record to a value of 1p? Such a CCJ could influence a lender’s decision on whether to give that person a mortgage or loan.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative lending. One issue that has been raised with me is credit scoring, on which getting a CCJ has a huge impact. CCJs are an outdated method. Does he agree that, combined with reform of CCJs, we should consider reforms to allow real-time credit scoring and encourage greater information sharing?

[Chris Evans]

Absolutely. As a member of that all-party parliamentary group, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s chairmanship. He knows my interest in real-time credit scoring and that I think the situation is in desperate need of reform. I have always said that such reform would be a win-win situation: a win for the lenders because they would know to whom they were lending, and a win for the consumer because lenders would drive down their prices. I have been campaigning for real-time credit scoring since I came into Parliament, and I thank him for fully supporting the campaign, but that is for another day.

I recently had a lucky escape from a CCJ. In the past three years, I was involved in a minor collision outside my home here in London with a vehicle owned by the taxi firm Addison Lee. When Addison Lee got into dispute with the insurance company, rather than negotiating with the insurance company, it went over the top of it and tried to issue me with county court proceedings. Had I not received the documents in time, a county court judgment would have been registered against me, even though it was my belief that the insurance company was dealing with the claim. Luckily, I was fortunate enough to be able to act straightaway and seek legal advice, which prevented the CCJ, but people with similar cases have not been so fortunate.

My second key concern is that some people served with CCJs do not receive any notification if they have moved house. The only legal requirement for the service of court documents to an individual is merely a last known residence. There is no legal requirement per se for the court documents to be delivered or received. Indeed, court documents are considered validly served even if they are returned to the court marked undelivered. The result is that some people are unaware that there is a CCJ against their name until they apply for credit, such as when buying a car or a house.

The Daily Mail investigation raised the poignant case of a young couple from Northern Ireland who were told that they could not take out a mortgage on a new home because one of them parked for 20 minutes in a restricted airport carpark. The CCJ claim was sent to an old address, so the couple were completely unaware of it. Ultimately, the couple had to pay £200 to satisfy the CCJ and get the mortgage. I hardly think parking in the wrong parking bay is sufficient cause to turn someone down for a mortgage on a home. It is clearly important and in the interest of justice that those who are accused of owing money are given the best possible chance to defend themselves and respond to the claim. It is simply not acceptable that the courts are unable in some cases properly to inform those accused of owing a debt of the accusation and, more importantly, of their rights.

The third major concern about CCJs is the huge and often disproportionate effect that they have on people’s access to finance. CCJs are recorded for six years on the register of judgments, orders and fines if they are not paid within one month. Credit rating agencies make significant use of that register when deciding whether to give credit in the form of loans, mortgages and other finance. A person subject to a CCJ, by default or otherwise, has several options. If they can pay within one month, the debt will not appear on the register or harm their credit rating. If they can pay in full but not within one month, the CCJ will be listed for six years and be marked “satisfied”. Ignored CCJs can result in charging orders, attachment of earnings orders and warrants of execution that allow bailiffs to seize property to the value of the debt. There are processes for setting aside CCJs or making counter-claims if the claimant owes money.

Those who need access to credit but have a bad credit rating due to a CCJ against their name sometimes turn to credit repair companies in search of quick fixes. That is usually a mistake, because there are no quick fixes, as the director general of the Office of Fair Trading made clear:

“County court judgments cannot be removed from credit files unless they have been discharged (within a month) or were incorrectly granted.”

Sometimes the only credit available to those with CCJs offers extremely unfavourable terms to the borrower, such as high-interest payday loans. Those issues paint a very negative picture of the effectiveness of CCJs, and of how they are used in general, the way they are issued and the disproportionate way they affect people.

Reform is clearly needed. Although it is perfectly legal and within creditors’ rights to make claims against debtors for even the smallest of debts—it is correct that debts must be repaid—can the fact that so many people are taken to court over small debts be justified? There is a case for creating a new mechanism that creditors can use to seek redress for debts owed to them below a set value, similar to that in Scotland, with small claims for debts of less than £3,000, summary cause actions for debts of £3,000 to £5,000, and ordinary actions for debts of more than £5,000. That would allow credit rating agencies to draw a more accurate and reliable distinction between serious debts that may demonstrate genuine inability or unwillingness to repay loans and mortgages, and minor debts that do not.

More emphasis must be placed on mediation between companies and debtors in advance of CCJ claims being submitted. CCJs should be a last resort for creditors. Creditors should be able to demonstrate that they have made every possible effort to recover their debts amicably and by mutual agreement before heading to court. Those two measures, alongside other reforms, would help to reduce the rapidly increasing number of CCJs, which are issued daily.

The way that CCJs are issued must also be reformed. Those who face the threat of court action for debts must be given all the information they need to know their options. At this point, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the important and useful advice provided by Citizens Advice on this matter. The first responsibility should be with the courts, which should make every effort to explain people’s rights and options fully if they are threatened with a CCJ.

Without those improvements, we must consider the 14-day period in which a CCJ can be challenged to be too short. The vast majority of people served with a CCJ are not legal experts and must be given time to decide how to proceed. As it stands, the threat of high fees and fines, and the complicated nature of CCJs, can force people to submit and accept a judgment, even if they had the chance and legal right to oppose it. In my experience with Addison Lee, had I not sought legal advice and made a challenge, I would have lost out financially. I was able to take on Addison Lee only because the insurance company was willing to meet the costs of my challenge. It is important that everyone who faces the threat of a CCJ is given the best possible chance and the support they need to make a challenge, as I was.

Crucially, the courts must always be satisfied that the person who is threatened with a CCJ is aware of the process. It is not fair, right or in the interest of justice that someone can have a CCJ recorded against their name by default just because they did not receive any notification of it—it could even have been sent to the incorrect address. Without a requirement that the courts must be satisfied that the accused debtor is aware that a claim is being made against them and has received the court documents, cases such as those uncovered by the Daily Mail will continue to emerge.

Lessons can be learned from the Scottish system for delivering court summons. Documents are first sent by recorded delivery. If that fails, court documents are sent out with sheriff officers. Such a system would address the problem of unknown CCJs in the rest of the UK. Reform must be made to address the disproportionate impact that a CCJ can have on a person’s ability to access finance. Credit rating agencies clearly make use of the register of judgments, orders and fines. Debts settled within one month are not placed on the register, but is that one-month limit arbitrary? All debts, once settled, should be removed from the register entirely once they have been cleared.

My suggestion of a new kind of CCJ for small debts might make a difference if credit rating agencies viewed them as less damaging. Of course, even a minor debt should be expected to harm a person’s credit rating, but the size of the debt and the size of the loss of credit rating should be proportionate to one another. It seems madness that people can be turned down for financial products simply because they are in dispute with a mobile phone company or a car parking company. This debate is fundamentally about whether county court judgments provide a sense of justice to creditors and to debtors. As it stands, they do not, as they appear to lean too heavily in favour of the claimants. Why else would their use by creditors be expanding so rapidly? That is a particular problem.

The Government are, I believe rightly, attempting to increase home ownership and access to finance, but the expansion of CCJs will surely hinder that effort. It is clear that some people with CCJs recorded against them are unaware of the fact until they get a nasty surprise when they check their credit rating. I am an Opposition MP, but I am happy to say that the Government have done good work in standing up to payday lenders and trying to increase access to finance by making sure banks access the right people. However, all that will be lost because of this abuse of the county court judgment system. As long as it is in play, that work will mean absolutely nothing.

Although it is not possible to know exactly how many people have CCJs made against them without their knowing or being able to provide a defence, the fact that the situation is possible is a problem in itself. For the people affected, having a CCJ on their record can mean the difference between being able and not able to own their own home. In some reported cases, it has even prevented access to finance for something as simple as a mobile phone contract. The Government have to introduce reforms to rebalance CCJs and allow debtors to defend themselves properly.

Debtors must have the best possible chance of understanding the legal action being taken against them. More effort should be made to resolve debt issues without heading to court, and if court action is the only available course a distinction must be made between high and low-value debts. Those subject to CCJs must be given more time and information so they have the best possible opportunity to make a challenge and defend themselves. The Government must also take action to mitigate the impact that CCJs can have on access to finance, which is already a problem for so many. I fear that if the Government do not reform CCJs and take action to address the issues I have raised, more people’s lives will be ruined.

