Female Genital Mutilation
Karl Turner Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, which I have done on many occasions.
I am delighted to have secured this important debate on what I believe to be a national scandal, with thousands of victims violated and failed every year. Although the scandalous practice of female genital mutilation is shrouded in secrecy, the Government estimate that 20,000 girls under 15 in England and Wales could be at high risk of FGM. That is more than 50 young victims every day. It is happening now, as we speak in the debate. The issue is not party political, and has been raised by Government and Opposition Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is recognised in this place and outside the House for her tremendous work in raising the matter.
Eradicating the practice will take not only cross-party support but cross-departmental work involving the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Foreign Office. The subject is complex, but I want to use today’s debate to understand the Ministry of Justice’s role in dealing with FGM and to press the Minister responsible for victims of crime on what the Government are doing to ensure that those voiceless victims are protected. I want to know what her Department is doing to champion that cause and what she is doing not only to prevent people from becoming victims in future, but to seek justice for existing victims. I understand that several failings fall under the remit of the Home Office, but my concern is that no Minister is specifically responsible for FGM. Given that there are 20,000 victims every year, the victims Minister should perhaps shoulder a fair proportion of that responsibility.
Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence in this country since 1985, but some may argue that it has been a criminal offence for much longer, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In my respectful submission, FGM is without a shadow of a doubt grievous bodily harm. It is an appalling practice. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 made it illegal to take children abroad for the purposes of FGM. Despite that, however, it is astonishing that there has not been a single prosecution. I welcome the recent efforts of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the publication of the Crown Prosecution Service action plan. Keir Starmer QC stated:
“It is critical that everything possible is done to ensure we bring the people who commit these offences against young girls and women to justice”.
Right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that commitment, but those words need to translate into justice for thousands of victims.
Despite those recent developments, I am confused as to why it has taken such a long time for basic questions to be asked about why there has been a failure to prosecute this most despicable child abuse. It is a criminal offence, and it is not good enough for the prosecuting authorities to try to mitigate inaction by suggesting that prosecutions are made difficult, or even impossible, merely because young girls do not present themselves at a police station to report their parents for this vile abuse. It is a criminal offence and it needs to be tackled.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured today’s debate. When I raised the issue of female genital mutilation and questioned the lack of prosecutions, the problem did not seem to be at the Crown Prosecution Service end; the police were simply not referring cases to it. I think that there were three cases in which the CPS had to make a decision on whether to prosecute, but it felt that there was not enough evidence. Does he agree that the police also need to make female genital mutilation a much greater priority?
Karl Turner
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has raised the issue on several occasions in the House. She is absolutely right that the police need to do much more, and they need to work with other authorities.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I am pleased and grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing today’s debate. To pick up on that last point, there is one thing that the police need to think about. There was a recent and well-known exposé in a major national paper. Some hon. Members were present at the annual general meeting of the all-party group on female genital mutilation when the Director of Public Prosecutions explained that prosecutions were not possible on the back of that exposé. However, the idea of going after the aiders and abettors, for which the 2003 Act more than makes provision, is one thing that we need more heft behind, because it is obviously a more promising route than trying to get children to report their parents.
Karl Turner
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I had the opportunity through Hilary Burrage, who has campaigned tirelessly on female genital mutilation, to meet the leading French prosecutor. What the hon. Lady suggests is exactly the action being taken in France. Working in that way clearly helps to prevent perpetrators from committing the offence.
I am pleased that we now have a victims commissioner. It is not a party-political point, but it has taken at least 12 months for that to happen. I am sure that Baroness Newlove will do an excellent job and continue the good work of Louise Casey. I want to know the Minister’s thoughts on how much the victims commissioner should prioritise female genital mutilation.
Over recent months, we have heard many positive words, but I am concerned that positive words are not reducing the shocking number of victims on the ground or delivering the justice that victims deserve. The NSPCC rightly states that preventing future victims should remain a priority, but we need to see justice for the 50 victims who will suffer the abuse this very day.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that other measures ought to be brought into play? In other countries, nurses in schools automatically have to ensure that the authorities are informed about such matters. That does not seem to happen in this country.
Karl Turner
I agree with the hon. Lady that the authorities need to work more closely together, and to share information with teachers, nurses and GPs. I have spoken to many professionals who avoid the issue either because of the sensitivities or, as was suggested to me recently, because they are struggling with their departmental budgets. They avoid dealing with the matter. The hon. Lady does not seem terribly impressed at that comment, but that point was put to me very recently. The reduction in social services budgets is definitely an issue, because female genital mutilation is not the priority that it should be.
The lack of evidence and witnesses is also an issue. The lack of prosecutions is compounded by many factors. The police are not investigating FGM with enough vigour, as was suggested earlier. It is estimated that of the 20,000 suspected cases some 6,000 will be based in London. The Metropolitan police’s Project Azure was set up to tackle the problem, but a freedom of information request showed that the team consisted of only two police officers—one full-time and one part-time. It is ridiculous to suggest that such policing is sufficient to tackle this shocking issue.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Has he considered whether the authorities can work with individuals in the communities involved who are concerned about what is happening? Does he have any views on that?
Karl Turner
I do have views, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She has raised the matter in the House on numerous occasions. An issue that follows from that is the obvious lack of data collection. It is accepted that robust data collection and assessment of the problem are urgently needed. A Government equality impact assessment was published last year and stated:
“Lack of data is an ongoing issue in the government’s work to prevent and tackle FGM.”
It will be impossible to tackle the problem without robust systems in place to identify its true level and at-risk children. I am pleased that this is now a priority in the Crown Prosecution Service’s action plan, but the Home Office assessment said that a large-scale community-based study would have a very high cost, and that the Department will continue to examine alternative options and to consider how existing data may capture information about FGM.
Jane Ellison
I apologise for intervening again. On that specific point, the House may like to know that nearly a year ago Quality Now! led a Home Office-funded two-day expert methodological workshop. It made specific recommendations on how robust data could be gathered in ways that would be less expensive than those that the hon. Gentleman described. That report and the recommendations have been sitting in the Home Office for almost a year. It is good that it funded the original workshop, but a plan exists and could be funded cross-departmentally to get us away from relying on data that are extrapolated from the 2001 census. Hon. Members will be aware of how much Britain’s demography has changed since the 2001 census.
Karl Turner
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She is more expert in the matter than I am, and has raised the issue consistently since being elected to the House. I welcome her thoughts on the issue.
