Personal Injury Fraud

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate. The subject is not totally unfamiliar; indeed, it was debated quite a lot in the last Parliament. I refreshed my memory earlier about a debate we had almost exactly two years ago—on 7 November 2013—entitled “Motor Insurance (Whiplash)”. I spoke for 30 minutes in that debate, and I refer hon. Members to that speech to spare them from having me repeat the whole of it now. Much of it is still relevant, which is sad in a way, and that might be an indictment of the Government for not having done more. Perhaps we can blame that on the coalition, which was a completely different organisation—there are no Liberal Democrats around to protest any more, so we can always blame them.

I dealt with this issue for five years, and I thought I had finally got rid of it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is responsible for dealing with it, is away somewhere, so I am reprising the subject. The last time we debated it, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had just taken over the brief, and now the current Minister is acquainting herself with it. It is an interesting subject, and perhaps I may say without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Lincoln that there was good and bad in what he said. I was with him for much of his speech, until at the end he drew conclusions that did not all perfectly derive from the facts at his disposal. One of the problems is that we do not always have the facts that we need on this issue.

I think we all detest cold calls, because we believe they are parasitical, and they are severely irritating. As far as I am aware, cold calls from law firms are already banned. Many of the cold calls that we receive come from call centres run outside the UK, which have become an industry in themselves. I do not think a single Member of the House, or indeed member of the public, would not want a crackdown on them, and want them to be banned and excluded. The problem is that it is difficult to do that, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government intend to do along those lines.

[Chris Philp]

Even if one cannot ban calls emanating from outside the UK, there could certainly be a ban on any UK organisation, including law firms, using information derived from such extraterritorial calls. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government to institute such a ban?

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

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

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

[Julian Knight]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that next point, may I stay with the previous point and say that I am no apologist for lawyers and solicitors or their firms, or for the ABI or any insurance company? In fact, I am no friend of any insurance company. I am here, as are many other hon. Members, because our constituents’ premiums rise every year. Unfortunately, no harm comes to insurance companies when premiums go up to pay for fraudulent claims, because they just pass on the costs in their turnover figures to the little people at the bottom of the scale. I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I was trying to say that we need to root out the lawyers, solicitors and claims management firms that use the moneys available in the system to feather their nest.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am perhaps slightly more sceptical about insurance companies’ use of data. There is an idea that whenever premiums fall, as they have recently, that is because firms are cracking down on fraud, and when they rise it is because of an increase in fraud. The reality of finances, insurance companies’ activities and fraud is far more complicated. For many years, the figure for fraud that was often given was 7%. I do not know whether it has changed—I think the figure of 11% was quoted in the debate in relation to one insurer—but 7% is a high figure for fraud. Of course, that still means that insurance companies estimate that 93% of claims are non-fraudulent and come from genuine victims. However, I have heard the figure for the percentage of claims that are partly or wholly fraudulent put as low as 1%; I have also heard it put much higher than 7%.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I need to clarify those statistics, because the percentages relate to identifiable fraud. That is not to say that all claims are fraudulent—far from it. None of us minds people who have really been injured receiving their just compensation. Fraud that is easily identifiable, which the insurance companies chase down, is at the level the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but that is not to say that the 93%, or any other residual percentage, represents bona fide claims. There might well be other fraudulent claims within those percentages.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to argue about statistics endlessly, given that part of my argument is that the statistics are not robust. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looked at the briefing for the debate by the Law Society, which is of course the professional body for solicitors. There are concerns that insurers use figures about levels of fraud as it suits them.

The point that concerns me is that the remedies that insurers resort to are, in some cases, more likely to encourage fraud. The principal one is third-party capture. There is an increasing trend for insurers to contact victims directly, offer a settlement and discourage them from contacting solicitors—and, if they have contacted them, to ask for information about that. They are not entitled to that information, but rather in the manner of claims managers who, as we have heard, use bullying behaviour to try to substantiate fraudulent claims or exaggerate claims, I am afraid insurance companies increasingly approach people in the same way, to try to get a quick, early settlement without medical reporting or professional advice. That may well minimise the value of the claim—I have no doubt that that is the intention—so someone who has a genuine and possibly quite serious injury may settle for a relatively trivial sum of money. However, it may also encourage fraud, because if there is no medical report or lawyer to act as an arbiter of whether a claim is genuine, the insurer, for commercial reasons, might settle a claim that could well be fraudulent. We should be worried about the growth of third-party capture, which would undoubtedly be massively encouraged if small claims were lifted disproportionately.

I am not saying that there is not bad practice by law firms, because there certainly is. I am talking not even about dubious practice, but about sharp practice in marketing skills. However, as one would expect, the overwhelming majority of solicitors act in a proper and professional manner. They have the ability, through the askCUE system, to determine whether someone who comes to them with a claim has claimed previously, and they are encouraged to make such checks to see if that is happening.

I sound a note of caution not because I think that anything raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln is inappropriate. It is just that, as in many things, there is a balance to strike. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East speak about victims. Let us not forget them in this case. Political parties often speak up for victims of crime, but victims of accidents are also victims. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that genuine victims of accidents should not get access to justice or be properly remunerated.

I baulk at the constant refrain about a compensation culture. Time and time again it has been shown, including by the Government’s own experts, that no such culture exists in this country. On the contrary, recent consumer surveys have shown that only 17% of people say that their default position would be to seek compensation after receiving poor treatment. I do not think it is naturally British to think that, as a consequence of poor treatment or customer service or even an injury, the first thing one would do is immediately go to claim compensation.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman may well be correct, but the problem is that ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being harassed and incited by claims management companies to invent claims—I stand here today because I am one such person. That is why the Government need to go beyond the action they have taken already. I hope that he agrees, given that he used to practise personal injury law.

[Andy Slaughter]

I did indeed practise personal injury law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that 90% of my practice was for insurers, so I do not think I can be accused of parti pris. I can see it from both sides of the fence, and if I am talking about claimants and victims, that is just to give a bit of balance to the debate.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will hear what is being done specifically to crack down on those calls. I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot about whether, in his case, he was able to report to either the MOJ or the police that he was being suborned in such a way, but I hope that people do that. If there were a couple of high-profile cases, perhaps instigated by Members of Parliament, in which pestilential claims management companies and cold callers were held to account, that would be a tonic for reducing the practice substantially. If the Minister can shed any light on what the Government can do on enforcement, I will be pleased to hear that.

We must look at both sides of the argument. We have to take action based on evidence, and we have to realise that there are many vested interests. Yes, the claims management companies have interests and we must be on guard against fraud, but we must also be aware of the interests of the insurance industry, which are not always at one with those of the motorist or consumer. It does not always follow that what the industry asks for is beneficial not just to victims or potential victims, but to motorists as a whole. I hope that we can crack down on fraud and relieve the consumer of the burden of calls—I get them myself on many issues—but I also hope that, on this as on other matters, we will bear in mind that the interests of victims and those with meritorious claims for personal injury should be respected.