Birmingham Pub Bombings: Legal Aid

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for allowing me to speak briefly. Her speech was not just powerful, but, frankly, superb.

I am keen to demonstrate, by standing here today, that this is not a party political issue. Finding justice for the victims of IRA terrorism is a cause that unites Members across the House and the west midlands. The false conviction of the Birmingham Six meant that vital inquiries into what really happened in 1974 closed down far too early. The fact that the new inquiry might have unearthed new evidence only makes the mistake more obvious and tragic.

Four decades is too long to wait for justice. This Government have already proven themselves willing to confront difficult issues from the past, such as Hillsborough. I know that legal aid is independently run, but January is far too long a wait and shows that the system is not meeting the test of compassion in our society.

We have come a long way since 1974. We are a more tolerant and less deferential society, thank goodness, but we should not rest until past injustices have been faced up to.

Knife Crime (Sentencing)

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend is right that education plays a key role, and I will return to that later in my speech. We have to get the message out loud and clear that, statistically, people are far more likely to be the victim of a knife crime if they are carrying a knife themselves.

What is troubling about the case involving James Attfield and Nahid Almanea is not just that the perpetrator was only 15 at the time of the murders but that, on 26 March 2014, he was in court being given a youth referral order for criminal damage and robbery at knifepoint. Seventy-two hours later, he stabbed James Attfield 102 times. Three months later, he brutally murdered Nahid Almanea with a knife.

I understand that, under our legal system, judges decide the appropriate action in each case, taking into account a number of different factors, including the facts of the case, the age of the offender, the maximum penalty and any sentencing guidelines.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is making a powerful case. We also need to consider access to knives. I have come across a case in the west midlands involving the so-called “zombie” knife, which is a brutal weapon up to two feet in length and including several serrated blades. It has no practical usage, yet it is available online for just £8. Will he comment on access to knives?

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have introduced measures on “zombie” knives. Where there are such weapons that serve no purpose other than to cause damage to another individual, it is absolutely right that the Government take action.

As Members of Parliament, we must trust judges to make the right decisions. However, there is undoubtedly a feeling in my constituency that the judiciary failed my constituents. There will also be people across the country who question how someone who robbed a newsagent at knifepoint, regardless of age, failed to receive a custodial sentence.

To be fair, the Government have done much to address knife crime. I welcome steps such as minimum custodial sentences for repeated knife possession and the commitment on police budgets, but we need to do more on education. I am fortunate to have two fantastic charities offering weapons awareness training in my constituency: KnifeCrimes.org, run by Ann Oakes-Odger, and Only Cowards Carry, run by Caroline Shearer. Those two inspirational women lost their sons to knife crime. There is a strong case for schools to teach pupils about the dangers of carrying knives.

[Will Quince]

I agree. There is no question but that education will play a key role in addressing knife crime. There is no question but that there is a strong case for more schools to teach pupils about the danger of carrying knives. As I have found, Ministers regularly throw back the challenge that the demands on the curriculum are great, which I accept, but we are talking about one 45-minute lesson in years 9 or 10. I do not believe that would be a huge burden on the curriculum.

The purpose of this debate is to consider whether enough is being done on sentencing. It is often said that sentencing guidelines are just that, “guidelines, not tramlines.” I appreciate the need for judges to have discretion to sentence according to the circumstances of each case, but let us look at the statistics. In 2015, there were 54 instances of 10 to 15-year-olds being convicted or cautioned for threatening with a knife or offensive weapon, of whom three already had two previous convictions for possession of a knife or offensive weapon. Two of those three received a community sentence. Despite having already been sentenced twice, they received, in effect, a slap on the wrist.

Let us look more generally at simply possessing a knife or offensive weapon. In 2014, 2,725 10 to 17-year-olds were sentenced for possession of a knife or offensive weapon. In 2015, the figure went up to 3,103, a rise of 14%. Of those sentenced for possession of a knife or offensive weapon in 2014, 44 had two previous convictions and 17 had three previous convictions. How about last year? Seventy-five had two previous convictions, an increase of 70%, and 27 had three previous convictions, an increase of 59%. It is deeply troubling that we are sentencing more and more repeat offenders for carrying knives.

Let us look at first-time offenders. Of those sentenced in 2014 for possession of a knife or offensive weapon, 2,398 had no previous convictions. In 2015, the number went up to 2,699 with no previous convictions, an increase of 13%. If we are sentencing more and more children with no previous convictions for knife offences, is our approach to deterrence working? Lord Thomas, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said in 2014:

“There is obviously a really serious problem in relation to knives. The carrying of knives has become commonplace in gangs and with children who are very young… I think we need to look very, very carefully at the best way of using the various levels of sentencing to control the use of knives. I think this is something which is urgently required. We’ve been extraordinarily successful in this country in controlling the use of guns, but knives, particularly knives carried by 12, 13, 14-year-olds, is a major problem… This is a problem which is very, very serious, which is rightly a real concern.”

I welcome the new “two strikes” sentence, which means that adults convicted more than once of being in possession of a blade face a minimum six-month prison sentence and a maximum of four years. Young offenders, aged 16 and 17, will face a minimum four-month detention and training order. However, there is no provision for those under 16. During a debate on 3 March 2016, I said that the answer to youth violence is threefold: deterrence, education and intervention. As I have said, I want the national curriculum to be modified to include weapons awareness training. The Government should take another look at encouraging more schools to introduce weapons awareness lessons.

On deterrence, let me be clear that I do not want to throw vast swathes of teenagers in prison for possession of a knife or offensive weapon; it is far better to rehabilitate them in the community. However, there are three changes that I would like to see.

First, where an under-16 with a previous knife-related conviction is found to be using a knife in any violent crime or offence involving threatening another person, there should be a mandatory detention and training order. I believe that, in those cases, there is enough doubt about the effectiveness of a community sentence that the public safety argument alone requires a custodial response.

Secondly, where an under-16 with no previous convictions commits a threatening or violent crime involving a knife or offensive weapon, there should be a mandatory psychiatric assessment in addition to their sentence. Finally, I would like to see any under-18 who is convicted or cautioned for a first-time knife-related offence to be sent on a mandatory weapons awareness course as part of their sentence.

[Julian Knight]

Would my hon. Friend like to see these interventions take place prior to sentencing or after sentencing?

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The psychiatric testing would almost certainly have to be done prior to sentencing, but the weapons awareness course, by its design, would happen as part of the sentence; it would happen after sentencing. I would see that working in a similar way to the speed awareness courses for someone who has been caught speeding. They have to go on a course. The courses are often very shocking, as they are hit with hard facts. Often, young people—especially first-time offenders—need a hard look at what could have happened and what could happen again if they continue to carry and use a knife.

I am aware that making law around a tragedy is often the wrong approach. However, the evidence suggests that we are sentencing more and more teenagers for first-time knife offences, as well as more and more teenagers with a history of knife-related convictions. This Government have rightly recognised the importance of tackling youth knife crime and I hope that they will take on board my suggestions.

Policing and Crime Bill

Julian Knight Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which reinforces one of my beliefs. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about what people want, but all the evidence I have received, including from the extensive research carried out during the changes we made to the London fire brigade in my former role as the chair of the LFEPA, shows that what people really want is certainty. That goes to a point Opposition Members have made about people having quality public provision when they need it, where they need it. We should subordinate structures to the delivery of that agenda. I also believe that the changes proposed by the Government go a long way towards protecting those structures.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my incredulity at the Labour party’s talk about cuts, given that, if I am not mistaken, it was the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who went on the record calling for 10% cuts in the police budget? Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on that for a moment—

[Lyn Brown]

Rubbish!

[Julian Knight]

It is on the record.

[James Cleverly]

My view is that we judge people by what they say. I know that there will be indignation from Labour Members, but as we have seen when the Labour party was in government the quality of the delivery of public services is not always totally interwoven with the budgets allocated to them. Indeed, there are massive opportunities to get more for less, and surely that should be the acme of performance.