I have said previously that the Crown Prosecution Service action plan is a step in the right direction, and I welcome it, but I would be interested to know whether the Director of Public Prosecutions believes that current legislation should be reviewed, and whether evidence to prosecute under other legislation is easier to support. The CPS action plan is not the silver bullet. We need a national action plan—an integrated cross-departmental plan—that is adequately funded to stop this despicable crime.
I am concerned that for many years there has been interdepartmental buck passing. When I say that the issue is not party political, I mean that sincerely. The reality is that the previous Government failed dreadfully in tackling the issue. They had 13 years in which to take the matter on, and since then the current Government have not done a lot. We must have a national action plan because the issue needs strong political will, not just warm words.
Given that this crime produces 20,000 victims every year, I suggest that the Minister’s Department has a single Minister with specific responsibility for providing justice to victims. As the NSPCC rightly states, female genital mutilation is a form of physical child abuse that should be dealt with through the child protection system. Reticence or failure to intervene effectively is not acceptable in other instances of child abuse, nor should it be in the case of FGM. We need a standardised FGM data collection policy. I wholeheartedly welcome last month’s landmark passing of the UN resolution calling for a global ban on FGM, and I hope that the UK will now act on the issue with focused priority.
Finally, I suggest that statutory teaching of sex education in primary school may assist in helping to eradicate this vile practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship. I earnestly congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on securing this debate on victims of the abhorrent crime of female genital mutilation. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on their important interventions. I congratulate particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on her tireless work over many years, and as chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation.
Female genital mutilation is an extremely painful and harmful practice that blights the lives of many young girls and women. The Government roundly condemn the practice and are determined to see it eradicated in this country and elsewhere. In my joint role as Minister with responsibility for victims and the courts and Minister for Women and Equalities, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of responding to this debate.
The practice of female genital mutilation is an age-old one that is deeply steeped in the culture and tradition of practising communities. Those who practise it no doubt genuinely believe that it is in their children’s best interests to conform to the prevailing custom of their community, but that does not excuse the gross violation of human rights. It is wholly unacceptable to allow a practice that can have such devastating consequences for the health of a young girl. The physical and psychological effects can last throughout her life. The mutilation and impairment of young girls and women have no place in a modern society where equality is prized.
My Department is responsible for the criminal law in this area. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 extended significantly the protection that the law affords these vulnerable young victims. It created extraterritorial offences to deter people from taking girls abroad for mutilation. To reflect the serious harm caused, it increased the maximum penalty for female genital mutilation from five to 14 years. Sadly, like the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 that it replaced, the 2003 Act has yet to result in a successful prosecution, which is a source of considerable frustration. That is not, as some have suggested, a reflection of the effectiveness of the law itself. The law is perfectly capable of dealing with perpetrators if offences are reported to the police, and evidential and public interest tests for prosecution are met. At the time of mutilation, however, victims may be too young, too vulnerable, or too afraid to report offences, and they may be reluctant to implicate family members. The simple fact is that no law can be effective in this area unless the barriers to prosecution are overcome.
Karl Turner
Before being elected to this place, I practised as a criminal lawyer, and I worked on behalf of defendants who were charged with serious sexual abuse of children. It is not often suggested that it is difficult to bring such cases to prosecution, and the same issues are involved. Will the Minister explain her point?
Mrs Grant
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s criminal law experience. The law is robust, extensive and adequate but, unfortunately, dealing with the issue often involves very young children who are frightened and reluctant to take action against family members. There is often pressure within their community not to give evidence and not to say anything.
Mrs Grant
I would disagree, but obviously, the adequacy of the law is something that we will always keep under review. I know that the Director of Public Prosecutions has had conversations with the Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials—I think the hon. Gentleman is aware of those—on the effectiveness of the law, and whether new laws or other legislation, such as the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012, might help in those areas. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter will be kept under review, but I will discuss a number of other things in my speech that can be done in the interim.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
Karl Turner Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Blunt
The right hon. Gentleman is right: cuts have to be made to the departmental budget that we inherited and the scheme was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt. That had to be addressed properly and in a hurry. Savings had to be made throughout the rest of the Department, so it was extremely difficult to include compensating expenditure in the scheme in order to rescue it.
The Government’s proposals will put the scheme in sensible order. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice has outlined—as did the new Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) during the two Statutory Instrument Committees—they will get rid of bands 1 to 5 and make sure that victims of sexual crime and the most serious crimes are protected.
We then looked at the whole context of what we ought to do about victims of crime. Frankly, I am proud to say that we pushed to examine how we could stretch the victim surcharge so that we could get offenders to contribute to victims’ services. Under the proposals made, not in the statutory instrument, but in parallel with it, at least an extra £50 million will be raised from criminals for victims. Surely it is a basic principle that offenders should fund victims’ services and, indeed, compensation, which is an issue to which the shadow Secretary of State alluded, and which I will come on to later.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman said during an exchange with my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State that more money is going to victims’ services, but is it not true that the powers and discretion will be devolved to police and crime commissioners, and that that money will not be ring-fenced?
Mr Blunt
Of course—that is what happens when we do not ring-fence. I would have thought that that was straightforward. It is about local accountability. The PCCs will get a much enhanced budget in order to provide services for victims of crime, and that is an extremely healthy place to be. That is only part of the story. In addition, we are raising £50 million from offenders for victims’ services.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). He worked hard when he was in the Ministry of Justice; I did not always agree with him, but I know that he was committed to his brief.
I received briefs from all sorts of organisations in preparation for this debate, one of which was the RMT. Its general secretary, Bob Crow, is a very good friend of mine, but I did not expect to be reading a brief from the RMT and imagining a situation in which Bob Crow agreed with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). It beggars belief because the right hon. Gentleman is not known for his left-wing tendencies.
It was disappointing—although not surprising—that on 1 November a motion on the Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 was passed by a narrow majority in the Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, despite many Tories having rejected those cuts some weeks before. Tories on the First Delegated Legislation Committee—which included, as I have said, the right hon. Member for Wokingham—accepted that taking compensation away from innocent victims was a line too far. Sadly, however, the Government simply rejected that advice which, as I said, came from across the political spectrum. They went away promising good things, but, in my respectful submission, that was only so they could beef up the Committee with loyalists and Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
On that point, Government Members who sat on the First Delegated Legislation Committee yet supported the Opposition have disappeared from the Chamber. Of those who sat on the Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee last week, the only ones on the Government’s side who are left are the Minister, the Whip and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott). Everyone else has flown the scene of the crime.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and do not think I need to comment further as he has made the point perfectly well.