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

May I say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson? I add my praise to that already heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for securing this important debate on personal injury fraud and its impact on individuals and motor insurance premiums. He has been a dedicated and tenacious campaigner on this important issue.

I will state at the beginning that I am not the Minister with responsibility for this matter in the Ministry of Justice. That honour falls to my colleague, Lord Faulks. I will of course make sure that all the points made today that I am unable to cover are responded to by my noble and learned Friend, and that he is well aware of all the suggestions made by hon. Members from across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln has a number of concerns about personal injury fraud and nuisance calls in particular, which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentioned. Those pernicious calls cause annoyance and distress to many people, particularly the elderly and vulnerable. I will address that in due course. First, I would like to say a few words about some of the measures and initiatives introduced by this and the previous coalition Government.

We have been, and continue to be, committed to tackling the problems in this market. There have been some real challenges for the Government in trying to put right the imbalances that have led to the disproportionate growth in personal injury claims. We know, as many Members have articulated, that reported road traffic accidents fell from approximately 190,000 in 2006 to about 140,000 in 2013, when the previous Government began to introduce their reforms. That is a reduction of more than 20%, yet at the same time the number of road traffic personal injury claims rose from about 520,000 in 2006 to 760,000 last year—an increase of about 50%. That is a clear indication, if one was needed, that there is a problem and that the Government should consider further reforms to combat this distasteful culture, which we believe is in part being driven by the constant barrage of phone calls and texts messages that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South so powerfully described.

The Government accept that many personal injury claims are genuine, but it is also clear that many speculative, exaggerated and fraudulent claims are being made. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, but it is not right that people who try to cheat the system should be allowed to get away with it and, as so many Members have said, thereby force up the price of motor insurance for honest, law-abiding motorists. There are considerable costs in dealing with such claims, which have a significant impact on the cost of premiums. According to the ABI, the annual cost to the industry from whiplash claims is £2 billion, which, as has been said, adds some £90 to the average motor insurance premium.

I will pause there and go back in time to set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln is a long-standing member of the Select Committee on Transport and he will be aware that just over five years have passed since Lord Justice Jackson published his review of the cost of civil litigation. That may seem quite a long time ago now, but the previous Government and this one have been busy ever since with a substantial programme of reform.

The Jackson reforms, introduced through the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, were a key achievement in addressing bad behaviours in the personal injury sector. The reforms introduced a ban on the referral fees that many lawyers, solicitors and claims management companies used to buy and sell claims. We agreed that the system of no win, no fee arrangements was not fit for purpose—that, in fact, it had the perverse effect of encouraging litigation—and so reformed the system to return balance to it, making sure that costs were no longer all heaped on defendants and that claimants had a financial stake in their claim. Our reforms were explicitly aimed at controlling costs and discouraging unmeritorious claims, while enabling genuine cases to be pursued, although of course at lower cost than before, which is why we also put in place measures to encourage earlier settlement.

Speculative and unnecessary whiplash claims are some of the most unmeritorious of all claims, as many Members mentioned. Following a Downing Street summit in February 2012, the Government committed to introducing reforms to tackle the number and cost of whiplash claims. In response to that commitment, the Ministry of Justice has worked with stakeholders to produce a wide-ranging set of reforms to introduce much-needed independence to, and improve the quality of, the medical evidence used in such cases.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has mentioned the notorious insurers’ summit, when the Prime Minister invited the major insurance companies to 10 Downing Street, but no one representing the claimants’ side. Does she think that that might have been a mistake? Does she agree that the Government should listen to both claimants and defendants?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We can dwell on the past, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to listen to all sides in the argument. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, important steps have since been taken on medical reports. The first phase of the reforms included measures to reduce and fix the cost of initial whiplash medical reports at £180, to allow defendants to give their account to the expert for the first time, to discourage insurers from making pre-medical offers to settle, and to ban experts who write the medical reports from also treating the claimant.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she is tempting me. She just mentioned third-party capture, but if the Government really want to stop it, why should it not be banned? I think she is about to mention MedCo. That has been a disaster, which is why we are having a full review only a few months after its introduction.

[Caroline Dinenage]

If the hon. Gentleman will hold his horses for just a moment, I will move on to some of those issues. MedCo has introduced a robust new accreditation scheme for medical experts, who need to attain accreditation by 2016 or they will be removed from the system. We hope that that will begin to take effect, but a further reform to control fraudulent claims at source was implemented on 1 June 2015, as he will know. Claimant lawyers were given access to insurance industry data and must now check the number of claims their potential client has made before accepting the claim.

The Government are particularly pleased that stakeholders put aside their differences to develop a consensus on sharing data and improving medical evidence. Such a consensus can only be positive for all involved and we look forward to continuing to work closely with stakeholders. The Government have also taken firm action to ban both lawyers and claims management companies from offering claimants inducements to bring frivolous claims. Although it is still early days in terms of monitoring the impact of the reforms, Government figures show that the number of whiplash claims has gone down by around 70,000 since 2011-12. That is a good start, but we remain concerned about the number of claims made and their impact on the cost of motor insurance premiums. Too many claims are still being brought inappropriately, often because people are encouraged and pressured to do so by unscrupulous lawyers or CMCs.

On 2 December 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Justice Secretary jointly announced a new insurance fraud taskforce. The taskforce will make recommendations to reduce all types of insurance fraud, to lower costs and to protect the interests of consumers. The Government are committed to tackling the perception that insurance fraud is a victimless crime. It is vital that people understand that making a fraudulent claim is not a legitimate way to make money. The taskforce is currently considering its recommendations, which the Government will consider carefully with a view to taking firm action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln mentioned the practice of “cash for crash”. The insurance fraud enforcement department is a City of London Police unit set up to tackle insurance fraud nationally. The £3 million annual cost of the unit is funded by ABI members through an industry-led compulsory levy. The unit is leading the fight against “cash for crash” gangs, and has caught and prosecuted many perpetrators of that distasteful scam over the past three years. It will continue in that work.

The Government have also been serious in our commitment to driving out bad practices by claims management companies, as is clearly demonstrated by the recent package of reforms to protect consumers who use the services of a CMC or who are subjected to its marketing practices. The reforms will also help organisations that are on the receiving end of high volumes of calls or fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims. The measures are transforming how the MOJ’s claims management regulation unit does its job. Members will be interested to hear that in the last year, 93 CMCs were investigated, 105 CMCs had their licences removed, 296 were issued warnings and 454 audits were conducted. Tackling fraud and unauthorised activity in the claims management industry has been, and will remain, a key priority for this Government.

