Defamation Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will go into details about the motion that he tabled, but as we have made clear, we think it is helpful that there will be a direct link between serious harm and serious financial loss. That will make the situation absolutely clear to those wishing to bring an action.

The second reason why Lords amendment 2B is preferable to the earlier Lords amendment 2 is that the term that we have used to define those who will be subject to the requirement—

“a body that trades for profit”—

is a much clearer and simpler definition. Those are the bodies about which people have expressed concern, so we have phrased the amendment specifically and directly to meet those concerns.

I believe that the Lords amendment represents an effective and proportionate approach that addresses the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere. I urge the House to support it.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Thanks to a lot of hard work—especially in the other place, it has to be said—the Bill is now in a much better place. It is still far from perfect, sadly, which is a huge shame. It could have been perfect and a marvel to behold, but sadly the to-do list in the Bill includes early strike-out, website operator regulations and clarification for booksellers of the innocent dissemination rules, about which they were concerned. It also includes costs, which are a strange case, because we are really no further forward on them.

Indeed, we are left in a wholly unsatisfactory place. The last-minute announcement of a consultation on costs over the summer shows how sloppily this Government have treated parts of the Defamation Bill. The mess in respect of defamation, Leveson and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means in future people in a similar position to the Dowlers, Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst who will fight defamation cases will probably be in a worse position on costs than they would have been had the Government not got their hands on this legislation. Despite the promises that were made during the passage of the LASPO Act, costs is a major issue, and it should have been dealt with properly before this Bill returned to the Chamber.

The Minister commented on extending the Derbyshire principle to private companies. It is estimated that, following this Government’s privatisation agenda, in the NHS alone private companies will take over £16 billion- worth of Government contracts to provide services previously carried out by the public sector. Those services will go to private companies that use the law to chill debate in a way that the NHS cannot. Atos frequently suppresses disquiet, and Baroness Hayter cited Serco in the other place yesterday.

I hope the judiciary is listening to this debate and has listened to some of the other debates, because as Ministers both in this House and the other place have repeatedly said, the courts should further develop the Derbyshire principle in line with the will of Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position, however, and this is on the to-do list of things that would have improved the Bill dramatically, but I hope the courts will now extend Derbyshire to contracts between the private sector and the Government or local authorities, because that is in line with the will of this House. [Interruption.] The Minister has commented on that, as I have said.

It is thanks to Opposition Members that the Bill has been improved. No matter what is claimed on the Liberal Democrat Voice website, not once have the Lib Dems backed us against the Government. Indeed, yesterday in the other place in the vote on the Derbyshire aspect of what was amendment 2—[Interruption.] The Minister keeps chuntering about Derbyshire, but the issue here is clearly that the will of this House has been expressed on many occasions, but thanks to the Liberal Democrats supporting the Government, we are not able to take that forward. It is important to put that on the record. No matter what they say, it is all talk and no action from the Liberal Democrats.

This is now a better Bill, but it is not the best it could be, and we will need to return to it after Labour is re-elected to government in 2015—or sooner, I hope. It is the best we can expect at present, however, and that is a shame. I am disappointed—and also surprised, although perhaps I should not be—that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has introduced his proposal. We will hear his observations on this matter in a few moments. We will decide whether what is before us is the best we can get today after we have heard the Minister’s final comments.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I must disappoint the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) because I do not think my motion has been selected. None the less, I am not prevented from—and nor shall I be inhibited from—saying a few things about where we are now.

There are plenty of aspects of the Defamation Bill—which has been chuntering away in the background in this House and the other place for a few years now—that are commendable, and other aspects that are utterly harmless; they will not do any good, but neither will they do any harm. I am disappointed as well, however—although I suppose that might partly be to do with my having been first elected to this House 21 years ago and having been here too long—that the coalition Government have allowed themselves to create the law of England through a series of backdoor deals, rather than through any rational and coherent thought.

I think the hon. Gentleman largely agrees with me about where we are now with this Bill, as, I suspect, does my hon. Friend the Minister, but she is in a difficult place and I sympathise with her about that. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Justice is not here to defend where we are now and to speak up for the Bill for which he has responsibility on behalf of the Government.