The statutory instrument was brought back to Committee unchanged, but presented to a less vocal composition on the Government side. Without any shadow of doubt, that was simply to ensure that it went through under the radar. It is disappointing to think that the Minister, a family practitioner who has practised law and is bound to have come across victims of crime, would behave in such a terrible way. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is the very last resort for innocent victims of crime, and I understand that it helps between 30,000 and 40,000 victims every year who genuinely have no other recourse to compensation.
I will restrict my remarks to reiterating what the Government proposals will do. Terror victims, people injured in violent dog attacks and many hard-working shop workers will lose out on compensation that is intended to put their lives back to where they were before any injury or loss. Almost half the victims who apply for compensation for crimes in bands 1 to 5 will no longer be eligible for a compensatory award. Bands 1 to 5 include injuries such as permanent speech impairment, partial deafness that lasts more than 13 weeks, multiple broken ribs, post-traumatic epileptic fits, and burns and scarring causing minor facial disfigurement.
To be ready for the Government’s defence, I today spoke to a colleague in civil practice to check whether that is the position, and was told that it is—according to that solicitor, we are certainly not talking about the least serious injuries. Rates for bands 6 to 12 will be slashed by between £1,500 and £2,500, or 60%. Injuries in that category include significant facial scarring, permanent brain injury resulting in impaired balance and headaches, and serious injury to both eyes.
I also spoke today to Mr Andy Parish, a postman and constituent. He is concerned about postal workers who have been attacked by dogs, many of whom are scarred and disfigured for life. He told me that many have lost fingers in terrible, unprovoked attacks by dogs. I am very worried that those workers, who have been permanently injured while trying to make a living, will no longer be able to receive compensation.
Katy Clark
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on injuries suffered by postal workers who are attacked by dogs. In fact, the majority of victims of dog attacks are children. Does he therefore agree with communication workers that compulsory insurance for dog owners should be introduced, to ensure that compensation is available when people are attacked?
Karl Turner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point for me. She is absolutely right: dog attacks do not happen just to postal workers; children are often the victims. In fact, the impact assessment carried out as part of the consultation identified that the highest proportion of such victims were children. Many of the attacks are caused by irresponsible dog owners who do not have the financial means to pay any compensation whatever. I urge the Government to consider the calls to introduce compulsory third-party insurance, as my hon. Friend suggests.
Another problem is that people will have to pay £50 for their medical records, including physical and psychiatric records—any medical assessment that needs to be carried out to evidence their injury will need to be paid for. That will present financial and practical difficulties for many at the worst time, when they have experienced, for example, a terrible dog attack. They are not working, but will have to come up with that money.
I am dismayed that the Government have failed to listen not only to Opposition Members but to their Back Benchers. In my submission, these are heartless cuts to compensation for innocent victims of crime. The Government will not get away with it when it comes to the general election.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). We are both lawyers and have an interest in this area—I was a criminal defence practitioner. I also have form as a shadow Justice Minister, and was one of the Members who considered the last revision to the scheme back in 2008. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) accused me of peddling myths when I simply quoted the then Under-Secretary of State, who, when the scheme was last considered, said:
“The scheme does not make the state liable for injuries caused to people by the acts of others. It is a recognition of the public feeling of sympathy and solidarity with blameless victims of violent crime. Since 1964, the state has sought to provide a monetary award on behalf of the community that is not compensation for all of the injuries suffered, but a recognition of that solidarity, fellow feeling and sympathy.”—[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 14 July 2008; c. 13.]
I am sure that all hon. Members would want to express their solidarity with those who suffer injuries as victims of crime. It is one thing to express solidarity, but it is another to jump on a bandwagon on the backs of victims of crime.
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) accused the Government of degrading the victims of crime, and that is a very serious charge. I remember that during my years as a shadow Justice Minister I spoke to many families of homicide victims and the associations standing up for them who regaled me with accounts of how they had been let down by the criminal injuries compensation scheme, having to wait for months and months. They were already victims, and then they were victims all over again—victims of an inefficient scheme that left them without recourse for months and even years. They did feel degraded and yes, there is a need for reform.
What did the previous Government do? They consulted, as they did a lot in those days, publishing “Rebuilding Lives - supporting victims of crime” in 2005, which considered the issue of refocusing the scheme more on serious crimes. They decided not to do that. Instead, they decided to make the scheme more administratively efficient to address the fact that it was grossly oversubscribed and there was not enough money in the pot. As was typical of the previous Government, they ducked the issue. They ignored it and did not address it. As we know, the issue of administrative efficiencies continues, and it is not possible to deal with the money available in an efficient way.
Karl Turner
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be rewarded for his loyalty to the Government, but as a criminal defence solicitor would he not do better just to accept that this is about making cuts? That is the reality—cutting the budget of this very important compensation scheme—and he should admit it.
Mr Burrowes
I am a very patient man, but this issue has dragged on too long and people’s patience has been exhausted as they have waited for some compensation from the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The reality is that the scheme cannot be afforded. Last year, the authority was provided with additional funding and a total of £449 million was paid to victims, the largest amount in a single year. Despite the cash injection, total liabilities currently stand at some £532 million. This Government will not ignore the historic underfunding of the scheme. We will not hide behind administrative efficiencies. We are facing up to this difficult issue. We want to express solidarity, but we are not jumping on the bandwagon. We cannot simply have a sustainable scheme if it has to go cap in hand to the Treasury every year asking for a top-up. That does not do justice to the cause of victims. It must be sustainable and on a stable footing. We need a decent, open and transparent way to deal with compensation.
Policing
Karl Turner Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this important debate. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who speaks with conviction on behalf of his constituents and with great knowledge, as a fellow criminal lawyer.
This week we have had another non-announcement from the Prime Minister—“tough but intelligent” on crime. Surely it goes without saying that we need to be tough on crime, but I have not seen anything intelligent from this Government to support their claim. Does the Prime Minister think it is intelligent to take 16,000 bobbies off the beat while crime against the person has increased, despite crime falling more generally? In Humberside, domestic violence has rocketed in recent years. I wonder whether the Prime Minister thinks it intelligent to take 440 police officers away from Humberside when levels of domestic violence are very definitely increasing. Does he think it is intelligent to sell off parts of the police force to companies such as G4S, which so monumentally failed to deliver for the Olympics?
There is nothing intelligent coming from the Government in terms of police policy. They have been terribly incompetent. The alleged “I’ll have your job” comment from the former Chief Whip now seems somewhat ironic, given recent events. I wear with pride today my new cufflinks, “Plebs” and “Toffs”—[Interruption.] I am pleased to say that I consider myself to be a proud pleb, despite what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is shouting from a sedentary position.