--- Later in debate ---

When I speak to members of the fire and rescue service in my constituency, it is clear that they do not need the Government to pass a law to tell them that they are responsible for flood recovery, flooding help and the prevention of loss of life. But knowing my own situation in Rossendale and Darwen, I could almost imagine a situation where the police would turn up first. Environment Agency officers, or in some cases the armed forces, might turn up first and feel unable to take immediate action because the fire service was not there to take the lead.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case from personal experience. Does he agree that flexibility is crucial? That is what he is describing. Surely if someone has the skills and the wherewithal to tackle the situation and they are on the scene, they should be allowed to do so without fear of legal recourse.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend makes my point very clearly. People should try to prevent flooding or loss of life only when it is safe for them to do so and when they believe that they have the capacity to deal with the situation—for example, members of the armed forces or police officers, who are extremely brave, or the Environment Agency or the water board. The clause would put an unnecessary straitjacket on the response to floods in Lancashire. Although I support much of what it seeks to achieve, putting that in primary legislation is probably a step too far.

As an update, I can tell the House that the people of Rossendale are well served. We have the impending visit of the Minister with responsibility for floods, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is coming to Irwell Vale on 13 May. I do not think he knows what is going to greet him. I will make sure that there is an angry mob to talk to him about the response of the Environment Agency, but no one should tell him that. I hope it can remain our secret. I hope that in future the Environment Agency may be in a position to take a lead in the Rossendale valley, looking at a full catchment solution.

Dog Theft: Sentencing

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate, and as a dog owner I was minded to do so for a couple of reasons—first, the inadequate sentencing guidelines for this type of offence, and, secondly, the sheer nastiness of this offence and the fact that it needs clamping down on far more than currently happens.

I do not criticise this or any previous Government, but it is necessary to appreciate the devastating impact that the theft of a dog has on its owner. That emotional impact overrides the financial loss, but too often our court systems are geared up to deal with such thefts simply as a form of property crime. The theft of a dog is a particularly nasty offence. Sometimes dogs are targeted because of their monetary value, but often it is done to allow grief stricken owners to put up reward posters in the area, with those rewards then claimed by the actual perpetrator.

Before coming to this House I spent nearly 20 years working in the criminal justice system so I have some appreciation of the difficulties and complexities that the courts are labouring under. I am also aware that organisations such as the Sentencing Council endeavour to provide user friendly, concise guidelines for a multitude of different situations, but I feel that it needs to reflect on its guidelines for offences of theft, as there is little to ensure that those who steal dogs get an appropriate sentence.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. There was a debate in Westminster Hall a few months ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) on dog theft, cat killing and cruelty to pets and one point that arose then is that the law equates the loss of a pet to the loss of property, which is wrong. The law takes no account at all of the wider emotional impact of the theft, or of the societal needs for proper punishment in such cases.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and he is right when he says that there is a failure to acknowledge the emotional impact of such thefts—that is one reason why I secured this debate. Because of the failure of the system, few statistics are kept, and stolen dogs are often deemed to have run away as there is little proof they have been stolen. There is also no separate category of the theft of a dog, and such thefts tend to be lumped together with all the other chattels that get stolen. It is believed by Blue Cross that roughly three dogs are stolen each day. Three cats are also stolen each day, and my hon. Friend was right to mention that because the same principles apply. Almost half those thefts are from people’s gardens, one in five is from burglaries, one in seven is from owners walking their dogs, and most of the other thefts take place when people leave their dogs tied up outside shops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this debate generates a fair amount of passion because of the pain that such thefts impose on people who go through the loss of a quasi-member of their own family.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend mentions how pets are stolen in burglaries. Perhaps the courts could consider an offence of aggravated burglary in relation to crimes involving pets.

[Gareth Johnson]

That is a very interesting point. There should certainly be an aggravating feature of the offence of theft. Unfortunately, that is not the case according to the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. That is what is missing. Dogs are stolen in burglaries for a multitude of reasons: for fighting, for ransoms, for breeding or for selling on.

This crime is increasing and the emotional impact it has on both the owner and the dogs is immeasurable. Anyone who has had a dog stolen from them is able to say how painful an experience it is for both the owner and the animal, yet I fear penalties will now be reduced rather than increased. This is due to the flawed sentencing guidelines introduced just last month. Under the guidelines, theft sentencing is split into three categories—high, medium and lesser culpability. These are defined by specific characteristics. However, none of those characteristics includes anything that would normally apply for the theft of a dog. This forms the very starting point for sentencing. The guidelines then go on to look at the harm caused, which does cover emotional distress to the victim but is assessed primarily by the financial loss to the victim. That cannot be the right approach.

State Pension Age (Women)

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I should like to praise the reasonableness of the Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—campaign. Several campaigners have come to my constituency office, and they have put forward their arguments in a cogent, respectful and thoughtful manner.

Since 2010, this Government have been taking the difficult decisions necessary to get Britain’s deficit under control. This has often been contentious and involved many political disagreements with the Opposition. Since the Turner report, however, the one area on which Members on both sides of the House have in no small degree agreed is pensions. For more than a decade, MPs from all parties have been working together to tackle the challenges posed by an ageing population and to ensure the long-term financial security of elderly people. This quite unusual political consensus was both necessary and heartening in dealing with a long-term issue.

It is no secret that, without change, our current state pension arrangements will simply not be financially sustainable. People are living longer than ever: a teenager today can expect to live until the age of 90. That is to be celebrated, but it also imposes serious burdens on welfare systems that were designed in another age. In the last Parliament, the Government estimated the cost of abandoning state pension age reforms at a completely unaffordable £23 billion, the equivalent of putting 7p on income tax.

Much of this debate focuses on the impact of these measures on women, so perhaps we should reflect on how much this Government have done to improve the position of women in the pensions system.

[Helen Goodman]

Before the hon. Gentleman tells us that everything is okay, would he like to hear the experience of one of my constituents? She says:

“I have worked full time since leaving school at 16. I am now 61. I have worked through 10 years of kidney failure, dialysis and finally a kidney transplant. The effects have taken their toll. I cannot afford to retire without a state pension so I have another five years of my current life to look forward to, assuming my kidney does not fail or I die of something else.”

Surely that level of hardship is unacceptable.

[Julian Knight]

I thank the hon. Lady for putting the words into my mouth that everything was okay. I remind her that she is a member of the party that was in government from 1997 to 2010, and if there is anything amiss regarding the publicising of these changes, Labour Members ought to look to themselves in that respect.

The motion regrets that the Government have

“failed to address a lifetime of low pay and inequality faced by many women”.

I really do not recognise that. Let us consider two central planks of this Government’s policy—namely, raising personal allowances and increasing the minimum wage to the living wage. Both those initiatives benefit women tremendously. In addition, the Government are looking at options to reform pensions tax relief, which was left unaltered by the Labour Government.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

Following the Budget, research carried out by the House of Commons Library showed that women would be twice as likely—if not more—to be hit harder than men as a result of the Chancellor’s measures. If the disproportionate way in which women have been treated and the discrimination that they have suffered are not addressed by this Government, that will simply add to a long list of ways in which the Government have continued to fail the women of this country. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with that?

[Julian Knight]

I really do not agree with what the hon. Lady says whatsoever. The raising of the personal allowance, combined with the rise in the minimum wage, will give a huge boost to British workers and to women in this country, and she should recognise that fact.

In addition, the Government are looking at options to reform pensions tax relief. If Ministers choose the option that I am calling for, as others are, and they dispense with the top rate of tax relief and move to a single rate of relief, somewhere around the 30p in the pound mark, it will hugely advantage women in the workforce. It would be a real game-changer for the retirement savings of millions of hard-working British women. Equalising the pension age may pose short-term challenges, but it is an overdue acknowledgement of the role women play in the modern workforce. It is quite wrong for the Government to structure the pension system around the assumption that women’s careers—

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

My hon. Friend made an important point about there being more women in the workforce. There is evidence to show that women directly affected by the state pension age equalisation have increased their employment rate by 6.8%, to 40.7%, according to the Department for Work and Pensions in November. Older working-age women are now more likely to be in employment than at any time over the past 30 years.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Let me add to it. Many people are coming to retirement age—this is before they collect the state pension—and we need to encourage older people’s involvement in the workforce as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Julian Knight]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way again.

One of the most encouraging things we have seen under this Government is that people are staying in work for longer. The move to equalise the pension age may pose short-term challenges but it was an overdue acknowledgement of the role women play in the modern workforce. We are also enacting very important reforms to the period for which someone has to pay national insurance before qualifying for the full state pension. Until relatively recently, that stood at 39 years for women and 44 years for men. That is surely the worst of both worlds, in that it is structurally unequal while being long enough to penalise women who take time out of work to have children. Under the new arrangements, time taken out of employment for caring or to raise a family will be counted towards someone’s national insurance record, and the new, equal length of 35 years no longer penalises such women. Moreover, by bringing the male contribution periods down to the same level, the Government have recognised that many men may also desire a different work-life balance than was traditionally the case in the past.