Last week my hon. Friend and I were in agreement; this week we are not. Last week the Government whipped coalition Members to support what I and my hon. Friend were advocating—that it is not in the public interest to have a financial damage hurdle for companies to overcome that want to bring proceedings in libel. This week, the Government have changed their mind—or have had their mind changed for them. I am all for people changing their mind if the circumstances or evidence supports that. What I find intolerable—and what I think amounts to a form of incoherence and political feebleness, and which is little short of intellectual dishonesty—is for a Government to march their troops up the hill one week and then to rush down the hill the next week saying, “We didn’t really mean it last week,” or “We had not really thought about it,” or “We are doing this for no other reason than that we are under political pressure from A, B or C, and we have decided to ask our Government troops to do something else.”

--- Later in debate ---

The clause as amended—if the Government have their way—will not achieve its aims because usually the more damaging a libel, the more likely a corporation is to try to silence its critics. There are remarkably few cases of the kind that are cited as examples of bullying, which keep being repeated and repeated—Wilmshurst and GE Healthcare are two cases that are cited. I know from my experience and listening to others who know a little bit about this area of law, that the number of cases involving corporate plaintiffs is remarkably few.

[Robert Flello]

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not accept, however, that what we hear time and time again is that cases do not get to court because of the bullying by corporations at an early stage? People give in straight away or, more often—as in the Serco case, which I think Baroness Hayter raised yesterday in the other place—newspapers face the difficult decision of whether to pursue something that might end up being challenged, even if they are citing the truth.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman no doubt makes a correct factual point, but I think he exaggerates it. The number of cases involving corporate claimants is small and the damages they recover, absent special damages, is low. Damages to trading reputation alone probably attract £20,000 at the top end and usually no more than £10,000, so we are not talking about hugely extravagant damages claims.

Allegations of bullying can be made against anybody who has more money than the person they are suing. Jimmy Goldsmith, now long dead, sued about 100 distributors—I was involved in the case in a junior capacity—such as WH Smith, Menzies and so forth. He issued proceedings in his dispute with Private Eye. It was suggested by those defendants that he was doing it to shut them down—to prevent them from distributing a newspaper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Around 7% of the youth offending team’s budget has been transferred to police and crime commissioners as part of the community safety grant. As there is no increase in the PCC budget, that money has effectively disappeared. With budget cuts totalling 16% and cuts to local authorities and police, how are youth offending teams to prevent young people from entering the criminal justice system, when sleight of hand deprives them of funding of hundreds of thousands of pounds?

[Jeremy Wright]

Well, there is no sleight of hand here, and it is right to point out that police and crime commissioners can increase the precept if they think it appropriate to do so and bring more money into their budgets, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is about the importance of prevention. We should recognise that youth offending teams are already doing good work in that regard and having considerable success, bringing down the number of people who come into the criminal justice system in the first place. We hope that that progress will continue, but prevention is a key part of what youth offending teams do and it will continue to be so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would also add that the special procedure measures that are now available in the form of pre-trial familiarisation visits, support from the witness service, separate entrances, exits and waiting areas, and access to a live link can help to reduce the stress and anxiety of going to court. We are considering what more we can do to improve support, including using new technology to change how evidence is given.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

The Minister said in her recent interview with The Times that she believes that the new Victims Commissioner

“feels a wonderful opportunity…to see victims put at the heart of the justice system”.

Is that why the Victims Commissioner will do only 10 days a month and why, two months after the announcement, she still has not started? Is the Minister not guilty yet again of failing victims of crime?

[Mrs Grant]

The Victims Commissioner is a very able woman who is able to multitask, like many of us. We have had a number of meetings with her and she, like me, wants to put victims and vulnerable witnesses at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong. We are prioritising victims of serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and the most vulnerable victims so that they get the support and care they need.

Trusts (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords]

Robert Flello Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I do not wish to add a great deal to what the Minister has said. The Bill started its life under the previous Labour Government, which in itself means that it must be well founded. It is of course a Law Commission Bill and has therefore been subject to special procedures. Indeed, when it was considered in the other place and in Committee in this House, it was not amended. There are no amendments today and I have heard no adverse comments from any source outside these Houses.