Policing is a public service and should not be for sale. There is no place for shareholder profit-making in policing. Policing decisions should be based on reducing crime and must not be taken in the shadow of shareholder profit. The Policing Minister has been encouraging forces to consider the value of private sector partnering to save money, and the Government justify this drive because of reduced budgets, yet it is the Government who are reducing budgets to dangerous levels. G4S clearly did not cope in the summer. That smashes any false belief that the private sector is always more efficient and effective than the public sector.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
In the time remaining, I want to concentrate on police and crime commissioners. Despite my reservations about police and crime commissioners, I am reassured that Labour has chosen so strong a candidate as my predecessor, the right hon. Lord Prescott, who I know will definitely act as a final line of defence against privatisation.
Karl Turner
Not at the moment.
Lord Prescott is worried about the fundamental changes to policing and considers them to be extremely alarming. It is unacceptable to put private security officers in areas where police have responsibility. Lord Prescott was quite right to point out recently that private employees will not be accountable and will be responsible only to private employers.
In conclusion, there are serious concerns about creeping privatisation in the police service. The Peelian principles of policing with the consent of the community must be upheld. I am absolutely sure that Lord Prescott will not only do that, but raise awareness of the campaign in Humberside. I am convinced that he will be duly elected.
Legal Aid
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am pleased to have secured this very important debate on the effect of the reductions in legal aid on legal aid providers. I refer Members to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I was a practising lawyer before my election to this House. As a criminal lawyer, I relied on the public purse for much of my income.
The Lord Chancellor offered up 23% cuts without any fight and blindly conceded to the Treasury’s demands without looking at the real impact on justice and legal aid providers. The Government’s own impact assessment states:
“The lack of a robust evidence base means that we are unable to draw conclusions as to whether wider economic and social costs are likely to result from the programme of reform or to estimate their size.”
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As a fellow Hull MP, he will know the importance of citizens advice bureaux and community legal advice centres in providing legal help and advice and of the genuine concern out there that people will not have access to good-quality legal advice. I am sure that he shares the concerns of many people in Hull.
Karl Turner
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I understand it, 97% of funding to the—
Karl Turner
Some 97% of funding to Citizens Advice will go as a result of the Government’s plans, so my hon. Friend makes a valid point.
I am not just talking about the for-profit providers. The non-profit providers also provide important legal advice to people in our constituencies. I want to attempt to bust a myth that the Government are perpetuating. There seems to be the suggestion that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers earning fat cat salaries. In reality, publicly funded lawyers, whether solicitors or barristers, earn very modest incomes if funded by legal aid. The Lord Chancellor says that he does not want to hit women and children, but he does want to target fat cat lawyers. Why, then, is he making 53% cuts to social welfare legal aid?
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister. I worked for a number of years as a solicitor at a law centre. These cuts will affect some very poorly paid solicitors who work in law centres and who were previously doing work such as immigration before that was taken away. The profession will suffer because we will not be able to attract people and give them the expertise to do this kind of work.
Karl Turner
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and one that solicitors and barristers have raised with me in recent days. There is certainly concern about attracting people into training contracts and even attracting people to study law as a result of the Government’s plans.
As I understand it, £350 million will be removed from legal aid as a result of the Government’s plans. The vast majority of that will be in social welfare law. In an attempt to bust the myth that publicly funded lawyers are fat cat lawyers, I spoke to some legal aid providers in my area today. I spoke with Keith Lomax, the senior managing partner of Davies Gore Lomax, which is based in Leeds. He represents the most vulnerable clients on such issues as housing, debt, welfare benefits and education, particularly special educational needs, and he told me that the Government’s 10% reduction in fees across the board was difficult for his firm to cope with. I was staggered when he told me that his hourly charging rate was £48.24. He charges the Legal Services Commission £3.78 per letter—hardly fat cat lawyers rates. The people who work for him earn very modest incomes—between £18,000 and £24,000 a year for fully qualified solicitors, he tells me.
Tim Durkin, the managing partner of Myer Wolff solicitors in Hull, runs a long-standing firm reliant on legal aid. Mr Durkin estimates that the cuts to his business in relation to child contact and residence applications will amount to about £300,000 per year. He describes that as simply unsustainable.
Max Gold, from the Max Gold partnership in Hull, reports to me that he has not been in a position to pay himself or his solicitors and staff an increase in salary for some six years. He says
“the Government are not living in the real world to describe legally aided lawyers as fat cats”.
In his view, the Labour Government were far from profligate when it came to legal aid. He says that the previous Government were not particularly generous in relation to publicly funded lawyers. However, he says that the previous Government at least understood the requirement to offer legal advice in areas such as social welfare law. Indeed, he also mentions immigration, which is particularly important, given that the other place almost accepted an amendment—it was defeated by, I think, 19 votes—a couple of days ago.
In 2000, there were 10,000 legal providers. There are now 2,000—a reduction of 8,000 firms in the last 12 years. Many closed their doors in the last 12 months. The impact of the cuts on legal aid providers is clear for anybody to see. Many firms that provide help mainly in family and social welfare law will have to withdraw from the market. The Law Society says
“firms already operate on the margins of viability…specialist firms and advice agencies…providing social welfare law services…are likely to be wiped out with catastrophic consequences for people in need”
of legal help. The Law Society says that it
“does not see how many firms can continue to operate in this environment.”
The current changes could reduce firms offering family law by as much as 60%.
The Government’s impact assessment, which accompanies the Green Paper, estimated a 67% decrease in income for law firms in rural areas and a 59% decrease in urban areas. That is simply unsustainable. It will not be economically viable for those firms to continue offering services on such tight margins. The Legal Action Group believes that legal aid will cease to be viable as a nationwide public service, with an overall decrease in civil legal aid to 900 firms, down from 2,000. My concern is about the potential for advice deserts to emerge as a result of those reductions. The impact on access to justice is therefore clear. If no service is available, our constituents will be left to paddle their own canoe. Some 75,000 children and young people are set to lose legal aid. Some 6,000 children under the age of 18 and 69,000 vulnerable young adults aged 18 to 23 will lose access to legal aid in their own right as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
The Government claim that advice will be available elsewhere, from places such as the Free Representation Unit, jobcentres and Age UK. That claim has been disputed by the Advice Services Alliance. The Free Representation Unit represents clients in tribunals, but it does not cover the initial advice stages of, say, a welfare claim. The Child Poverty Action Group has stated:
“Unfortunately we do not have the resources to provide direct advice to people who are claiming benefits”.