The CMR unit works closely in partnership with both industry fraud bodies and the police to identify and deal with CMCs engaged in insurance fraud. That work has been instrumental in the successful prosecution of criminal organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln rightly identified nuisance calls as a well known route for spurious claims farming. The CMR unit makes sure that CMCs offering claims services do so legally. That is why we introduced tough new rules in October last year to put in place a stronger requirement to make sure claims are properly substantiated before being pursued.

We also strengthened the CMR unit’s enforcement tools in December last year with a new power to impose fines on CMCs. So far, three companies have been fined more than £800,000 for unlawful unsolicited marketing and coercing clients into signing contracts before taking unauthorised payments. That sends the powerful message to unscrupulous fraudsters that the Government take this issue seriously and will take firm action against them.

The claims industry is a fast-moving market. Practices continue to evolve, and the Government will monitor the market and respond with further reforms, as necessary, to provide better protection for consumers and the public. The Government are also looking to build on the work of the CMR unit by undertaking a fundamental review to consider what powers and resources are required for a tougher CMC regulatory regime. The review is due to be completed in early 2016.

I will now answer the very useful six points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as some of them will be included in that review. He talked about banning of outbound calling and the use of personal injury claims data gathered from those calls. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and ensuring that a direct marketing industry can continue, as—although this was not necessarily the case in his experience—it is a legitimate activity when done properly. We need to focus on the companies that are breaking the rules rather than penalise legitimate businesses, and to make sure that companies comply with the regulations. We have made it easier for the Financial Conduct Authority to take action against some of those companies, but we will continue to look at that, particularly in the light of what he has outlined today.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend is very persuasive, and I will definitely ensure his thoughts are passed on when the review is conducted.

My hon. Friend talked about criminal pursuit of anyone making fraudulent claims. That measure was introduced earlier this year in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which requires the court to dismiss in its entirety any claim where the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest. That means dishonest claimants can now no longer receive a payout if they have been fundamentally dishonest, even if a small part of their claim is in fact genuine. Insurers then have the option of pursuing a criminal prosecution for fraud.

My hon. Friend said medical advice should be taken within a week of an accident. In 2004, the Government considered including such changes to the civil procedure rules to ensure that medical examinations and reports were completed before a claim was produced. We have introduced the rules I have spoken about to discourage such behaviour, but we will keep the matter under review and continue to work with key stakeholders. We need to look at how we can tackle the issue effectively.

My hon. Friend asked whether there should be an objective evidence base. The Government remain concerned about the number of claims made and have done much in that area, but we accept that more can be done. We are open to any suggestions put forward by interested stakeholders and will consider all the points he has raised.

Finally, my hon. Friend talked about the 12-month claim limit and the no win, no fee limit of £6,000. We understand that both those issues will be considered by the insurance fraud taskforce, which will be reporting shortly. We look forward to seeing its recommendations and will respond accordingly.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister talked about a £6,000 limit. If she is talking about the possible £5,000 limit for small claims in PI cases, the Government have already looked at that two or three times. They have had very strong advice, including from the Transport Committee, that that is not the way to go. Is she saying that that matter is going to be revived?

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I say, the taskforce has been set up to look at all the issues, and I believe it may be considering that limit, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with clarification if that is not correct.

The Chancellor announced proposals in the July Budget to introduce a cap on the charges that CMCs can apply to consumers. We are looking in particular at restricting bulk PPI claims to more proportionate levels and will consult on how that will work in practice later this year. A cap on charges will, we believe, help to reduce incentives for CMCs to collect marketing leads, resulting in a reduction in the number of speculative calls made.

I would like to draw Members’ attention briefly to other measures taken by the Government to tackle the issue of nuisance calls. In March 2014, the Government launched an action plan to tackle the problem, asking the consumer organisation Which? to lead a taskforce on consent and lead generation in the direct marketing industry. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, including giving the Information Commissioner’s Office powers to hold to account senior executives who fail to comply with the rules on marketing. The Government are currently considering those recommendations.

The Government have made it clear that it must be easier for the ICO to take action. The ICO no longer has to prove substantial damage or substantial distress caused by a company before action can be taken. Since 2011, it has had the power to issue penalty notices of up to £500,000, and in September 2015 it issued a penalty of £200,000 against a company that made more than 6 million automated calls to consumers—the highest penalty ever issued for nuisance calls. The ICO has also issued a penalty of £75,000 against an organisation that claimed to offer a nuisance call blocking service but was instead making unsolicited live marketing calls to members of the public—the mind boggles. The ICO continues to take its enforcement responsibilities seriously and has 66 cases currently under investigation.

The Government are also exploring options to provide call-blocking devices to vulnerable customers, and we will consult shortly on legislation to require all direct marketing callers to identify themselves. That will enable consumers to determine who is calling and to report unwanted calls to the regulator. I ought to make it clear that the Government have not ruled out further reform to this market.

Police Funding Formula

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Neither the Minister nor the Government are in control of the facts or the policing budget. Standing at the Dispatch Box, he does not seem to understand how incompetent this is. In the case of the Met, the error is of the sum of £180 million. Can we at least have a full written explanation of how this farce occurred, and can we be told the amount of money wasted by the Home Office and the 43 forces in going through the process thus far?

[Mike Penning]

I find it fascinating that, after listening to all the other questions that right hon. and hon. Members have asked, that was the best the hon. Gentleman could do. At the end of the day, when mistakes are made it is right and proper that Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House what is going on. We will make sure that the new process is as open and honest as possible, especially for London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically pungent point. He is right to say that we have listened to a number of representations from representatives of the magistracy, but we have to balance those concerns against other judgments as well.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I help the Secretary of State on the issue of collection? Earlier this year, the courts Minister told me that the minimum net sum that would be raised by the criminal courts charge in this Parliament would be £265 million. Last night, the Chair of the Justice Committee told the BBC that, as well as distorting the criminal justice system for most defendants and sentences, it may well run at a loss. The Secretary of State does not need to review the charge; it is worthless as well as dangerous. Should he not just scrap it now?

[Michael Gove]

I believe in evidence-led policy and it is important that we should look at not just the evidence from the magistracy, but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the collection rate. The criminal courts charge is generating revenue, which helps ensure that the taxpayer is not the first port of call for supporting the way in which our courts operate, but it is important that we balance all the criteria in making a judgment on the review of the charge. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

I am well aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents about this issue. The fact is, however, that the rate of reoffending among residents in bail hostels is lower than in other types of accommodation, and of course they do allow us to have a proper risk assessment and supervision. If my hon. Friend’s local authority can identify another site with guaranteed planning permission, however, we will certainly look at it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It looks likely that by the end of today 90 solicitor firms and 70 of the 85 bidding areas across the country will have started proceedings against the Legal Aid Agency over the award of criminal legal aid contracts. Given that we know, thanks to a whistleblower, that the tendering process was run by junior temporary staff with “very limited” legal training, does the Secretary of State agree with the Criminal Law Solicitors Association chair that if the Government

“were trying to handle it badly”,

they

“couldn’t have done a better job”,

and what chance does he think he has of winning those cases?