I merely repeat what I said to the Minister in Committee: if the Bill is found in practice to have any unintended consequences, to cause any problems or to do anything other than follow the processes we wish it to use, I urge her and the Government not to tarry in any way in bringing it back to the House to give us the opportunity to correct it at the earliest opportunity. I wish to add nothing further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We are aware of that serious incident and I assure the hon. Gentleman that a full review of security has taken place at Liverpool Crown court. An action plan for improvement has been put together and good progress is being made. Training in search procedures for all G4S staff was provided last summer and its effectiveness is being monitored. Security arrangements are now operating to a required standard, but remain under careful review.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Security in courtrooms is one of the issues of great concern to victims and witnesses. The announcement of the new part-time victims commissioner is imminent—they will do just 10 hours a month—but does the Minister think that the new part-time commissioner will have time to consider security in courtrooms as part of this Government’s approach to partly putting victims at part of the heart of the justice system?

[Mrs Grant]

Victims will certainly be part of the heart of the justice system. An announcement will be made imminently to confirm the name of the new victims commissioner and I look forward to working with her very closely indeed. [Hon. Members: “Her?”] A lot of work is being done to improve security and safety in courts in addition to what I and the victims commissioner will do. Work has been done to improve security, including improvements to buildings, improved ways of working and improved education and training. The provision for the presence of a court security officer and enhanced risk management have also been helpful additions. We will continue to make sure that security is a priority.

Prisons (Property) Bill

Robert Flello Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on introducing the Bill, which addresses a serious issue. I do not wish to repeat the valid and sound points he raised on prisoners misusing equipment, terrorising people, and furthering their criminal activities. I, too, wish the Bill a speedy enactment, and look forward to the benefits it will bring when it is enacted and begins to address the huge problem the hon. Gentleman has described.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Flello Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

We talked to them as a matter of routine. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Having butchered the criminal injuries compensation scheme by £50 million, starving blameless victims of financial redress, will the Minister tell us when we will see the details of the hastily cobbled-together hardship fund? Will she also tell us whether the fund will be topped up when those in hardship exceed the mere 700 or so whom the scheme is likely to cover, instead of the 30,000 who will lose out as a result of these changes?

[Mrs Grant]

I am not going to take any lessons from a party that put this country in the most awful financial difficulties—[Interruption.] Absolutely not. The current system is not sustainable or sensible, and it needs to be simplified. As I have already said, the new victim surcharge will raise up to £50 million for victims services.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Throughout the debate, we have heard a catalogue of problems and failures in respect of the scheme, as well as some cases of terrible suffering. We have heard the Minister state how important victims are to the new Justice Ministers, and we have heard about a back-of-the-envelope hardship fund that will help perhaps 1,000 innocent victims, instead of the tens of thousands of blameless victims who are being denied financial support by the cuts these same Justice Ministers are forcing through.

Very few Conservative and no Liberal Democrat Back Benchers have spoken in defence of these cuts. The architect of the scheme, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), told us that the real reason for what is happening is to make cuts, rather than to help to support victims or provide more resources. He has told us the truth today. We also heard from a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and a single, solitary Tory Back Bencher. Conversely, from the Labour Benches we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).

We have heard plenty of contributions about the real impact of these cuts, so let me explain simply to the House what Justice Ministers are proposing. Let us suppose a thug mugs the little old lady who lives on our street. If the thug breaks her finger, her jaw or her ribs, or puts out a cigarette on her, or if she suffers impairment to her speech from the callous battering the thug metes out—or if she endures all of those—under this scheme she will be entitled to zero criminal injuries compensation. Is that really what Government Members came into politics to do?

What happens to the have-a-go hero Dad who races out of his home to protect his son from being beaten up—or worse—by the local louts but instead finds himself on the receiving end? He may be stabbed in the ensuing scuffle and be rushed to hospital, where dedicated NHS staff save his life. When he applies for financial compensation to cover the lost wages while he has been off work, he will find that, because he has been made redundant a few times during the past three years and has had a few weeks out of work while seeking a new job, he will receive no compensation for loss of earnings from the scheme. Is that what Government Members came into this House to do?

I recall the Justice Secretary talking about the young soldier beaten up by hoodlums. What happens to serving soldier Mr Kent who suffered a fractured jaw with a single punch from a yob after a disturbance last year in York and required repeated hospital surgery? Under the Justice Secretary’s new scheme, Mr Kent would be entitled to zero financial recompense following the mindless attack he suffered—so much for the Justice Secretary’s concerns about our soldiers. Surely Government Members must be starting to realise that what Justice Ministers are doing is wrong.