I am not in the habit of quoting Liberal Democrats, but I will make an exception in this instance over the Government’s decision to defer the date at which the state pension age will rise to 66, at a cost of £1.1 billion. While in office, Steve Webb, the former Pensions Minister, put it as follows:

“a billion quid is a serious amount of money.”

This decision means that almost a quarter of a million women who faced a sudden increase of 18 months or more in their pension age no longer face that possibility. We have also instituted the triple lock, which ensures that pensions are increased by the highest of three measures: price inflation, growth in earnings or 2.5%. That means no more of the sort of infamous bag-of-peanuts increases we saw under the Labour party. Also, we must not forget that the new state pension will be higher in value than the old one and far less complex.

We in Britain are rightly proud of the care we take of our elderly citizens, which has been shown by a marked reduction in levels of pensioner poverty in the previous two decades. It would be wrong to take serious risks with long-term economic sustainability and our pension system for the sake of winning short-term political battles.

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Julian Knight Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[William Wragg]

I entirely agree. This is a vital amendment to the law, allowing the gaining of private evidence to assist in those cases of miscarriage of justice. My hon. Friend is right to raise that.

The CCRC was set up in 1997, following the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. It was the world’s first publicly funded body to review alleged miscarriages of justice, set up in the wake of notorious mishandled cases such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six—two high-profile cases of two groups of men, both convicted and imprisoned for connections to bombings carried out by the IRA in the 1970s.

Both sets of convictions were found, after repeated appeals, to have had serious breaches in the due process, irregularities in police evidence and, in the case of the Six, serious accusations of police brutality. All the men spent between 10 and 20 years behind bars before their convictions were eventually quashed after being ruled “unsafe”.

The royal commission reported in 1993, which led to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which established the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1997. Although none of those may be a household name, as anyone who has ever been subject to a miscarriage of justice will attest, it is a deeply damaging experience and the CCRC is often victims’ only opportunity of salvation.

Before turning to the new powers, I must first explain how the CCRC operates under its current powers. The CCRC currently has the power to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to refer convictions and sentences to the relevant appeal court for a new appeal. Its jurisdiction was extended to the armed forces by the Armed Forces Act 2006 to cover courts martial and the service civilian court.

Parliament established the CCRC specifically to be a body independent of Government, and although sponsored by, and funded through, the Ministry of Justice, it carries out its operations completely independently. The commission investigates convictions on application by the offender or, in a case where the offender has died, at the request of relatives. It has special powers to investigate cases, and to obtain information which it believes is necessary to review a case. If the CCRC concludes that there is a “realistic prospect” that the Court of Appeal will overturn the conviction, it can make what is termed a “referral” and send cases back to court so that an appeal can be heard.

Applications are free to make to the CCRC and defendants cannot have their sentences increased on account of having made an application for review. In principle, cases should only be examined by the CCRC where all other routes of appeal have failed. Only in “exceptional circumstances” may the commission consider cases which have not previously been appealed. However, as the commission usually deals with cases which have already been appealed once, if the commissioners are to be able to send cases for review it is usually on account of some new evidence or legal argument that has come to light.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing this important Bill. As I understand it, the Bill would bring the private evidence position of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in England and Wales into line with the position in Scotland. Would he like to reflect on that?

[William Wragg]

My hon. Friend is correct. The equivalent body in Scotland has the full powers to subpoena private evidence, whereas the CCRC does not have those powers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That might have been an oversight in the 1995 Act, but he is right to make that point at this juncture.

The subject of the Bill hinges on what are commonly referred to as section 17 powers. Currently, section 17 of the 1995 Act gives the CCRC the power to require public bodies and those serving in them to give the commission documents or other material that may assist it in discharging its functions. That includes police, local councils, the NHS, the Prison Service and so on. It should be clear how all such bodies could and do serve as vital sources of evidence in such appeal cases. As I said to my hon. Friend, the CCRC currently does not have equivalent powers to get those materials from private organisations and individuals. The Bill contains provisions that would allow the CCRC to do so.

The House should be aware that the current working arrangements and effectiveness of the CCRC were the subject of a dedicated inquiry by the Justice Committee in the previous Session, as my hon. Friend mentioned. The impetus behind the legislation comes directly from recommendations of the Committee’s report from the inquiry, which was published in March 2015. I am grateful to have the support of several current and previous members of the Justice Committee. The Committee’s thorough inquiry ran for two months and collected evidence from legal academics and others.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend mentions the Justice Committee. Is he aware of comments of the former Chair of the Committee, Sir Alan Beith, who said:

“There has been a failure by successive Governments to grant the CCRC an obvious and much-needed power to require private bodies to disclose documents to it…We could see no good reason as to why it has not been introduced, considering it has universal support”?

[William Wragg]

My hon. Friend anticipates a remark I was about to make and is absolutely right to quote the then Chairman of the Select Committee. To answer what Sir Alan said, I stand here today with such a new criminal justice Bill. I hope to put right the failure of successive Governments to which he rightly referred.

I am delighted that the Bill has such widespread support from both sides of the House, including from experts in the fields of law, justice and home affairs. The co-signatories and supporters of the Bill may in themselves have grabbed the attention of fellow Members, given that they are drawn from diverse corners of the House, spanning a chasm of political and ideological opinion. They include solid figures of the traditional right such as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), as well as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. Supporters of the Bill are hardly the most natural political allies.

As well as having supporters of diverse political colours, the Bill has the support of those who have a wide range of experience, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), who is a criminal law barrister, and the long-standing Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The Bill enjoys the support of both current and past members of the Justice Committee, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and the aforementioned hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whose names are listed as contributors to the Justice Committee’s excellent report. As hon. Members will observe, the report is slightly larger than the shadow Chancellor’s more recent preferred reading material, but I will not be tempted to throw it towards the Minister.

The reason for the wide basis of support is not that, in my first six months in this place, I have become an adept and charming schmoozer of parliamentary colleagues and someone who is able to win over a diverse range of unlikely comrades to my cause—far from it. I hope the reason for the wide basis of support is that its merits are clear. What the Bill seeks to achieve is good and necessary. The motivations for legislative change were endorsed unanimously by the all-party Justice Committee from the previous Parliament.

It will be of benefit to the House if I outline what the Bill does and how its implementation would work in practice. The Bill would insert new section 18A into the 1995 Act so that the CCRC can obtain a court order requiring a private organisation or individual to disclose a document or other material in their possession or control. The court will be able to make an order only if it thinks that the document or other material might assist the CCRC in the exercise of its functions and investigations into miscarriages of justice when there is

“a realistic chance of a conviction being overturned by the Court of Appeal”.

As with the current power to require material held by public bodies, the new disclosure requirements will apply notwithstanding any obligations of secrecy or other limitation disclosure. That will mean that companies will not be able to use excuses such as the Data Protection Act to deny the CCRC information, as the CCRC has previously experienced. It will also mean that when information carries security classification, including restricted and secret information, that will also not be able to cited as a reason for non-disclosure. That could be particularly important in cases of court martial, with which the CCRC has been involved since the Armed Forces Act 2006.

Even after the Bill is enacted, the CCRC should always attempt first to obtain information voluntarily before reverting to court order.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The rule of law is the bedrock of our society. Relied on at home and aspired to abroad, it is one of the things that defines what it is to live in this great country: to be free under the law. But even in the UK the rule of law can be undermined, and the principal way in which that can happen is through miscarriages of justice. The most famous among them trip off the tongue of any student of criminal law: the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and Judith Ward. It is inevitable in a justice system that relies on humans—police officers, prosecutors, judges and juries—that human error and improper motive will creep in. Thankfully, that is rare, but the risk cannot be eliminated in every case.

We maintain the integrity of the justice system as a whole by having a robust system for dealing with miscarriages of justice. There can be no doubt that our Criminal Cases Review Commission does vital work, but it needs tools to do its job, key among which is the power to obtain disclosure. Under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the commission has the power of disclosure against public bodies. The Bill seeks a modest extension of that power to private bodies and individuals. Quite why private bodies and individuals were not included in section 17 is a mystery. Even to the extent that there were ever a justification for that limitation, it has long ceased to hold good. The exclusion of private bodies is an anomaly that is neither justified nor justifiable today. The Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) provides a modest extension to end that anomaly and make sure that the CCRC can, with the consent of a Crown court judge, obtain all the disclosure it needs.