[Michael Gove]

It is rare that I ever disagree with the CLSA, but on this occasion I have to differ. The individual referred to as a whistleblower is merely one voice. The voices I have heard from many others, including those who have received their contracts, is that this was a well-run process in the tradition that the LAA has upheld for many years now.

[Andy Slaughter]

Turning from the chaos in the courts to the chaos in our prisons, the Secretary of State will agree with me that prison officers are doing an exceptional job in the most difficult of circumstances. Yesterday I met officers here who told me that, as one put it, as a result of the cuts in funding imposed so far,

“prison officer numbers have been cut to levels where prisoners are taking over the prisons.”

When we see that serious assaults on staff have risen by 42% in the last year, is he not right?

[Michael Gove]

I find myself distressingly often these days agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that our prison officers do a fantastic job. I value the meetings I have with them and the feedback they give me. We have recruited 420 new prison officers in the last 12 months. Of course we keep safety and security in our establishments under review, but as I explained earlier we are taking steps on the use of technology and also on the increased powers that governors will have which I hope will make our prison estate safer and more secure for everyone.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am not aware of whether a formal complaint has been made. It is the normal procedure for the matter to go to the Metropolitan police and then the Met themselves can either refer it or it can be referred later on once it has gone through the due process of the complaints procedure. I will find out whether the Metropolitan police have done this and arrange for the commissioner to write to the hon. Lady.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister may be embarrassed on behalf of the Government’s distinguished foreign guest, but does he understand that many in this House are embarrassed when Mrs Zhang, one of the arrested people, says “It feels like when I was in China”? The police pick up signals from Government, and this Government are in the process of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and our obligations under the European convention on human rights, including the article 11 rights to protest and freedom of association. When the operational decisions are over, will he properly investigate these circumstances to ensure that our feelings on these matters are not unsubstantiated?

[Mike Penning]

Of course, once the investigation is over and decisions are made we will all look very carefully at what went on. It is, however, a stretch of the imagination to insinuate that the police would police a protest because of a feeling they get from a Government’s possible future legislation.

Saudi Penal System

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if he will withdraw from the contract for training needs analysis with the Saudi penal system in the light of recent concerns, particularly the cases of Mohammed al-Nimr, Raif Badawi and Karl Andree?

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important that the resources of the Ministry of Justice are targeted at our programme of domestic public service reform, so, as has previously been announced, we have wound up the work that Just Solutions International, the commercial arm of the National Offender Management Service, has been engaged in. This is in line with our ambition to ensure that the Department’s resources are firmly focused on our domestic priorities. On the commercial work that Just Solutions International had been engaged in with Saudi Arabia, as the House is aware, the final bid was submitted this April, but discussions have been going on since then. We have now reviewed the issue further and decided to withdraw our bid.

[Andy Slaughter]

The power of the urgent question. What a pity, though, that once again a Secretary of State has to be dragged before the House and that what he said was not volunteered by way of ministerial statement. The Secretary of State is trying to establish a reputation as a prison reformer, and now perhaps as a champion of human rights as well. That would be highly commendable and would be better if our prisons were not in a downward spiral of violence, idleness and despair and if the right hon. Gentleman were not intent on repealing the Human Rights Act.

On 25 September, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister, raising the case of Mohammed al-Nimr. The Secretary of State will be aware that Mr al-Nimr was 17 when he was arrested for peaceful protest and sentenced to death by beheading and then crucifixion. Three weeks later, the Leader of the Opposition is yet to receive a response. That letter also asked for the ending of the contract, so perhaps that response could now be forthcoming. More importantly, Mr al-Nimr remains in solitary confinement, awaiting execution.

The case of Raif Badawi—a blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for criticising the Saudi regime—is similarly shocking, and today we add to the list the case of Mr Karl Andree. Mr Andree is a 74-year-old British citizen from south London who has been sentenced to 350 lashes by the Saudi Government after spending more than a year in custody. I do not know whether the Secretary of State heard the interview on the “Today” programme this morning with Mr Andree’s youngest son, Simon, which was all the more powerful for being rational and understated. He said there was no doubt in the family’s mind that 350 lashes would kill his father, who needs medical care for his cancer, which he has had three times, and his asthma. Simon said:

“I think my father is at the bottom of the list and the bottom of the pecking order”,

when it comes to the Government. He continued:

“I feel that all the business dealings with Saudi Arabia and the UK are probably taking priority over it. All I can say is that the primary responsibility of the British Government is to their citizens. He is a British citizen and I ask the Government to plead for clemency, for him to be released.”

Will the Secretary of State therefore go further—welcome though his comments were—and explain why the Government ever contemplated entering such a contract; why the reasons for continuing the contract were initially given as “commercial considerations”, subsequently corrected to the “wider interests” of Her Majesty’s Government; why the Prime Minister has not responded to the letter from the Leader of the Opposition; and what is being done in each of the three specific cases I have raised?

We know that these are not isolated cases. Indeed, guidance given to British prisoners in Saudi says that the death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences,

“including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery and can be carried out by beheading with a sword, stoning or firing squad, followed by crucifixion.”

Amnesty International says that at least 175 people have been executed in the last year. It is simply not good enough that human rights get no regard. Of course this is a balancing act, but in the end, the Secretary of State has to take responsibility and he needs to answer the further questions I have put to him today.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these serious issues and for the appropriately sombre and serious way in which he couched his questions. First, this Government take very seriously questions of human rights, and in particular the obligation to protect the human rights of British citizens abroad. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for the middle east, has been talking to Mr Andree’s family, and it is also why the Government have been interceding at the highest level in all three of the cases that the hon. Gentleman raises.

It is important that that sensitive and diplomatic work is carried on in circumstances that ensure that we can influence not just the Saudi Government, but other Governments, in a way that allows them to make progress in a manner consistent with ensuring that our case can be made effectively. That is why I believe that the actions of the Minister for the middle east—and indeed those of the Foreign Secretary and the diplomatic service—in ensuring that human rights considerations can be carried forward have been right and wise.

It is also important to bear in mind that there is security co-operation between Britain and Saudi Arabia, which has, as the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, saved British lives in the past. We would never compromise our commitment to human rights, but we must also recognise that it is in the interests of the most important human right of all—the right to live in safety and security—that we should continue with necessary security co-operation with the Saudi and other Governments.

The hon. Gentleman asks why no letter of reply was written to the Leader of the Opposition. I can only apologise for any delay in writing to him, and I hope that today’s statement goes some way to raising the concerns that he understandably raised in his party conference speech and in correspondence. More broadly, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole focus of the Ministry of Justice will be on maintaining the rule of law, upholding human rights and making sure that our citizens are protected effectively with a justice system in which all can take pride and have confidence.