What happens to the young child savaged by a neighbour’s dog? Children under the age of 10 are more likely than any other age group to suffer severe injuries after being attacked and to require plastic surgery. What happens to six-year-old Rebecca who was mauled by a dog while playing near her home in Byker, Newcastle? She was left terrified and pouring with blood. She was rushed to hospital and had surgery for wounds around her eyes, nose, cheek and mouth. Under the new scheme, irrespective of the seriousness of the injuries—even if the victim dies—there is no financial help from the scheme for victims of dog attacks, unless the dog was used deliberately. Perhaps that is what Conservative and Lib Dem Members came into politics to do.

A judge from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal has commented on the proposals, using phrases such as:

“potentially brutal and will lead to gross injustices.”

Another phrase used was:

“I confidently predict”—

that they will—

“lead to a substantial increase in challenges to decisions and gross unfairness.”

The judge has also called the proposals “astonishingly vague” and said:

“If the government believes it is saving money...it is gravely mistaken.”

Finally, the judge said that the proposals were

“perverse and grossly unfair to victims of crimes of violence.”

That is what an expert has said about the proposed new scheme.

Between the end of the year and the 2015 election, on average, in each constituency, more than 100 seriously injured victims of crime will see their criminal injuries compensation abolished or severely cut if the Government’s proposals are passed. Every MP meets, and is sympathetic to, victims of crime who have suffered. Do Government Members really want to have to explain to more than 100 seriously injured constituents and their families why their desperately needed compensation payment was targeted, as we have heard, by the Government for cuts?

Let me spend a moment dispelling any myths that might have been fostered in the minds of Government Members. We have heard that the scheme is unsustainable and unaffordable—that is untrue. The tariff scheme is sustainable and stable at current budget. The high cost in 2011-12 was for 78 victims from the pre-1996 scheme—so their cases really have to penalise 90% of future victims? The pre-tariff liabilities have been reduced to 35 cases as at 30 Sept 2012, with estimated liabilities under £100 million, and will soon be cleared. Tariff bands 1 to 5 are supposedly there to deal with minor injuries that do not need compensation—that is not the case. They are there for injuries that have a disabling effect for at least six weeks and are therefore not minor. We have heard that money will be focused on the most seriously injured—that is not the case. No victim of crime will receive a penny more from the new scheme. Many of those most seriously injured will lose out the most, because of drastic cuts to compensation for loss of earnings, the exclusion of dog attack victims and the tighter conditions on reporting and co-operating.

We have heard that £50 million will be provided by offenders for victims, but there is no link between offenders contributing more and this scheme. Government Members need to appreciate on what we will vote this evening. Will they vote to defend the defenceless—those blameless victims injured through no fault of their own —or will they vote to wipe out payments on tariffs 1 to 5, to cut loss of earnings payments and to punish children who are subjected to horrific dog attacks?

[Mr Blunt]

The shadow Minister must come back to basics. If he does not support the statutory instrument and wants the full expenditure to continue—I assume that he also wants all the other victims’ money that we are having to find—he will have to suggest what else will go. Otherwise, he will have to do the same as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who was honest enough to say that taxes will have to go up.

[Robert Flello]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain why 90% of future victims will have to lose their compensation because of the 35 pre-1996 cases. Is he suggesting—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) wants me to answer, he should give me a chance to do so rather than heckling from a sedentary position.

The hon. Member for Reigate was the architect of this appalling scheme. He has confessed to the House today that it is about cuts and nothing else. We heard from him about the financial situation, and he asked where the money will come from. It is quite simple. We will work alongside the Government to look at ways to address this—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish? To put it quite simply, saying to some of the most innocent, blameless and hard-up members of our communities that they must dig into their pockets to pay for this is outrageous. We have heard the hon. Gentleman’s view, so let me return to what Government Members must do.

Before they vote this evening, Government Members must think carefully about whether, in good conscience, they can oppose the motion. If Members, like those on the original Committee, feel that victims of violent crime deserve better and that cutting payments to the vulnerable, injured and incapacitated is wholly unacceptable, they should be brave enough to vote with their conscience. This is a shameful scheme, hellbent on adding financial insult to injury.

We are talking not about figures and statistics but about real people who will be significantly affected by today’s decision—people in our constituencies who are seriously injured and look to us to help them through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We heard from colleagues on the Opposition Benches that compensation for loss of earnings will be reduced from a maximum of £750 a week to just £85 a week. We heard about Frankie, who was stabbed and robbed, and about the counselling that was needed. We heard about the financial stability of the scheme. We heard about Andy Parish, a postman, and the issue of dog attacks, and we heard that victims of crime will have to find £50 of their own money to obtain medical records. Somebody who has been attacked and been out of work as a result will now have to find £50 even to start the process—incredible. The few Government Members who took part—only one of whom is not part of the payroll or had not formerly been part of the payroll—kept muddling some of the issues.