The absence of that power is no imagined difficulty. The briefing note provided by the commission for this debate gives a number of examples of situations where it has not been able to obtain disclosure, and a number of examples of private organisations that it would wish at times to obtain disclosures from. Banks, shops, news agencies, private health clinics, charities, campaign groups and law firms are all private bodies.

[Julian Knight]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, should this Bill be enacted, its very existence will make it more likely that private companies and individuals will co-operate fully and without delay when they receive a request for information from the CCRC?

[James Berry]

My hon. Friend is right. The knowledge that the CCRC will obtain a court order if a request for voluntary disclosure is refused will certainly provide encouragement where needed. All the private bodies I have listed may have that one piece of information that will establish that someone serving a prison sentence has been wrongly convicted. The chairman of the CCRC himself has said that

“you can be confident that there are miscarriages of justice that have gone unremedied because of the lack of that power”

to obtain disclosure from private bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove has promoted this Bill to end that unacceptable situation and I thank him for doing so. The Bill deserves the unanimous support of this House.

Personal Injury Fraud

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) not only on securing this important debate but on his continued pursuit of the issue of insurance fraud during his time in the House. That included a parliamentary question in April last year to the Secretary of State for Justice regarding a judgment in the Supreme Court in a work-related injury case.

I recognise that, as hon. Gentleman said, the UK has the highest rate of fraudulent claims in Europe, which means that 11% of car insurance premiums are attributed to whiplash. I also recognise the role that nuisance calls play in inciting and inviting fraudulent claims. That is not to mention the cost to the NHS, which we across these islands want to protect and maintain.

I welcome the remarks by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), with whom I have not had the pleasure of debating before. He spoke of his harrowing experience and of being invited to claim, which was probably not at the forefront of his mind at the time. I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who recognised that hard-working people pay the most as a result of the effect on premiums.

The Summers v. Fairclough Homes case in 2012 created the precedent that exaggerated or fabricated personal injury claims might be struck out in exceptional cases. The Government then proposed measures in 2014, which they said would mean that people would no longer be able to profit from exaggerated or fraudulent compensation claims, while victims with genuine cases could still get the help they deserved. However, as we have heard today, those measures have not gone far enough. Personal injury fraud remains an issue for our constituents.

We can define personal injury fraud broadly as any act intended to cause an insurance company to compensate for an injury that is non-existent, exaggerated or unrelated to an accident claimed for under a policy. More than 3 million people are injured in accidents each year—that experience is harrowing enough—be it in their home, in their car, at work or outdoors. In many cases, someone else is at fault, and the victims have the right to claim compensation.

As has been highlighted in the debate, however, there are many examples of injuries being overstated so that people can make a more lucrative claim, and we must clamp down on such actions. Statistics from the Association of British Insurers estimate that 59,900 out of 775,000 personal injury insurance claims related to road traffic accidents in 2013 were dishonest. If those figures are correct, it means that about 8% of claims were fraudulent.

Filing a fraudulent personal injury claim can have serious repercussions. Insurance companies can deny claims or drop coverage. Claimants can be liable to insurance companies for any money paid and for the costs involved in investigating the fraud. Criminal charges can, of course, also be brought against fraudulent claimants. Perhaps, however, that is not really tackling all the problems.

The effects of fraud are felt not just by those committing it on the off-chance they are caught out. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that fraud represents a £20 billion annual loss to the UK—the equivalent of £330 for every person in the country.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a sound case and an interesting argument. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate.

Perhaps the hon. Lady would be interested in the example of Sweden, which has found that the cost of whiplash injuries to insurers, and therefore the public, can be limited by restricting—time-barring, effectively—the time within which a claim can be put in to three to four days after the accident. Perhaps a week or two weeks would be a better proposal for time-barring people in the UK.

[Angela Crawley]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I recognise what he says about a limit on the length of time for making claims, but not every person might be able to claim within two weeks of experiencing an accident. We must consider such issues, but I do welcome the point that other European countries have imposed all manner of limits, sanctions and bans that have resulted in fewer claims.

As I was saying, the cost of fraud is equivalent to £330 for every person in the country, which is an astronomical figure that we should not impose on our constituents. However, in taking action against fraudulent claims, we must make sure we tread carefully.

Between 2008 and 2011, 1.9 million motor injury claims were made in England. In the same period, 75,000 claims were made in Scotland. That amounts to 25 times more claims being made in England than in Scotland. Given my legal experience, I acknowledge that protections must exist for individuals who have experienced accidents, and they should have the right to seek damages.

The current law does allow for some effective sanctions. Harsh judgments against those found to have claimed fraudulently act as a deterrent to others. Lower damages can be awarded for the non-fraudulent part of the claim, an action routinely imposed for punitive and deterrent reasons. Adverse costs orders can be applied in most cases, wiping out or even exceeding the value of any award. Contempt of court applications can be brought, leading to imprisonment. Criminal proceedings can be brought against those who bring fraudulent cases, leading to heavy fines or imprisonment. Those deterrents against personal injury fraud mean that our court systems already have the power to punish and deter fraudulent claims. We must make sure that any change to legislation does not impede fair settlements, access to justice or the efficient functioning of our courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

As I have said, I believe that calls made in that way are banned. I will come on to say a bit more about law firms in a moment, but I think that would be the case for any such form of abuse.

The other area where I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for Lincoln is on referral fees. Again, the previous Government came to the issue late in the day. There were late amendments—on Report, I think—to the Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, banning referral fees. We thought that that did not go far enough and would have liked them to be criminalised. I am afraid that the implementation by the Ministry of Justice was rather cack-handed and amateur for a while. That is getting better, and there has been a crackdown on claims management companies, which I welcome, as well as an extension of the ban on referral fees. Referral fees do not have any place in the British legal system. Those are the key ways of stopping such abuse.

The percentage of personal injury claims being made for whiplash has fallen, but Members are right to ask why the number of personal injury claims is increasing while the number of motor accidents is falling. One reason, undoubtedly, is greater use of advertisement, which encourages more people to claim. That does not necessarily mean that the claims are fraudulent, but it does mean that there is an industry encouraging the making of claims.

Thus far, so good, but the hon. Gentleman suddenly shoehorned into the end of his speech the conclusion that the small claims limit for personal injury should be extended to £5,000, the limitation period should be 12 months, and the quantum in such cases should be rigidly enforceable. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that. It would be to attack a basic principle of English law—the principle of the courts’ discretion.

We already have clear Judicial Studies Board guidelines on quantum. There are reasons for the relatively short limitation period of three years. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) mentioned that injuries are not always immediately evident. As for the old chestnut about raising the small claims limit to £5,000, I am entirely in agreement that after 16 years, if that is how long it has been, it is right to raise the limit proportionally by whatever the inflation rate has been during that time. It might mean taking the limit up to £2,000 or something of that order. Raising it to £5,000, however, would exclude 90% of all personal injury claims. For someone on a low income in particular, £5,000 is a substantial amount of money, and it is wrong for people in that situation not to have the benefit of legal advice. I see an ABI agenda there—that is what it always wants. Insurance companies are particularly keen on effectively taking lawyers out of the personal injury process, so that the relationship is between the victim and the insurer.

[Julian Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just about an ABI agenda but about trying to reduce the cost of insurance to the public? The personal injury claim blight means that hard-working families must pay extra for their insurance.

[Andy Slaughter]

That is an opportune intervention, because that was to be my next point.

West Midlands Police (Funding)

Julian Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) on securing the debate and on his contribution to it.

Every area of the UK feels a connection with and a debt of gratitude to its police services. They keep us safe day in, day out, in overt and sometimes covert ways. They are part of the glue that holds our society together. In my constituency I know my local police by first name, where their beats are and even some of their hobbies—I have to reveal that a few are fellow cyclists. I am sure that most, if not all hon. Members can echo such sentiments and experiences.

My latest briefing from the local police found that the level of high-impact crimes such as burglary has been cut dramatically. Officially, as of last spring, the previous three-year period had seen a 10% drop in crime in our area. Police are doing more, sometimes with less, but always, it seems, more efficiently and intelligently. This Government are all about good husbandry of resources—we understand that the money is everyone’s, not ever the Government’s.