Courts and Tribunal Services (England and Wales)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for bringing this matter before the House, as well as other Members who have spoken: my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), the hon. Members for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon), my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the hon. Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy).

I will not repeat what hon. Members have said as they have already expressed forensically and eloquently the concerns of their constituents. These debates are remarkable for showing that Members can be consensual, cross-party and precise in identifying problems, and no doubt the Minister will wish to address those raised today, although he might want to pay particular attention to the comments from the hon. Member for High Peak about the consultation being riddled with errors, slapdash and lazy. I know that the Minister, who has been praised by both sides for his care and concern in these matters, will be concerned to hear that. There is evidence to back it up as well.

It is not only hon. Members today, or indeed other hon. Members, who have raised concerns; the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Suffolk said about the proposals for his county:

“It is completely unacceptable. The people at the Ministry of Justice have got to understand Suffolk is a very big rural area and access to justice should not be the preserve of those who are well-off, privileged or the comfortable. The victims need to be at the centre of this. Not some accountant’s pen stuck in Whitehall. These people need to get in the real world.”

The slightly more circumspect chairman of the Shropshire branch of the Magistrates Association said about the Shropshire courts:

“In recent years five small courthouses have been closed in Shropshire market towns. Since these closures took place, the two remaining magistrates’ courts – one in Shrewsbury, one in Telford – have continued to provide an effective service for the whole county. The Association will wish to be convinced that that can continue with only a single magistrates’ court.”

I must bear in mind the spirit in which the hon. Member for Bath introduced this debate. His speech was all the better for being balanced and noting that closures and reorganisation should not always be resisted. I endorse that. Particularly at a time when public money is short, if savings can be made, they should be made, and of course we should look at usage and rationalise where there is chronic under-usage. There are inefficiencies and improvements to be made in the system, and no doubt the Minister will talk about the improvements that he wishes to see or which are happening in digital services. I would add one caveat, however: although technology improves all the time, too great a reliance on it can often lead to more delay than it cures.

We have some historic court buildings, and a certain nostalgia is felt towards many of the older sites and other buildings—going beyond the 19th century to the 18th century—but they are not always fit for purpose in the modern age and some have become obsolete. However, I do not wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), when shadow Lord Chancellor in the run-up to the last election, talked, as some Members have today, about ways of rationalising the court estate. We have heard about pop-up courts, about using public buildings for judicial and non-judicial functions combined and even about using community buildings, but there is an important caveat: as hon. Members have said, we have to preserve and enhance local justice within communities through the constructive use of courts.

I fear, however, that the Government’s approach tends, sadly, towards mass culls of courts. I have been in this job for more than five years now, and I clearly remember the last major cull in 2010. Then there was a proposal to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts. After the consultation, the closure of 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts went ahead—in other words, about 90% of the original target. Members should perhaps not get their hopes up too much, but there could at least be a window of opportunity.

If the majority of the proposed closures go ahead, 40% of this country’s courts will close over not much more than five years. That suggests to me that this is more about making savings than about balancing decisions with service. The best way to illustrate that point is to look at the issue of travel times, with which some Members have dealt. I note in passing that during the last closure programme five years ago, Ministers were referring to public transport travel times, whereas now they refer principally to travel times by car. However, many court users will not have access to a car and will be entirely reliant on public transport.

Let me provide, with the help of the Law Society, one or two illustrations of what that will mean in respect of public transport times. I looked at the Courts Service in Wales. Holyhead magistrates court is due to close, and work will be transferred to Caernarfon criminal justice centre, but no public transport users will be able to reach it within an hour. It is the same with Dolgellau magistrates court, as users will be sent to Caernarfon criminal justice centre and none will be able to get there within an hour. Users of the Carmarthen civil, family, tribunal and probate hearing centre will move to a variety of courts, but even so, only 7% will be able to reach their new court within 60 minutes. I do not think that that is satisfactory. Another example, which several Members have mentioned, is that according to the Law Society and the Government’s own figures, closing Scunthorpe magistrates, county and family court would mean that not one user could reach the new court within one hour by public transport. That is not good enough.

What the Government should have done is carry out a pre-consultation to allow a much better-informed document to be produced. Should that sound overly bureaucratic, it is exactly what the Government are doing with their consultation on fixed fees for medical negligence cases. That proposal is out for consultation at the moment, allowing the Government to publish a document next month, I believe. I regard the proposal as completely misconceived, but at least I can hope for a sensible document to debate. If Members and the local justice system had had an opportunity to give their input, we would not have seen some of the howlers or some of the more far-fetched proposals that are in the report.

Let me exemplify the point by looking at the closure of Hammersmith county court. I do so not as special pleading, but because I have a particular knowledge of it. If Hammersmith county court closes, most users will be told to go to Wandsworth county court. For some of my constituents in the south part of the constituency, that will not be too troublesome, but it will be for those in other parts of it. I note particularly that Lambeth county court is also closing. Lambeth is where I spent most of my life when I was in legal practice. It was and is a very busy court. Southwark and Lambeth local authorities could probably keep it going permanently on the basis of housing cases alone. It is closing, however, and most users are likely to be referred to Wandsworth, so Wandsworth will have to be extended and money will need to be spent on building it up.

Another knock-on effect of the closure is that space will be freed up at Hammersmith county court and if Feltham magistrates court is closed, users will be sent to Hammersmith. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) intervened earlier in the debate, and I know that she has serious concerns about that. Feltham is a poor area and users of that magistrates court will no longer have the local justice to which they are accustomed. I use these cases as an example of what can happen in a built-up urban area, to show that there are many ramifications of these closures that might not always be apparent to a civil servant sitting in Whitehall. I am in no doubt, however, that problems in remote rural areas are in many cases worse.

We know what the negative effects are, or the potential negative effects. For instance, a very good briefing prepared for the debate by the Public and Commercial Services Union raises—not surprisingly—the issue of jobs. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how many jobs he expects to be lost as a consequence of these reorganisations. The PCS also raises, on behalf of the family court unions, the issue of access to justice, the issue of accessibility, the issue of delay and the issue of additional costs, all of which have been raised by Members today.

However, it also concerns me that the positive effects of the closures, at least in financial terms, are often not realised. As I am sure the Minister knows, I am alluding to the answer that he gave me earlier in the week in relation to the courts that were closed in the previous round, which are still sitting on the Government estate without having been sold. It is costing nearly half a million pounds a year to keep them empty and mothballed. I am thinking especially of the courts at Knutsford and Alton, which account for £9,274 and £9,828 per month respectively. The total cost, currently, of the 13 courts that have been closed and are just sitting there—including the costs of rates, fuel and utilities, facilities management and security, and other property costs—is £478,146 a year. I do not think that that is a particularly good use of public money.