We heard Members ask where the detail of the hardship fund was. That is a good question. Where is the detail? As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said, it all fits into the Tory template: exaggerate costs, mix the issues, use some standard language about floors and targeting and then set up a hardship fund.

In the words of Lord Dilhorne, “Sympathy is not enough.” We will work with the Government, but I urge Members from all parties to reject this appalling scheme and vote for the motion this evening. In doing so, they will send a message to Justice Ministers that paying off the deficits from the pockets of the poorest, most vulnerable and most blameless is not acceptable and not what right hon. and hon. Members came into Parliament to do.

Policing

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

The Home Secretary said that she delayed the elections not because of the political fix with the Liberal Democrats, but because more time was needed to plan the elections, yet the order for the elections was only laid on 15 October and has not yet been passed by the House, returning officers are having to print two sets of ballot papers, and we as taxpayers are picking up a bill of £350,000. It is a shambles.

If £350,000 were the only cost, we should be worried but not overly concerned, but the cost of these elections is £100 million. Cancelling the May elections and putting them on 15 November instead has cost an extra £25 million.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Ministry of Justice is having to spend more resources and put more staff on its team looking at support for victims, what will be passed down to PCCs and what will not, and what the budget will be. That work has only just started. What a ridiculous waste of money that is, too.

[Mr Hanson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which shows what a shambles this is—a shambles that is costing money and that could have been avoided by choosing a different election date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Let me begin by congratulating the men and women of West Midlands police on the great achievements that they have made despite very tough economic circumstances.

I think that the problem with the cuts argument is that neither the public nor the police believe the Government on the issue. The constant denial about numbers in the face of people’s own evidence means that the Government cannot be believed. Earlier today, we saw the Minister dance on the head of a pin when discussing the percentage scale of the cuts. People know fine well that he is wriggling.

I believe that, in fact, the public are with us on the issue. They think that the Government are going too far and too fast. They are going too far in opting for 20% cuts when the safe level, which we would have supported, was 12%, and they are going too fast in front-loading the cuts, which means that the potential for efficiency gains over a number of years has been wiped out. That has been compounded by the application of the formula under which Surrey, which has the lowest crime levels in the country, suffers a third of the cuts that we suffer in the west midlands. The position is made even worse by a funding approach which means that the funds for the West Midlands force are capped at £25 million a year below the amount provided for by the Government’s own formula, while Surrey receives £6 million a year more than the formula suggests that it needs. The previous police Minister promised to review that, with the hope of actually bringing about some change. I hope that the current Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice will take on that challenge and try to bring a bit of fairness into the application of the formula.

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will respect democratically elected police and crime commissioners, because in the west midlands not a single candidate who responded to the Police Federation questionnaire—in fairness, the ones who responded are the ones most likely to win—said that they would support the Government’s present privatisation agenda. Bob Jones, the Labour candidate, has made it absolutely clear that he will not support the present business partnering arrangements that West Midlands police have been looking at and that he will not give any juicy contracts to G4S.

What has gone wrong is that the Government have failed to recognise things on two fronts. First, they are sapping the morale of ordinary police officers. Let us forget about what the Police Federation is saying: ordinary rank-and-file officers are stopping me in the supermarket and at meetings—indeed, anywhere in the constituency—to tell me how fed up they are and how much they think the Government are against them. The Government are sapping morale with a constant-change agenda that looks as if they are against the police. Simultaneously, the Government are talking up the rights of what are rapidly becoming private monopolies. Companies such as G4S, Capita and Cerco are running around gobbling up public sector contracts and smaller businesses. Those companies are becoming too big. They are unregulated private monopolies. The combination of that and the constant attacks on the police is sapping police morale. I say this to the Minister: the figures might look good now, but we cannot go on like this.

I was also a bit surprised to hear the Minister trumpeting the demise of antisocial behaviour orders. He has been successful—in the west midlands there has been a 90% reduction in the first six months of this year, compared with 2010—but there is nothing being put in their place. Things are getting worse. Let us look at what the public are saying. Thousands of people responded to my survey in Selly Oak. Antisocial behaviour is their concern. They want the police and the courts to have the powers to tackle it. What the Minister has succeeded in doing is creating a vacuum.