We are undergoing a review of the police funding formula. As was the case with schools, we have had to wait a decade or more for a review. The social make-up of our country has changed markedly over that period. However, such reviews always throw up worst-case scenarios, and a lot of stories in the Birmingham media involve the possible direction of the review based on those worst-case scenarios. Understandably, therefore, I have received several letters from constituents concerned about future police funding in the west midlands, and I have held informal discussions with senior local police to gauge their views. The overwhelming response is that we do not want to see the fantastic work done by our police in bringing crime down to be damaged by any misallocation of resources.

We have particular challenges in the west midlands, which should carry extra weight in any funding allocation. We face acute challenges in combating radicalisation, child exploitation and female genital mutilation. On a straight population model, it is easy to see how Ministers might look at West Midlands police funding as a potential area for future efficiencies. However, I am encouraged to read in the Home Office consultation document that basing the funding model on per head of population has in effect been ruled out. In addition, I welcome the part of the document that acknowledges that funding based purely on police activity “may skew the results”.

We are not helped in our cause by the office of the police and crime commissioner, which has overseen the expenditure of some £30 million on its headquarters and holds more than £100 million in reserves according to some estimates. The PCC also employs seven people in a public relations capacity, compared with an average among all the other PCC areas of two. To be fair to the police and crime commissioner, however, he is planning to apportion a substantial slice of those hefty reserves on front-line policing and recruitment in the near future.

The West Midlands force has also been slow in weaning itself off central Government financing. It relies on central Government for some 87% of its financing, and over time the proportion drawn from the precept has not increased by the level that it should have. The socioeconomic challenges that we face, however, should give real pause for thought before any substantial cuts to central Government financing are undertaken; and I am confident that we will be listened to and that no such cuts will be made. Furthermore, West Midlands police should be allowed to show how the force will redress the funding balance between the precept and central Government.

[Steve McCabe]

I realise that this will be a central part of the debate, but will the hon. Gentleman care to tell us how much he thinks the precept should rise by as part of the weaning process?

[Julian Knight]

That is a matter for local decision makers—just as it is a matter for them that they have not increased the precept over previous years. The hon. Gentleman used the word “spurious” before, but frankly the only spurious argument put forward so far has been that used by Opposition Members—that the referendum costs would be so prohibitive that one could never actually happen. If the argument is that a precept increase would spark a level of council tax sufficient to require a referendum automatically, I suggest that it would be up to the local decision makers, councillors and politicians to put the strong case for why—which is, in effect, that the West Midlands force is playing catch-up.

[Mr Mitchell]

I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), but I asked whether the Opposition favoured national subvention or a greater contribution from local resources—merely to flush out Labour’s thinking on funding—so for him to put the same question to my hon. Friend and then look rather askance when he does not answer shows, if I may say so, a bit of brass neck. This is an important point: we are asking those who want to see an increase—we all want to see the West Midlands police properly funded—where they think it should come from and in what proportion. So far we have not had an answer from the Opposition, although I have no doubt at all that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), will give us precisely that answer when he speaks in the debate.

[Julian Knight]

I concur with my right hon. Friend’s thoughts in that respect. The realities are that when we want to discuss financing and to argue a case with Ministers, we have to show a route map towards future decisions. We have to show a way in which we are ultimately going to wean ourselves off the precept. Shouting about it, saying, “Woe is me!” and making party political points will do no good in achieving what we want, which is—this is the bottom line—the best possible funding deal for West Midlands police. I hope everyone in the Chamber would agree with that.

The west midlands should be allowed to show clearly how it will redress the balance between precept and central Government funding for the police. Let me use the example of the BBC, an institution that I have touched on once or twice in recent debates. That organisation’s model of funding is not fit for purpose, but it has been allowed an opportunity, in the charter renewal, to show how it will correct itself. I am asking for the same consideration to be given to West Midlands police. After all, the police are more important to our way of life than whether BBC4 or the BBC website exists. The long-term objective has to be that local decision makers must show a route map away from the existing levels of precept funding. That has to form part of the negotiations, so that we do not end up with any formula that dramatically cuts funding to the police. We need a gradual process of retrenchment by central Government, with more of the burden being put on the local area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. He is spotting many of the inefficiencies that already exist, including in relation to the office of the police and crime commissioner. Will he comment on the fact that the commissioner has reserves of up to £100 million and that £30 million has been spent on Lloyd house?

[Mike Wood]

My constituents have certainly come to me with concerns about how West Midlands police is using, or intends to use, those reserves to make sure that the best possible service is provided. Yes, people were surprised—

Sentencing (Cruelty to Pets)

Julian Knight Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentencing for cruelty to domestic pets.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, although on this occasion I cannot say it is a pleasure to be here, because some of the incidents that have taken place in my constituency have caused a great deal of trauma, not only to domestic pets but to their owners.

Let me give a little insight into what has been taking place in some villages in my constituency. There has been a spate of domestic cat deaths, many of which have been linked to the consumption of antifreeze products. That has been confirmed by local veterinary surgeons after people have presented pet cats suffering terrible symptoms. The tragedy is that once cats in particular have ingested antifreeze products, there is very little that a veterinary surgeon can do to stop the inevitable process of very painful death. Ethylene glycol, which is the toxic ingredient in antifreeze, attacks a cat’s kidneys, causing excruciating pain. Sadly, the cat often has to be put down before it dies very slowly and painfully.

One village in my constituency lost 22 cats over one summer. It is important to emphasise that it was in the summer—not traditionally a time when people use antifreeze products. There is a lot of debate about whether people should put antifreeze into garden water features to prevent them from freezing over the winter, because pets can accidentally drink from them, but these incidents happened in the middle of the summer. Many people in the village concluded that someone local was maliciously targeting their pets. I cannot overemphasise the trauma that families go through when they lose a loved pet, which is why I am here to emphasise how the judicial system deals with people who are convicted of this horrendous crime.

I secured a debate some time ago that was responded to by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We looked at a number of options to try to prevent these poisonings, including introducing bittering agents to antifreeze products to try to prevent animals from ingesting them. Since then, I have been working with Nottinghamshire police, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Cats Protection to research the topic—I should credit the work of my colleague, David Sforza—and to see how we can help. I have come to the conclusion that introducing bittering agents into antifreeze products will probably not help a great deal, because by the time a cat has tasted the bitterness, it has, unfortunately, probably already consumed enough to kill it. Products are available on the market that do not contain the toxin, but they are very expensive compared with the ethylene glycol products. That is something to look into, but I called this debate to discuss sentencing.

Section 7 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 covers attempts to kill an animal by poisoning, and the sentence is currently set at a maximum of 51 weeks in custody, a fine of up to £20,000, or both. The guidelines recommend a 12 to 26-week sentence and a fine of up to £5,000. It is interesting to look at what other countries do. In Australia, the maximum sentence for a crime of this nature is five years. A little closer to home, in Germany and the Netherlands it is three years, and in Spain it is 18 months. I repeat: the UK guideline is a maximum of six months. That is not a strong enough punishment for this horrendous crime.

It is interesting to see what has happened in the courts. A custodial sentence has never been handed down for the deliberate and malicious poisoning of a domestic cat. I have a number of examples. A gentleman called Donald Waterworth poisoned five of his neighbours’ cats. The punishment for that crime was a £125 fine. To put that into context, that is probably not even the commercial value of one of the cats, never mind the emotional trauma experienced by the poor families and the animals themselves. Alan Gillibrand had a problem with his next-door neighbour’s cat, so he decided to leave poisoned chicken all over the neighbourhood to try to kill it. That resulted in many cats in the neighbourhood being killed. He received a 12-week suspended sentence for that crime. Charles Coulter poisoned his neighbour’s cat and showed no remorse, protesting that he did it to protect his pigeons. He was fined £140. RSPCA research shows that the general public find such sentences insulting and think it is time we took stronger action against the people who commit these horrendous crimes.

Part of the reason for such lenient sentences is that magistrates tend to see animal cruelty cases as fairly trivial and unimportant, but we are a nation of animal lovers, and I do not think the way magistrates are sentencing is in tune with the views of the general public. We have to find a way to train our magistrates and make them more accountable, and to give them a flavour of the strength of feeling on this topic. We need to issue improved sentencing guidelines to magistrates. I hope the Minister will comment on that when he responds.