Age UK has said:
“Our concern is that while it is true that both Age UK nationally and our partners in local Age UKs and Age Concerns do provide some help and advice with welfare benefits it is most often not at a level comparative to that provided through legal aid.”
The Government’s defence until now has been to talk about the telephone advice service. However, that is not the answer to advice deserts. Face-to-face legal advice is crucial. Fortunately, the Government suffered a defeat on this issue in the other place yesterday evening. I would respectfully urge the Government to take that on board. The Ministry of Justice predicts between only 4,000 and 10,000 additional mediation starts, despite withdrawing legal aid from 255,000 cases. It has simply not made a proper assessment.
The impact on for-profit and non-profit providers will be substantial, but it will be most keenly felt by those who rely on their services. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the proposals
“have the potential to disproportionately affect female clients, BAME clients”—
that is, black and minority ethnic clients—
“and ill or disabled people, when compared with the population as a whole”.
Despite that evidence and advice, the Government seem to want to plough on regardless. At a time when unemployment is rising and pressure is increasing on squeezed families, it is wrong for the Government to withdraw support for legal advice.
Opposing the legal aid cuts is not done due to narrow interest or to ensure that lawyers’ bank balances stay buoyant. It is about ensuring that people have not only these important rights but the means with which to exercise them. The Government must listen to the experts and base their cuts on the evidence. The Justice Select Committee, on which I serve, has said that the full cost implications of the Government’s proposals cannot be predicted. I therefore ask the Government to reconsider these cuts and not to take a gamble with justice.
Many eminent judges—not least Lord Hope, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Hale—have also voiced their concern, along with academics and professionals, telling the Government time and again that there will be an increase in court administration due to the increased number of litigants in person, but that advice has been completely ignored. The Lord Chief Justice has echoed those concerns.
The opposition to the cuts in social welfare legal aid is, for me, about protecting the vulnerable and allowing access to justice. Of course, we are living in a time of austerity, and this must also be about saving money to the taxpayer, but there are alternatives. The early intervention provided for debt, employment, education, housing and family law matters through a mixture of voluntary and private sector organisations offers value for money. I shall not bore the Minister with the statistics produced by Citizens Advice, but it has provided Members with a helpful report that shows, pound for pound, the advantages of providing early advice. Unfortunately, however, the Tory-led Government have ignored crucial advice from, among others, the Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council of England and Wales, and the Law Society.
The Lord Chief Justice has stated that the proposed reforms of public funding for civil cases will damage access to justice and lead to a huge increase in people fighting their legal battles alone. It is obvious to anyone that litigants in person will delay court time. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is in his place. He sits as a recorder in the Crown Court, and he must know from experience the advantage of having a solicitor advocate or a barrister representing a client in court, as opposed to someone representing themselves.
The chairman of the Bar Council, Michael Todd QC, has told me today that
“legal aid barristers, working across a broad range of practice areas, are public servants, overwhelmingly operating in the public interest. Over a number of years, many members of the Bar and the junior Bar in particular, have found it increasingly difficult to sustain a financially viable career on legal aid work, which poses a grave threat to access to justice. Successive fee cuts and now the threatened removal of whole areas of law from the scope of legal aid means that many vulnerable people will be denied effective access to the Courts. It also means that many highly skilled and publicly spirited Barristers will be forced to leave the profession with a particularly heavy impact on female and BAME practitioners. That cannot be in the public interest”.
The Lord Chancellor needs urgently to take on board the defeats that the Government have suffered in the other place, and to look again at the real impact of these legal aid cuts before overturning those amendments in this place.
Oral Answers to Questions
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
T3. The Lord Chancellor will know that the ALS interpreters’ contractor has been an unmitigated disaster, and I can provide specific examples of cases in my constituency. If it is about saving money, will he tell us how many hearings have had to be adjourned or postponed due to the fiasco?
Mr Blunt
There will be a full presentation of all the statistics and evidence relevant to the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that matters are in hand and that ALS’s performance is improving significantly. Particular problems remain with two nationality groups of interpreters, who are causing difficulties, but plans are in hand for them, too. [Interruption.] I do not wish to name them at the moment. The matter was in hand within two weeks of the system’s going live. There are weekly reports to me and daily management oversight from the Ministry of Justice. The matter is improving.
Oral Answers to Questions
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
13. What steps he plans to take to maintain public safety when implementing his plans for the future of the Probation Service.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
15. What recent steps he has taken to review the work of the Probation Service; and what his policy is on the reform of the service.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Public safety will always be of paramount importance when we are considering the way in which probation services are delivered. We are working on proposals to deliver more effective and efficient probation services, and will present them for consultation shortly.
Mr Clarke
I agree. We normally need people to co-operate quite closely to achieve successful outcomes if we are trying to reform offenders. Those who are trying to attract funds by achieving successful results in their programmes will, I hope, enter into collaborative arrangements with other providers. It must be a good thing that we are contemplating the possibility of bringing in more voluntary, charitable, private sector providers alongside the probation service and deciding where to channel most of our money on the basis of the success they achieve.
Karl Turner
I recently met Steve Hemming, chief executive of Humberside probation trust. He is due to retire in April after 30 years of long, loyal and patient service to the trust, but he is concerned that his patience might be about to run out. When will the Government publish their long-awaited probation review?
Mr Clarke
First, may I pay tribute to the retiring chief executive of the hon. Gentleman’s probation trust? There are many dedicated people in the probation service doing very valuable jobs on behalf of the public they serve. I am glad our consultation document is so eagerly awaited; we have been taking some time over it as we are trying to get it right, but we shall produce it soon.
Legal Aid (Women and Families)
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Sharma
I agree with every word that the hon. Lady has said. I am sure that the Minister will also take note of those points in his response.
Experts in the field cite two particular concerns. First, the definition of domestic violence currently used in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is inconsistent with the cross-Government definition of domestic violence, which guides statutory agency practice and governs access to Government services. Importantly, the definition used in the Bill fails explicitly to refer to financial abuse and sexual violence, which are particularly insidious forms of domestic violence. It is not clear why the Bill uses a different definition of domestic violence, unless the purpose is to restrict the number of cases that will be deemed eligible for legal aid. Under the current proposals, many who are already known to be victims of domestic violence by other departments will not obtain the legal support that they need.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way; he has been very generous. I wonder whether he would like briefly to address the fact that 23 special domestic violence courts are closing on the current Government’s watch. How will that affect women?
Mr Sharma
I think that I will come back to that. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. When I reach the last lines of my speech, he will hear about the impact of the various proposals on women.