[Robert Flello]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am enjoying his speech immensely. Yesterday Birmingham announced that it is looking at a huge number of cuts, in many ways mimicking Stoke-on-Trent and the huge cuts to our local authority. Does he agree that as local authorities lose their resources, there is a knock-on effect on the work that the police are able to do in tackling antisocial behaviour and other issues?

[Steve McCabe]

That is absolutely true. The danger is that partnerships are being weakened rather than strengthened.

I would like to finish on a slightly more generous note to the Minister. I am pleased to see that the Government have moved somewhat on the question of police and crime commissioners. It is right to broaden the brief so that we think more about victims and the delivery of justice, rather than the narrow management and control of the police, which was more prevalent during the passage of the legislation. As police and crime commissioners develop that work, I hope that they will not be constrained by unnecessary direction from the centre or the imposition of financial controls that make it impossible to do the work, because in that respect the Minister is on to something that the public probably support.

Criminal Justice System

Robert Flello Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your watchful gaze, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on securing this crucial debate and on the support he has had from colleagues.

How society looks to and supports the victims of crime is most important. We had a proud record in government of helping and supporting victims, not least with a 43% cut in crime, but we recognise that there was and is much more to be done. That is why, among other things, we propose bringing forward a victims’ law at the earliest opportunity—hopefully, before not too long.

In welcoming the Minister, I must say, as I said some weeks ago, that we have high hopes that she and her colleagues will do far better than their predecessors in the two and a half sadly wasted years to date. Despite the little waver when she responded to an Adjournment debate on the criminal injuries compensation scheme before the issue went to the delegated legislation Committee, she rightly and properly pulled the statutory instrument on the scheme when it came to Committee, to ensure that it was not fully considered and an injustice was not continued. Her recollection of that fateful afternoon and evening will no doubt be such that she would not want a repeat of the clearly expressed unease from the Government Benches and across the Committee.

Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Government will not rush through both Houses a new proposal that has been only cosmetically changed? I urge her to assure Members that the criminal injuries compensation scheme will be properly considered on the Floor of both Houses. Will she also assure Members that proposals will not be brought forward unless a proper review and reworking of the scheme has taken place to address all the concerns raised by Members on both sides of the delegated legislation Committee and by various outside organisations?

It is important to stress that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is the last resort. It is important to the most vulnerable and innocent victims in society. We are talking about modest sums, but they are very valuable, particularly to those on low pay.

A number of Members mentioned dog attacks. It is horrendous when anybody is attacked, as a lot of postal workers are, but we must remember that all too often the victims of such attacks are children. Are we seriously saying that no compensation scheme or a weakened scheme would be right? Members on both sides of the House mentioned the information available to victims; the important issue of prisoner release needs to be addressed in particular. We also heard contributions about the attitude of professionals. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. They should be professional when dealing with victims of crime.

Restorative justice has to be done properly. It is not a cheap alternative. It is not something that can be swept in to deal with the matter and save a few quid on the side. If it is done properly and effectively and in the right circumstances, it is very good indeed, but it can be incredibly damaging if it is not.

The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, mentioned the case of her constituent Marie Heath whose son was murdered, and the good work of SAMM Abroad. I add my support to that organisation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) spoke about the four steps. They are extremely good points that the Government need to take on board. I have concerns that the Government still do not even know how much money is going to be delegated for PCCs to use for victims. I believe it is work in progress, which is a little worrying given that we are only a month away.

I will not repeat the points about cyclists at any length. British Cycling has done an extremely good job of raising the profile, and Members on both sides of the House have spoken well on that point. I simply urge the Minister to take the opportunity to have a proper root and branch review of the way that not only the criminal justice system but the entire system looks at victims of incidents—quite rightly, not accidents—where cyclists are involved.

There have been so many good points. I urge anyone observing the debate to read it in Hansard. I finish with a couple of points. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) raised the matter of Robert Levy’s murder, which raises important issues, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talked about British Cycling, and I met Will Jeffreys, the brother of Robert Jeffreys. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) raised the appalling behaviour in Rochdale. The children’s commissioner said that the issue does not just affect certain communities; it is a problem in every community of every part of our country. That is chilling.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments. I have spoken for slightly longer than I intended. My apologies to the Minister.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

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