It is worth mentioning that the majority of cases in which custodial sentences are handed down seem to involve fighting animals—when people have engaged in the abhorrent practice of dogfighting or cockfighting—but not malicious poisoning of animals. What is to be done? I would like to see a number of outcomes from this debate. Sentencing should be much tougher. We need to create a real deterrent, and in my opinion that has to be a custodial sentence handed down to people who are convicted of this horrendous crime. A £150 fine is nowhere appropriate for such an horrendous crime.

I would like the Government, through the Ministry of Justice and other Departments, to talk to companies that produce antifreeze products, because we need to find a more affordable non-toxic variety. One challenge is that the ethylene glycol products are very cheap, whereas the alternatives tend to be very expensive because currently very few people use them. Consumer power is the answer, and the Government should do what they can to highlight that so that consumers can look for and purchase pet-safe antifreeze products, which would bring their costs more into line with the ethylene glycol products.

As I have mentioned, we have to improve awareness and responsibility in the training of magistrates, so that they consider those crimes in light of true abhorrence people feel about them. We want magistrates to hand out sentences that match how dreadful those crimes are.

We also need to encourage people to contact the RSPCA, the body that often brings private prosecutions against the people who commit these horrendous crimes. We should encourage people not to be afraid to ring the RSPCA and to report incidents to it. The RSPCA is good at investigating gently, and if there has been no crime and no abuse, it is good at talking to people and explaining that it has had a report. I am sure that it could handle such situations well, so we should encourage people to work with charities such as the RSPCA and Cats Protection.

I am taking action locally, raising money through a community fund so that we can issue residents in some of my villages with GPS tracking devices for their cats. That might seem to be an extreme measure, but it is a way of saying to the people committing these crimes, “We are coming after you. We are not going to accept your committing these offences against our pets. The net is closing in.” We are working with Nottinghamshire police and the RSPCA to ensure that we catch the people, or the individual, committing the crimes. I openly admit that if someone’s cat is poisoned, it will probably still die, sadly, but we will be able to track where it has been in the previous 24 hours and to build a map of where the offences have taken place—a grid to assist the police in clamping down.

I do not intend to detain the House for the full 90 minutes allotted to the debate, but I hope that I have got across a flavour of how abhorrent these crimes are and the fact that they are not taken seriously enough by magistrates when people are prosecuted. We have a long way to go in the judicial system before we get the right punishment for inflicting a dreadful, painful death on a domestic pet.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Ordinarily, Mr Knight, it would not be proper to call a Member who has not heard the opening speech, but I will make an exception, because you took the trouble to write to Mr Speaker. Put that down as a marker for the future.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Roger, for your understanding and consideration. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) for securing this important debate.

We are undoubtedly behind other countries when it comes to sentencing for these abhorrent crimes, which hit the sensitivities of many in the wider community and the animal-loving population—and we are a nation of animal lovers. Australia has a maximum sentence of five years for such crimes, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria three years and countries such as Denmark two years. In the UK, the maximum sentence is six months.

There has been action in the past. In 2012 fines were uprated, but with no actual effect on sentencing, and the offences are still dealt with in magistrates courts, which have limits because their powers have never been uprated. This is an inconsistency left behind by previous Governments and I hope that our Government will do something.

Prosecution rates for these crimes are low. In 2014, for example, the RSPCA investigated 159,831 cases, but only 2,419 were prosecuted. The burden of proof seems to be higher to an extent, because obviously the animals subject to these crimes and horrendous activities cannot speak for themselves, so there is always the issue of evidence. However, the number still seems to be low, given that prosecutions are brought in only about 1.5% of cases investigated by the RSPCA.

[Mark Spencer]

One of the challenges with the burden of proof is that a post-mortem by an independent veterinary surgeon is necessary to mount a prosecution. When a family has lost a loved pet, however, the last thing that they want to do, frankly, is allow their pet to sit in a deep freeze for weeks until it has had a post-mortem operation, only then to be used as a piece of criminal evidence, rather than being treated as a loved pet.

[Julian Knight]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important and interesting intervention. He makes a good point about the procedure, and the sensitivity around it. I maintain that a prosecution rate of 1.5% in this country is still low.

Not only are we prosecuting far fewer individuals for these crimes, but when people are brought to trial and found guilty, the sentences that they are receiving are far too light by any international comparison. The RSPCA has made the good point to me that existing laws are not being used properly. The organisation’s government relations manager suggested, for example, that disqualification or deprivation orders could be

“a powerful tool in protecting animal welfare”.

The problem is threefold: light prosecution rates; poor sentencing; and existing sanctions not being used sufficiently.

[Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is abhorrent is not only the intent, but the pain and suffering that the animals are put through?

[Julian Knight]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The crime is abhorrent from a social perspective and it gnaws to the marrow of many Britons.

As a nation of animal lovers, we want to see proper sentencing. I have heard that many times from constituents when such matters are brought before them. Solihull in particular has a strong history of good and careful treatment of animals. When such cases are talked about, people’s first reaction is often, “They got how long?”, “They got fined how much?” or, “Are you sure that these people can keep an animal again?” All too often, the answers are inadequate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has made an important point today and I speak very much in support of the motion. I hope that the debate sends out a strong message that enough is enough. We want prosecutions and tougher sentencing for these offences to reflect the general abhorrence in which our society holds individuals who commit such crimes against defenceless creatures.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Roger.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) on securing this important debate. I am aware of the work that he is doing in his constituency to tackle some awful instances of cruelty to animals. I have read about many other examples of cruelty to animals in the newspapers, and they make for the most unpleasant reading—cases of starvation, overcrowding or failure to obtain required veterinary treatment. Even more unpleasant, as the hon. Gentleman said, are cases of deliberate harm to animals and organised fighting.

It is a concern to read that the RSPCA has reported increases throughout England and Wales in the number of complaints of cruelty to pets, including complaints of direct cruelty, such as beatings, improper killings, mutilations and poisonings. Equally, though, the RSPCA reports that more people are accepting advice and assistance from that organisation; there were more than 80,000 examples of that during 2013-14. What we all agree on is that animal cruelty and abuse is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated in a modern civilised country such as the United Kingdom.

The laws and penalties are similar, but not identical, in Scotland, where the legislation was consolidated and brought up to date in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. There, the maximum penalty on conviction for causing unnecessary suffering or for animal fighting offences is 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £20,000. Other offences, such as poisonings or mutilations, attract a sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment or a £5,000 fine. During the passage of the Bill that became that Act, there was extensive debate on sentencing powers. Indeed, it was in light of evidence provided to the relevant Scottish Parliament Committee and debate there that a 12-month sentence was attached, in place of the six-month sentence, to the offence of causing unnecessary suffering, as well as to offences relating to animal fighting.

The suggestion of increased sentencing powers is far from unreasonable. As hon. Members have pointed out, certain jurisdictions apply heavier maximum sentences, but in other jurisdictions there are more limited sentencing powers. However, broadly speaking, I believe that the powers that the courts have now are just about proportionate to provide adequate sentences for those found guilty of animal welfare offences. I agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood that there is an issue about how the current sentencing powers are used. I agree that the sentencing powers should be reviewed from time to time, but more importantly and more immediately, we have to look again at judicial guidance and how the existing sentences are used.

What is also striking about the reports of animal cruelty in the newspapers is that although there are clear deliberate acts, which must be the priority for clamping down on, there are also many instances that relate to lack of awareness, transient personal problems, ignorance or even mental health issues. That is not in any way to negate the suffering caused to the animals, but we need to keep the issue in mind when considering a proportionate response.

In each year from 2009 to 2011, 1,100 to 1,300 people were found guilty in England and Wales of animal cruelty offences—and 100 or fewer each year were sentenced to custody. Similarly, in Scotland during 2013-14, there were 124 prosecutions and 99 convictions and just two custodial sentences were handed down. The Scottish courts, too, have yet to use the maximum penalty available to them.

Again, I believe that the issue is more about use of the current powers than about increasing the powers available to the courts. People are not necessarily committing these offences because they think that the maximum punishment is not particularly severe.

[Julian Knight]

I was struck when the hon. Gentleman said that people are not committing these crimes because of the sentencing—in effect, it is not a deterrent at present. Surely the point of increasing the sentence is that it would stand as an exemplar. If people open their newspapers and see that someone has been sentenced to five years for one of these offences, perhaps that would bring up short certain individuals who may be treating their animals cruelly.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree that people are influenced by what they see in the newspapers. However, I think that it would be much more influential if, as the hon. Member for Sherwood said, people became aware that the RSPCA and others were coming after them and that they were likely to be caught. That would be more influential than seeing the difference between a one-year maximum sentence and a two-year maximum sentence.