I ask the Minister to look specifically at the points made by the Magistrates Association, which asks him to ensure that there is access for vulnerable people, as well as security for staff and court users, parking facilities for staff and court users, space and resources for various agencies such as the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the youth offending teams, childcare arrangements, secure wi-fi, and proper provision for upkeep and renovation costs. I think that without those assurances, the position would be even worse.

This is not the only issue that is currently affecting the magistracy and magistrates courts in particular, those being the bulk of the courts that are facing closure. Not unrelated, I suspect, to the decline in the number of courts is the fact that delays are increasing: it currently takes a week longer for cases to be completed than it did four years ago. Moreover, as a consequence of the disastrous court charge, magistrates are resigning every day and every week because they do not feel that they have the discretion and the ability to do their job properly. I know that that issue is to be debated soon in the other place.

In its briefing, the PCS says:

“We are concerned that the justice system is in danger of becoming so divorced from the people who require access to it, that it can no longer be considered to be true justice.”

I suspect that that resonates with a number of Members who have to explain or justify to their constituents the fact that something that has been taken for granted for centuries in this country—local justice which can be seen and heard in local communities—is now fading fast.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government’s position, as set out by Lord Faulks in the Second Reading debate on the predecessor Bill in the other place, is that

“any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience. In our view, it is rightly a matter for Parliament to decide rather than government policy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 919.]

No doubt the Minister will confirm that today. The Opposition also believe that it is a matter for individual conscience, and it is right therefore that Front-Bench comments have been constrained to allow the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions.

We have not yet had 85 speeches, let alone the 133 speeches over 10 hours the other place devoted to the subject last year, but the number and quality of speeches we have heard today leave no doubt that this is a matter of great weight and controversy. We reflect, as we should, the views of our constituents; like, I am sure, all Members, I have had hundreds of representations making a passionate and compelling case on both sides of the argument.

I warmly and sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) for bringing this issue before the House after 18 years. He has had something of a rollercoaster ride of defeat and victory over the last two elections and he could have chosen a less controversial and easier life. Instead, he is totting up his staffing budget to see whether he can afford the additional assistance to deal with his engorged postbag. His aim, in his own words, is to do better for dying people.

Let me also acknowledge the work of Lord Falconer, who chaired the Commission on Assisted Dying and piloted the predecessor Bill through Second Reading and into Committee in the Lords.

There are many, including some who have spoken today, for whom the principle of assisted dying or the slippery slope argument are the start and end of their consideration. The current Archbishop of Canterbury has said that we are crossing a “legal and moral Rubicon” today, but that side of the argument does not enjoy monopoly support even among archbishops. Lord Carey has said:

“Some people have said on the issue of compassion that actually pain is a noble thing, to bear pain and to say that we are suffering with you is, in my view, a very poor argument indeed.

There is nothing noble about excruciating pain and I think we need as a nation to give people the right to decide their own fate.”

Many Members have expressed concern as to the role of the medical profession, saying that there would be a fundamental change in the doctor-patient relationship. Indeed that is an important consideration, but I equally take on board the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who says there is currently an inconsistency in the law as a result of his own guidelines. There is an opt-out for medical practitioners, and some would say that that heralds a more mature relationship between doctors and patients. My hon. and learned Friend explained with his customary precision the limits that he was able to achieve even with the excellent guidelines he introduced as Director of Public Prosecutions.

That brings me to my concluding point and, I think, the salient point for us to bear in mind today. Other bodies have tried to address this issue. The Director of Public Prosecutions has tried, as has the Supreme Court. We should bear in mind the words of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, who said that it was

“institutionally inappropriate at this juncture”

for the Court to declare that clause 2 was incompatible with article 8, as opposed to giving Parliament the opportunity to consider the position without a declaration. Lord Sumption referred to the “inherent difficulty” of the question, and to

“the fact that there is much to be said on both sides”—

for making—

“Parliament the proper organ for deciding it.”

Without drawing a conclusion on the rightness or wrongness of the Bill, I urge the House to take the same course that the other place took last year, which was not to vote down the Bill at this stage but to allow it to go forward into Committee where these matters could be debated further. That was the cogently expressed view of a strong opponent of the Bill in the other place, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who stated:

“I am deeply opposed to the Bill but strongly in favour of it being afforded a Second Reading so that we may have the opportunity to discuss the many vitally important issues that it raises.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 778.]

We abdicate our responsibility if, after 18 years, we do not fully discuss these matters in detail and look at the safeguards and the possibilities in the Bill. It is wrong that those of our constituents who can afford to do so have the option to go to Switzerland when others do not have such options. We at least owe them the courtesy of discussing these matters more fully. I personally will support the Bill’s Second Reading, but I will be doing so in order to have a stronger, fuller debate.

[Robert Flello]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to give his personal views at the Dispatch Box, when he is there in a party position?

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. There will be full consultation and we are aware of the concerns that she and her party have raised. Revising the Human Rights Act can be done only by the UK Government, but at the same time the implementation of human rights issues are already substantially devolved to Scotland. Let me give one example. The Scottish Government have been criticised for failing to hold mandatory fatal accident inquiries when someone dies in a mental health institution. That is just one illustration, but the SNP needs to stop promoting the fiction that human rights in Scotland totally depend on or are threatened by Westminster and to focus more on living up to its own responsibilities.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Many of the Minister’s colleagues have much to say on human rights, but the Lord Chancellor has remained uncharacteristically guarded. At the time the Act came into effect, he said:

“The Human Rights culture is already spreading in our society, uprooting conventions on which our stability has rested…It supplants common sense and common law, and erodes individual dignity by encouraging citizens to see themselves as supplicants and victims to be pensioned by the state.”

Does the Minister agree with that, and does it now represent Government policy?

[Mr Raab]

That is a very interesting set of insights into a range of problems with the Human Rights Act. There are two sorts of issues: how the Strasbourg Court operates, and how the Human Rights Act operates domestically. Wise people in the shadow Justice Secretary’s party, from the noble Lord Irvine, one of the architects of the Act, to the former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), have pointed out the flaws in the Act and agreed that we need to look at them. We should have a sensible debate about its replacement, not silly point scoring or shrill scaremongering.

[Andy Slaughter]

Rather than our listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) being misquoted, perhaps the Minister would like to answer some questions. This week, leading civil liberties organisations warned that parts of the Trade Union Bill breached human rights, and last week the EU warned that countries such as Russia would take the lead from a British opt-out. This is very serious. Is that what the Government plan for the Human Rights Act: an attack on fundamental freedoms at home and an encouragement to human rights abuses abroad?