Under the proposals, victims of domestic violence will be expected to provide “objective evidence” of that violence to qualify for legal aid. Experts unanimously agree that too many victims will remain ineligible for legal aid because the evidence that they will be required to present is dangerously restrictive. The evidence of domestic violence that the Government propose to accept relies on victims taking civil and criminal proceedings against perpetrators, yet we know that a large proportion of victims do not take those routes. To ensure that all women affected by domestic violence are protected, it is essential that the evidential criteria used reflect the experiences of women and the reality of domestic violence. That must include evidence from specialist domestic violence organisations, health services and social services. The Government have failed to think through their proposals adequately.
The notion that “We are all in it together” is not alien to the Labour party. Indeed, this may be the first time that a Conservative Prime Minister has adopted a socialist slogan as his mantra. However, these cuts are deliberately, unashamedly and, I argue, viciously targeted at those who most need help. I am looking at the time; I am sorry, but I have indicated that I need to rush. As I have said, the cuts are targeted at those who most need help and, in the case of domestic violence sufferers, there can be no defence.
I ask the Minister to think again, particularly on domestic violence. In its current form, the Bill will leave thousands of women who have experienced the trauma of domestic violence, trafficking for the purposes of sexual and other forms of exploitation and exploitation as a migrant domestic worker in a private household with a stark choice between representing themselves in legal proceedings or taking no legal action at all to protect themselves. It will also have a life-threatening impact on black and minority ethnic women, who, as a result of cultural, religious and other social pressures and racism, already struggle to access the legal system. The Bill will violate the rights and fundamental freedoms of all vulnerable women, but it will have an immensely disproportionate impact on black and minority ethnic women.
It is not too late to think again, but if the Minister does not make up his mind to do what I have asked, I pray that my colleagues in the other place will make his mind up for him.
Karl Turner
I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Will he address the point that I made in my earlier intervention? What effect does he think that the closure of 23 special domestic violence courts will have on women?
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Gentleman is avoiding the reality of the situation. In all except for fewer than five of those courts, the service is being transferred to other surrounding courts. I will write to him with the specific details because I do not have the numbers in front of me.
With that context in mind therefore, I will move on to the specific issue of the legal aid reforms. The £2 billion annual cost of legal aid, combined with the economic climate of the day, mean that hard choices must be made. It is essential that resources are focused on cases where legal aid is most needed—that is where people’s life or liberty are at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care.
As well as retaining legal aid for criminal cases, we are also keeping legal aid for mental health matters, asylum matters, debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at risk and legal aid for judicial reviews of public authorities. All of those are directly relevant to family welfare. That means that we are retaining legal aid to seek an injunction to prevent domestic violence and to oppose a child being taken into care. We are also retaining legal aid for private law family cases where domestic violence is a feature. We will also be keeping and extending legal aid for family mediation. The power to waive the financial eligibility limits in cases where someone is seeking an injunction against domestic violence also remains, so those who need help securing protection will be able to get it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Djanogly
I cannot do so off the top of my head, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman. There might be good reasons for such occurrences, such as someone entering a guilty plea, as well as bad reasons. The situation is complicated.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
11. What assessment his Department has made of the potential effects on women of planned changes to legal aid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government published an equality impact assessment alongside our response to consultation, which laid out the best assessment of the effects on women of planned changes to legal aid. That recognised the potential for the reforms to impact on a greater proportion of women, alongside others featuring protected characteristics.
Karl Turner
There have been reports in the media that the Deputy Prime Minister is to announce a consultation on the definition of domestic violence. Will the Minister explain how it accords with the narrow definition in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which will exclude many women from the legal support that they need and will, I believe, put a number of them at serious risk?
Mr Djanogly
As the hon. Gentleman says, there is to be a consultation on domestic violence, although I believe that it will be undertaken by the Home Office rather than the Deputy Prime Minister. We will look carefully at the results of the consultation, but the definition of abuse in the Bill is broad and comprehensive, and includes mental as well as physical abuse.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise to speak principally about new clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue).
Before I do so, I should like to comment on amendment 116. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) made a cogent case for deleting clause 12. The Minister rightly said in Committee that
“the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and the costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]
My hon. Friend underlined that that had been the experience in Scotland. It is therefore clear what the Government’s response should be. For the sake of clarity and succinctness, the Bill could appropriately lose clause 12.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to an amendment that would effectively get rid of the idea of means-testing in police stations. I agree that this is an issue of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. I am surprised, however, that when he sat on the Bill Committee he did absolutely nothing about it when he could have supported my amendment or that of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).
Tom Brake
I am not going to give way. The point has been raised, it is on the record. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) will speak about this in relation to amendment 148, and I am sure that he will echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield about the telephone gateway.
Mr Ward
Hang on.
Occasionally I try to abide by the coalition agreement, but this is not in there. There is in the coalition agreement something about the deficit reduction, and I am up for that—we do desperately need to reduce it—but I am not convinced that this will contribute to that. It is a very dangerous thing if we are going to use deficit reduction as a justification for almost anything that we might do. We have to question what we are doing.
Mr Ward
I need to bring my speech to an end. Others need to speak.
One thing that the coalition agreement does say is that we should have a fundamental review of legal aid. I am up for that. Absolutely. Where is it? Why on earth are we taking these measures? The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is due to undertake a debt management review, and there are a series of other reviews looking at advice centres and the work that they do. We should do that first.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a powerful speech on behalf of his constituents, and he is also speaking for many Opposition Members. Has he thought about crossing the Floor and joining us?
Mr Ward
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.
Karl Turner
I of course support new clause 17, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). However, I will restrict my remarks to amendment 116, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and those of many Lib Dem Members, for what it is worth. Clause 12 will effectively provide for means-testing in the police station. I have many concerns about that from my experience as a lawyer. I have practised criminal law as a solicitor for many years—indeed, my wife is a qualified criminal duty solicitor—and shortly before the general election I joined my local chambers as a pupil barrister. I therefore come to this debate with some experience as a criminal lawyer.
I want briefly to talk about the practical difficulties of means-testing people in a police station. Let us imagine the situation—it happened last weekend, in fact. My wife’s pager goes off. It is three o’clock in the morning. She spends the next six hours in Priory Road police station, representing a young man who is suspected of very serious criminal offences. She is not in a position to go through the paperwork or CDS—criminal defence service—application form to make a claim for legal aid in that situation. What the client wants to know is: “How long am I going to be here?”, “What are the consequences if I’m charged?”, “What will happen if I end up appearing before the magistrates court?” and, at the end of the day, “What will happen if I am convicted?” The question is not: “How much do you earn?” That is the last thing that the client will want to put their mind to. Indeed, the solicitor in attendance would not be acting in a proper way if they asked that question. I firmly believe that everybody should be entitled to free and independent legal advice while in a police station. It is a fundamental right in a democratic society, and to remove it would be a huge mistake.