Do I really think that the person behind all the cat poisoning in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency would think differently if the maximum sentence was two years, three years or five years? I suspect that a twisted individual such as that is more likely to rethink what they are doing if they think that they are going to be caught, rather than by sitting down and thinking over the maximum sentence that they could receive if they were caught.

We need to consider other options. The hon. Gentleman mentioned looking at judicial guidelines on sentencing. Education is key. For example, the Scottish Government have published various codes of practice for the welfare of animals, including cats and dogs. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals undertakes a free prevention-through-education outreach programme. In 2014, education officers, animal rescue officers and inspectors delivered that programme to about 317,000 primary school children. Scotland’s Rural College has also been undertaking research into how a duty of care can be best promoted to our young people.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to ensure that people are aware of how to report suspected incidents of animal cruelty. We also need to ask ourselves whether we are doing enough to ensure that people know where they can find help if they are no longer capable of looking after their animals. I agree that we perhaps need to look at sentencing guidelines. This debate is well motivated and we may well want to revisit this issue in the future, but I am still not quite convinced that the case for the particular solution that has been offered—increasing the maximum penalty—has been made out. There are other ways of tackling this problem and we should concentrate on those first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

There are a number of elements to that, as the hon. Gentleman implies, one of which is the sentencing guidelines. Interestingly, there are sentencing guidelines for some animal cruelty offences and not for others. The advice from the Attorney-General, in answer to a parliamentary question, was that one should read across from those sentencing guidelines to offences for which there are no guidelines. For example, for section 7 offences, which cover poisoning, there are no specific sentencing guidelines, but one should look at guidelines in relation to, say, section 4 offences to see, first, whether existing guidelines are being followed—I am not sure that they are in every case—and, secondly, whether they should be strengthened in any way. That is a matter for the Sentencing Council. The Minister will no doubt want to deal with the use of existing sentencing powers and the question of whether there is any will in the Government to increase sentencing.

There is always danger inherent in the escalation of sentencing powers, not only because of the financial cost of prison places and so forth, but because if we begin to ratchet up sentences for one offence, there will be an immediate demand to do so for others. The Minister might want to look at repeat offending, however. By analogy, we proposed in the previous Parliament that driving while disqualified, which is a summary-only offence, should become an either-way offence with a maximum sentence of two years. Many animal welfare charities advocate a similar proposal for animal cruelty offences, which they think should carry a two-year maximum sentence.

The hon. Member for Sherwood is right that maximum sentences are rarely used. By definition, they are used only in the most serious cases. There is always a discount, usually of up to a third, for a guilty plea, which of course includes remission. Typically, even for a very serious offence with a guilty plea, the offender will receive a four-month sentence and will be out within two months. The only way in which the situation can be remedied, if Parliament’s will is for there to be longer sentences, is to increase the maximum. I am wary of sentence inflation, but in the case of repeat offending, there could be a reason for considering that proposal.

I used the analogy of driving while disqualified because to treat a first offence as a summary-only matter may well be perfectly reasonable. A small minority of people, however, repeatedly abuse the law by driving while disqualified again as soon as they get out of prison, knowing that the maximum that they are likely to get on a guilty plea is another two months inside. That might also apply to the sort of callous and sociopathic people who repeatedly commit serious offences against animals. The Minister might want to consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, and to consider the selective use of either-way offences or the sentencing guidelines. I would be interested to see what he has to say on those matters.

In a similar debate in 2013, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister said:

“The Government deplore acts of animal cruelty and believe that offenders deserve the full force of the courts.”

He expressed his belief that the current legislation was “fit for purpose” and pointed out that judges had

“a great deal of discretion”—[Official Report, 15 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 229-230WH.]

when it came to determining the appropriate sentence for individual cases. That might be what the hon. Member for Sherwood is complaining about—judges may use that discretion in the wrong way.

The Minister in that debate also noted that nobody had been given the maximum sentence available under the law, and that judges would be expected to explain why anyone convicted of animal cruelty offences was not subsequently disqualified from owning or keeping animals. That is an important point. The sentencing guidelines state, in bold type:

“Consider disqualification from ownership of animal”.

I believe that that power is too rarely invoked. I had some personal experience of the matter, because my godson’s young brother’s kitten was savaged and killed in his presence by a dog. The court returned the dog to the owner with a £280 fine, despite the fact that it was a serial offender—or rather, the owner was a serial offender at letting it get out and be abusive in such a way. The dog was being used, effectively, as a weapon, but in such a case or in the case of someone who repeatedly commits animal cruelty, I cannot for the life of me see why any court in its right mind would allow them to continue to keep an animal. I ask the Minister to address whether he feels that the judiciary have heeded his colleague’s words on section 4 and section 7. If not, does he intend to take any actions to encourage the toughening up of the law, or at least of the guidelines? Will he consider asking the Sentencing Council to look at it again?

I would also like the Minister to clarify his position on section 8 offences, which relate to animal fighting. As things stand, the maximum sentence is six months, but it is rarely handed out. Animal fighting offences are some of the most serious offences and there can be very little mitigation for matters such as organised dog fighting. Does the Minister feel that the law in that respect is sufficient, or will he consider reviewing the situation?

There are powers in the 2006 Act to impose deprivation and disqualification orders. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that guidance in that area is updated and republished to ensure that it is used better and more consistently? How can it be right for repeat offenders of animal cruelty, poisoning or fighting to get away without being disqualified from looking after animals and possibly mistreating them again?

I advise the Minister to read the Labour manifesto. His colleagues seem to be dipping into it from time to time, whether it is the Chancellor on minimum incomes or, this morning, the Lord Chancellor on better use of the court estate and amalgamating places where hearings should be held. On animal welfare, we said:

“We will build on our strong record on animal welfare—starting with an end to the Government’s ineffective and cruel badger cull. We will improve the protection of dogs and cats, ban wild animals in circuses, defend the hunting ban and deal with wildlife crime associated with shooting.”

We made six pledges, one of which was to improve the protection of dogs and cats. Our offer on animal welfare was very strong, and I hope the Government are prepared to work with us on achieving some of those aims.

Today we are discussing the protection of domestic pets, and too often we see inadequate dog breeding practices causing suffering to both the animal and its owner. More puppies are being bred than there are good homes available, and large-scale puppy farms and backstreet breeders operate in terrible conditions in which dogs are frequently sick or unsocialised.

[Julian Knight]

The hon. Gentleman has made some fine and balanced points in his interesting speech. On puppy farming, is not one of the points about sentencing and the treatment of offenders that there are major profits to be made for professional breeders and those involved in animal-related issues? He talked about a case that resulted in a £15,000 fine, which is equivalent to five or six puppies of a premium breed. With such potential profits to be made, is it not true that the available sentences and criminal sanctions are inadequate?

[Andy Slaughter]

Indeed, and the maximum £15,000 fine was for six separate offences. Most fines for individual offences are way below that level. I am not sure whether the maximum fine, which was increased to £20,000 by LASPO, is necessarily inadequate. It might just be that the courts are not imposing fines. Fines have to be proportionate, because it is pointless fining people who will never have the means to pay. We perhaps need to find an alternative such as community sentences. There can be no reason for not fining commercial enterprises, or people who are making profits from dog breeding, at or near the maximum.

The unlawful trafficking of puppies with little or no regard for their health means that many fall sick or die shortly after purchase, leaving their owners not only heartbroken but often lumbered with large vets’ bills. Such trafficking also results in unsocialised dogs that present a threat to humans and other animals. Dogs are effectively treated as mere commodities by the people who are selling them. There is ineffective regulation, a lack of information for pet owners and a failure to address irresponsible and cruel breeding practices. The coalition Government struggled with those issues, and I hope the new Government will make headway. If they do, they can count on our support.

We pledged to review the inadequate regulation of the sale and breeding of cats and dogs. Poor breeding and rearing practices contribute greatly to the number of abandoned animals in rescue centres, and tougher sentencing might play a part in stopping animals being abandoned. That will have a beneficial effect down the line, including for animal rescue centres, which do such a fantastic job. We urge the Government to build on the Animal Welfare Act and the strategy we proposed.