[Mr Raab]

A Labour Government enacted ID cards, and a Labour Government proposed 90-day detention without charge. The interim leader of the Labour party, the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Justice Secretary voted for both those measures. We scrapped ID cards and cut detention without charge; we will take no lectures on liberty from the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for echoing the support for what we are trying to achieve. We are not setting any limitations at the moment; we are in listening mode. Where there is an under-utilised court, I envisage facilities being used for a couple of days in a town hall, for example. Perhaps the chamber or another available room may be rented. It does not have to be a public or civic building, but such buildings come to mind instantly. Currently, people can go to nearby facilities and give evidence via video conferencing so that they do not have to go to court, which is particularly helpful for vulnerable witnesses and victims.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister should listen to Members from all parts of the House on this issue. Although he says that this is a consultation, he is already assuming that an hour by car is a reasonable distance. Of course, many people, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to a car. Cases in magistrates courts are taking a week longer than they did four years ago and dozens of magistrates are resigning over the unworkable courts charge. Is not the Government destroying local justice?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about listening. Perhaps he might take his own advice and do some listening as well. The Government are proposing to undertake a once-in-a-generation reform of the courts system and estate. It would be helpful if he co-operated and supported us in achieving what will be of ultimate benefit to the consumer and the public. They will benefit by getting faster and better justice, and Britain will remain world renowned for legal services.

Sentencing (Cruelty to Pets)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) on securing the debate. He has been campaigning assiduously on this issue, and I am sure that his constituents are very grateful to him. I am sure that his cat, which I believe is called Parsnip, is also grateful for the effort he is making.

This is an important matter. Our inboxes this week show, I am sure, how interested the public are in animal welfare. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have had several hundred emails about the proposed revisions to the Hunting Act 2004. That confirms for me that we are a nation of animal lovers and that the British public care deeply about animal welfare.

The hon. Member for Sherwood raised the tragic case of a spate of cat poisonings in his constituency. In doing a little research, I found that that is certainly not restricted to his constituency—it is a regular occurrence. Just this year, more than 140 cats have been poisoned across the country. One of the other victims—the hon. Gentleman may know this but I did not until I looked into it—is my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), whose own cat, Jaffa, was poisoned and killed in the same way. I should make it clear, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that it is actually his partner’s cat, but I am sure that it is a loss to the whole family. The fact that several hon. Members have been victims, or at least have concerns about this issue, shows just how common it is becoming.

I worry about the level of animal cruelty. Looking at the Library’s debate pack, which cites some horrific cases, most of them very recent, makes one wonder about the mentality of people who can engage in such actions. Earlier this week, there was a story in the Evening Standard relating to my own constituency. It was about a cat that was thrown out of a car on to the Hammersmith flyover—extraordinary, one may think. There was a happy ending, as it was observed by staff of Notting Hill Housing, who risked their own safety to go out and rescue the cat, now called Bridget and now recovering in hospital, with only a grazed chin, I am told. But it was an extraordinary event, and these are not isolated events—they are very common. I still say that we are a nation of animal lovers, as the response of the public in that case shows, but many cats, dogs and other domestic animals—pets—are not as fortunate as Bridget and are often the victim of horrible treatment, whether through cruelty or negligence, at the hands of owners who end up abusing them.

In anticipation of the debate, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a number of parliamentary questions. He confirmed that 752 people were found guilty in 2014 of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals, but only 76 of those—about 10%—received immediate custody, and I think only about half that number received a custodial sentence of more than three months.

It is clear that the public are increasingly concerned that some sentences do not appear to match the abuse suffered by the animal victims, especially in the case of extreme cruelty. We hear reports from reputable organisations such as the RSPCA, Cats Protection and the International Fund for Animal Welfare about serious neglect, cruelty and violence against animals every day. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is an exemplary piece of Labour legislation, and I believe we can all sign up to it because it advances the cause of animal welfare. We have some of the best animal welfare legislation of anywhere in the world, but that is not to say that sentencing could not be addressed and improved.

The RSPCA states that, during the past five years, the maximum fine imposed on anyone who has been prosecuted under the 2006 Act was a fine of £15,000, which was £2,500 for each of six offences. In the RSPCA’s words, the courts

“increasingly take the position that unless someone can repay a fine and costs incurred within a reasonable period there is no point in imposing large fines. This suggests that the focus should be on prison sentences.”

We have to be slightly careful about saying that, because people might not be able to pay fines, prison is therefore the alternative. Let me suggest two or three alternative avenues that the Minister might like to look at. The hon. Member for Sherwood mentioned that the maximum sentence for some offences is set at 51 weeks. The Government had a change of heart during the progress of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—I served in Committee—in relation to magistrates’ sentencing powers. The previous Labour Government introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the principle that a magistrate should have the power to impose a sentence of up to 12 months for a single offence. We did not activate that section, and the coalition Government proposed to repeal it but, wisely, had a change of heart. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that section is still not in force. Giving magistrates the power to sentence people for longer on a single offence may be a route to allowing greater sentencing powers on some of the more serious animal welfare offences without making them either-way offences.

[Mark Spencer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he is agreeing with me wholeheartedly, but I think the point is that whatever the maximum sentence is, it has never been implemented for a case of this nature. In one such case, someone had premeditatedly gone out, purchased bait—for want of a better word—and poison and distributed them far and wide. The fact that they received only a very small fine emphasises that some part of the system is not working.

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Consider disqualification from ownership of animal”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Julian Knight]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, just last year, a sentence was handed out to a father and his sons for extreme cruelty to animals. The shock among the community was such that elected representatives such as me, and many others, sought for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. We sought a custodial sentence that reflected the severity of the cruelty. Unfortunately, the reply stated that the judge was unable to give the type of custodial sentence that should have been given because the law did not allow that to happen. What the hon. Gentleman is saying, and what I suspect every other hon. Member has said, is that that needs to be reflected in the law of the land to enable judges, whenever the situation arises, to hand down a custodial sentence that reflects the severity of the cruelty. Society finds the current sentences distasteful when it sees such cruelty. We must ensure that people who commit such crimes receive the correct sentence.

[Andy Slaughter]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope the Minister will address all those issues in full, including the use of current sentencing powers—not only custodial and financial penalties but preventing offenders from keeping animals and monitoring repeat offenders.

Returning to my point, will the Minister commit to reviewing the existing regulations on the sale and breeding of cats and dogs? This has been an interesting week for animal welfare campaigners, who know that they can always rely on the Labour party. Perhaps they can now also rely on the Scottish National party, but no other mainstream political party can equal our track record on delivering for animals, be they domestic pets or wild animals. Whether it is legislating on hunting with dogs, fighting to protect wild animals that are being exploited in circuses or introducing the Animal Welfare Act, we have a strong legacy.

When the Animal Welfare Act was published, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the then Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, said:

“Once this legislation is enacted, our law will be worthy of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers.”

Almost 10 years later, we need to ensure that the Act is working properly in relation to sentencing guidelines, and I offer the Minister our full support in ensuring that that is still the case.