I have spoken briefly about the practicalities, but it is also important to spend a moment thinking about what used to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the green form. Yesterday evening I spoke to a solicitor who has been around long enough to remember the days of the green form. He told me that he used to send his secretary, or anybody in the office who was available. Things have changed for the better. People need to be qualified; they have to attend courses. I remember doing them: I did not like it very much at the time, but I went along, I paid the money—or the people who employed me did—I did the homework, I passed the examinations and I carried on with my CPD, or continuing professional development.
I did that because when I am called to a police station as a solicitor, it is important that I know what consent means in relation to an allegation of rape. It is important that I can explain what defences might be available. It is important that I have enough knowledge and experience to be able to say to a client, “It’s in your best interests to speak to the police,” or, “In my professional opinion, it’s not in your best interests to speak to the police.” We must not think that everybody who attends at a police station is guilty of a terrible crime. In my experience the contrary is true. The vast majority of detainees in police stations are either not charged, released on bail pending further inquiries, or, if they are charged, acquitted. A minority of cases make their way to the courtroom and end in a conviction. Everybody is entitled to access to a solicitor. It is a fundamental right, which, in my opinion, this Government are putting at risk.
I should mention the situation before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Hon. Members have touched on it, but we had the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—great miscarriages of justice—and we learned from that. I think I am right in saying that the current Lord Chancellor was responsible for the 1984 Act, which was the right thing to introduce. Before PACE was introduced, people were making “confessions” that it later transpired were not proper confessions at all. It is important to remember that time. Miscarriages of justice cost the country an awful lot of money, but it is not just about money; it is about the effect on society when people can be convicted for something that they did not do and when they were nowhere near the scene. That seems appalling and very short-sighted.
Another concern for me is adverse inferences from silence. I have not looked at case law recently, but eminent barristers on both sides of the House will be familiar with it. The most recent case I am aware of is Murray v. UK. If my memory serves me correctly—I admit I have read only a summary of the court case—it says that a jury could not be invited to hold an inference against a person’s silence in the police station if that person was prevented from seeking legal advice in that police station. I believe that this is one of the unintended consequences that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) spoke about.
Let us imagine this scenario. A solicitor turns up at a police station to see a client and quickly establishes that the client has enough money to be able to pay for his own legal advice. Acting quite properly in the best interests of my client, I would say, “Keep your mouth shut.” I would tell the client to say absolutely nothing. I cannot afford to hang around because I am not getting paid and I am not sure that I will be paid even if the client makes an undertaking and assures me that the money will be brought to the firm of solicitors for which I work at some point in the future. I would probably be thinking, “I’m going. I’m not going to get any disclosure from the police, but in the best interests of my client I am going to tell him or her to keep their mouth firmly shut.” That provides an opportunity at some point in the future for that suspect effectively to make up their defence. It removes a valuable tool for the judiciary and the jury to decide whether they think an inference should be made from the client’s silence at the police station. This is a massive mistake.
This Government have not consulted on this proposal in clause 12. From a sedentary intervention I told the Minister earlier that it was probably written on the back of a fag packet. With respect, I think it probably was. There has been absolutely no consultation. I have spoken to many solicitors who have said that this proposal just came out of the blue. Nobody expected this. The Law Society was shocked. I have had meetings with the Bar Council and the Law Society, and they have told me that they did not expect this.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has much experience in this area. I declare an interest as a duty solicitor still on the books for doing my duty at police stations. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the practical application of a clause that I understand the Government have indicated they have no immediate plans to implement. Will he expand on the details about the interests of justice test? Does he agree that there is specific interest of justice in respect of the advice and assistance at the police station given to a detainee who has already lost his liberty? The issue of stating his case is different from what it would be in court, and he might need specific, independent advice.
Karl Turner
I would need more time to think about that, but I am tempted to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point. On the first point, however, am I supposed to believe the Minister when he says, “Well, we want this on the face of the Bill, but we are never going to use it.”? That is absolute, utter and complete nonsense. I asked my researcher to make inquiries with the Library and find out on how many occasions the previous Government—of whom I am entirely proud—may have used this provision as a tool. My researcher came back to me to say, “As far as the Library is concerned, there is no example whatever of a Government building provisions into an Act of Parliament that they never have any intention of using.” It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that that is the case.
Karl Turner
I will not give way, because many other Members are keen to speak in this important debate.
It worries me that the Government are ignoring expert advice on a proposal which, in my view, would remove a fundamental right from citizens, and that there has been no consultation whatsoever. The Bar Council and the Law Society have expressed honest concerns about the legislation, but the Government have completely ignored them, which is outrageous. Many members of the Bill Committee took that point on board, but in an article one of them, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), described the Bar Council as bewigged Scargillites. I assure the House that my colleagues at the Bar are far from being bewigged Scargillites.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
It is always a considerable pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). His speech was passionate, well informed and full of some good sense. I was unable to support a similar amendment of his in Committee, because on one rather important issue I disagree with him. I do not think it is wrong in principle for a millionaire who has been convicted of murder to be charged for the legal defence they received at the police station. However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that what is important is the point at which that charging happens.
Karl Turner
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, too. I mean that sincerely.
I recall attending a police station to represent a doctor who had an NHS practice as well as a private practice. If he had said to me, “Listen, I’ll pay you,” I would not have continued to advise him in what was a very important case. When a solicitor turns up at a police station in such circumstances, they cannot be sure they will be paid. Even if the doctor had given me an absolute, cast-iron assurance that I would get that money, the firm of solicitors that employed me would not have allowed me to stay there. That is why I disagreed with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) in Committee. He suggested that two hours should be free, and then there could be charging. I disagree; I think anybody in a police-station scenario should be entitled to free and independent legal advice.
Ben Gummer
At the risk of this turning into a mutual affection session, let me say that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and agree with the foundation of his argument, which is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was the most significant advance in criminal law in this country since the second world war and we must take into account the abuses that led to its introduction. On that basis, it is an important principle that there should be free and unmolested legal advice at the point of arrest for all people, no matter how much they are worth, so that no one need be worried about the quality of the advice they are getting.
We could, however, debate whether it is appropriate to have retrospective charging for people of means who have subsequently been convicted.
Ben Gummer
This is not filibustering. I will explain why. [Interruption.] I got the impression that a promethean career had been cut short by the principles of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but at no point—
Karl Turner
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you offer some guidance? When time is short and we are keen to debate the important issues in the Bill, is it right for hon. Members to go off the point so widely?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am allowing a little latitude, and I mean a little. I am sure Mr Gummer will wish to get his remarks straight back on to the business before us.
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)
I too should declare an interest, in that I have practised at the criminal Bar since 1990.
I congratulate the Minister on at least having the decency to bring in clause 12 through primary legislation, unlike the previous Government, who sought to bring in such a measure through secondary legislation until they were prevented from doing so by the High Court. I am afraid, however, that that is the limit of my congratulations, because—
Karl Turner
I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The Lord Chancellor has confirmed that the previous Government had no plans to bring in the legislation that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
Simon Reevell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I will send him a copy of the case.
The clause reveals a lack of understanding of the criminal justice system, and especially of the importance of the timing and purpose of police interviews. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has spoken—perhaps until just recently—with passion about police interviews from a defence perspective, and what he said was right. Just in case the Minister is not swayed by the defence, however, I would ask him also to pause and consider this matter from the perspective of the prosecution.
Police interviews always take place at a time chosen by the prosecuting authorities, and the time is chosen because it is advantageous to them. In complex cases, perhaps involving drugs or organised violence, the police may arrange for simultaneous arrests, not least so that they can try to put the account of one arrested person against that of another, and try to break up those whom they believe to be part of a complicated conspiracy. The timing of the arrest might also be brought forward for the purpose of arranging the interview, in order to prevent a crime, or to protect a witness or a police source.
All that will fail if the arrest has taken place and the person has been brought to the police station for interview, yet nothing happens while their means are picked over and the interviewing officer drinks tea. Evidence could be lost, co-accused could flee, and witnesses could be harmed. All that will take place in the period allowed for detention, which is slowly being eaten away. The accused will not have details of his means on him. Surely we are not seriously suggesting that armed police who are looking for drugs, blood-stained clothing or weapons will be asked to look for three years’ accounts or 12 months’ pay slips.
There is a serious point to that. The rapist whom I prosecuted in the summer, who is now serving a seven-year prison sentence, was interviewed at a time that the police chose because it was appropriate for the purposes of their investigation. If they had had to wait while his means were established in order for his legal representation to be provided, it would not have been helpful to their inquiry—it would not have been what they wanted to do, and I am sure it would not have been what the victim of that offence would have wanted them to do.
Karl Turner
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) referred in his remarks to claims that the previous Government planned to legislate for means-testing in police stations. The Lord Chancellor wrote to my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State on 2 August. Will the Government confirm that he wrote to apologise and that the letter will appear in the Library?
Mr Burrowes
As we look forward to Christmas and see today the Third Reading of a criminal justice Bill, I am reminded of previous Government Bills that ended up as Christmas tree Bills with baubles being hung on them at any given opportunity as they went through Parliament. I am sure that as this Bill goes to the other place, Ministers will want to ensure that further baubles are not hung on it in the form of extra pieces of law that take the fancy of noble Lords, as well as any little elves.
I am particularly grateful for two important baubles in clauses 113 and 114—the significant victory for victims of crime concerning knife crime and serious injury by dangerous driving. One could look at the bottom of those provisions and see “Made in Enfield” on them. Six years ago, the Galli-Atkinson family in my constituency came to me after the sad loss of their daughter, who was the victim of a road crash in 1997. They told me about the impact on them of losing their loved one through the actions of a dangerous driver. They had campaigned vigorously for changes in dangerous driving legislation and increases in penalties, but when they came to me there was unfinished business with a gap in legislation. That led to my tabling an amendment in 2006 to try to plug that gap by ensuring that there is a specific offence of serious injury by dangerous driving, and that is now in the Bill.
I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that we now have a maximum sentence of five years for such offences. That deals with issues such as the very recent incident involving Rachel Jones, who is aged 13. She was crossing a road when she was hit by a car driven dangerously at 98 mph by Carl Smith, who was unlicensed and drunk—an all too familiar story, sadly, across this country. Rachel was left with severe brain damage, and she will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. She has no movement in the right side of her body. Her mum, Sheri Ozdemir, described Smith’s two-year jail sentence as “a joke”. Thanks to the Bill, there need be no more jokes like that; such offences will be taken seriously and will attract a five-year sentence.
Clause 114 deals with knife crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for championing this issue locally and nationally, and raising awareness in Enfield and elsewhere of the prevalence of knife crime—
Mr Burrowes
I was talking about knife crime, but I also pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on injury caused by dangerous driving. He made his case very well in Committee, and I recognise my omission.
Knife crime is a real issue; I have seen many cases going through the youth courts. Sadly, there seems to have been a blind spot when it comes to sentencing, however. There has not been uniform enforcement of the law in this area, and there is a need to plug that gap. Under clause 114, anyone carrying a knife who is threatening and endangering life is likely to go to prison. If they are 16 or over, they will have to go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Yes, we must pay due regard to the circumstances of young people, but the intention of the clause is that a custody threshold will have been reached. That has been welcomed in Enfield and across the country.
The Bill is good news for the victims of knife crime and of dangerous driving. The duties in the Bill relating to compensation are now going to be systemic, and that is important to the victims of crime. Prisoners will need to consider their victims as they serve their sentences; when they earn money, it will go into a victims’ fund. We will also at last see an open door to businesses, ensuring that prisons will work. The prisons Minister joined me in celebrating the 2,000th graduate from the National Grid young offender programme. Those people are now getting into real work and getting out of crime. Their reoffending rate is a very low percentage, compared with the national average. The Bill opens up the way for projects such as those, and many more. On prisons, we want to say that we are not locking out the community; we are open for business.
This is a reforming Bill; it does not simply seek to introduce more legislation without due regard. As we look to the new year, I want there to be a resolution that we shall not be coming back to the House next year with another piece of criminal justice legislation. I commend the sentencing part of the Bill to the House.
Education and Training (Young People with Autism)
Karl Turner Excerpts(14 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the main business of the day—the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—we have a point of order.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I have some guidance on whether it is appropriate for the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), to speak for the Government on this part of the Bill, given the media interest from The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian in his business interests in the insurance industry? I know that the Government have had a problem with this because they took part of his responsibilities from him on 17 October.
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it is for Members to take responsibility for their own interests and, as necessary, if they think it appropriate, seek advice from the Registrar, and there is of course an obligation upon Ministers, of which the Minister will be well aware, to comply with the ministerial code, but beyond that no special comment needs to be made on the matter. It is perfectly proper for the Government to decide which Minister should take the proceedings on the Floor of the House.