I end by quoting Gandhi:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I am glad Bridget is recovering from her traumatic experience and I am glad there are some good stories, but in preparation for this debate I read some harrowing stories of animal cruelty. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s proposals for how we can discourage and punish such cruelty where it continues.

Human Rights Act

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I congratulate all who have spoken so eloquently today and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate and bringing the matter before the House before the summer recess. I am going to take an unusual course by endeavouring not to take my full 10 minutes. I will do that because the official Opposition’s position is clear, so I would simply be restating it, whereas the Government’s position is unclear and I am sure that the Minister will want the maximum time to be able to elucidate it.

When I was responding to the debate on the Gracious Speech, I made it clear that we will resist any attempt to undermine or repeal the Human Rights Act, or to detach this country from the European convention. More importantly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made a detailed speech on the subject on 16 June, in which she said:

“The Government has signalled that they want to fundamentally undermine the Human Rights Act. This is what lies behind the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that they would be consulting on a ‘British Bill of Rights’. We think that even the consultation is the start of a slippery slope… I give you my assurance that we are going to be clear with the Prime Minister that he must not go ahead with this. I’ve today written to the Prime Minister demanding that he drops these plans and… Their policy is intellectually incoherent and, worse, it’s wrong in principle.”

It would be at best otiose and at worst lèse majesté for me to amplify or qualify what the leader of the party has said.

The real question for the debate is: what are the Government’s intentions and what is the process to get us there? That is particularly important given the contradictory signals coming from the Government almost daily. Days before the Gracious Speech, the repeal of the Human Rights Act was being presaged as one of the centrepieces of the Queen’s Speech, only to be dropped entirely from the first Session’s legislation. We are now promised a consultation—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to what form it will take or when it will take place. Will the Minister also publish some of the drafts—I think we are up to about 10 or 14—of the Bill that was being prepared under the coalition Government in private by Martin Howe QC and others on behalf of the Conservative party? Presumably that document will now become a Government one.

The key issue has to be the relationship between the Human Rights Act and the European convention. I will correct, or at least qualify, one thing that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. He said he hoped that Government policy was not the same as it was last October. I wondered about that, so on 4 June I asked that question specifically of the Leader of the House of Commons—he was the person who produced the original documentation. He responded:

“The Conservative party’s policy on human rights has not changed since last October.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 784.]

For those who have not read the document recently, it states something that will no doubt please the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) about the Council of Europe accepting UK demands:

“In the event that we are unable to reach that agreement, the UK would be left with no alternative but to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, at the point at which our Bill comes into effect.”

Is that now Government policy? It is not inconsistent, for example, with what the Home Secretary said two years ago, although it appeared to be inconsistent with what the Prime Minister was saying. According to press reports, the Prime Minister was somewhat “at odds” with the Home Secretary and the then Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Now, however, there appears to be some agreement at the top of the Conservative party and the Government that we will at least countenance withdrawal from the European convention, but it is confusing.

The Minister here today gave this response in Justice Questions last week:

“We will legislate for a Bill of Rights to protect our fundamental rights… Our plans do not involve us leaving the convention; that is not our objective”—

only for the sentence to continue—

“but our No. 1 priority is to restore some balance to our human rights laws, so no option is off the table for the future.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 748.]

What is the situation? Within an hour of that reply, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was on the “World at One” on the BBC saying that it was perfectly possible that we would be withdrawing from the European convention.

I endeavoured to find some record of what the Justice Secretary might have said before coming into his post. This is what I found, from when the convention was incorporated in 2000. I do not know if his views have changed, but interestingly it was written in the context of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland:

“The Human Rights culture is already spreading in our society, uprooting conventions on which our stability has rested… It supplants common sense and common law, and erodes individual dignity by encouraging citizens to see themselves as supplicants and victims to be pensioned by the state.”

That does not sound like a strong endorsement of human rights, but perhaps the Minister will be able to elucidate in his response.

There are very difficult problems and hurdles. With all due respect to the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the matters we are discussing are not “theological” ones. Our relationship with supranational law will become an issue if we produce some British Bill of Rights that is the bespoke device of the Justice Secretary and the Minister. Unless they are intending to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions and indeed from the European Court of Justice, whose judgments are far more prescriptive and binding than those of the Strasbourg Court, inevitably there will be two systems running in parallel, a British one and an international one, to both of which our courts will have to pay attention.

The Minister must address the issues raised by the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), about the devolved Administrations. He must also address some practical problems, such as how he will get his own colleagues and the House of Lords on board and how—perhaps the central point to have come out of today’s debate—he will explain why any of it is necessary in the first place.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said that most of the problems that have arisen with the European Court of Human Rights over a period of time are in the process of being, or have been, resolved.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

If it is so impossible to have a British Bill of Rights alongside adherence to the convention, why is it the case that Germany, France and almost every other European country have their own constitutions with enshrined charters of rights that sit quite comfortably alongside adherence to the convention?

[Andy Slaughter]

That question is for the Minister to answer, because we have seen literally nothing from the Government to explain any compatibility. As for the question about “taking into account” raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and how we square the circle between the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, our own higher courts and the sovereignty of Parliament—none of that is in issue any more. The question really, if I may put it back to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), is this: what is wrong with the existing system that allows the law to evolve and the judiciary in this country to influence judgments of the European Court, often in an entirely beneficial way because of the quality of such judgments? Why are we seeking to retreat from, rather than to advance the cause of international law? Why are we seeking not to have the benefit of international law? It seems to be a little England, or little UK approach, and when the hon. Gentleman reflects on it, he might find himself on the side of those who believe that little needs to change, instead of throwing out an honourable tradition of human rights drawn up over many centuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I am sure you could.

I also welcome the contribution made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I congratulate him on his election to that post and look forward to being grilled in due course. He counselled us not to treat the Human Rights Act as a holy grail that cannot be questioned. That was a useful injection of common sense into the debate.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who highlighted some of the cases under the HRA that have been of concern to his party. He raised in particular the application of article 8 with regard to deportation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) made some powerful points on section 2 of the Act and on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) raised the difficult issue of the balance between liberty and security. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) discussed judicial legislation from Strasbourg—he has huge experience of that as a result of his representation on the Council of Europe.

There were other excellent speeches to which I cannot pay individual tribute, but I should also acknowledge the speech made by the shadow Minister, who reiterated his party’s position and lamented the lack of detail in the Government’s current proposals. I say to him gently that one issue with the Human Rights Act, arguably, is that it was rushed through, as it was introduced within six months. As a result of that haste, some problems have now emerged that we were warned of at the Act’s inception. The Government are not going to rush in the way the then Labour Government rushed through the Human Rights Act. We will take a little time, because we want to get it done right rather than quickly.

[Andy Slaughter]

Most people do not think it was rushed but would say that it was 20 or 30 years too late. The effect of the Act is to incorporate the convention, which it does, to use the phrase of the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in a very conservative way. What is the problem with that?

[Mr Raab]

The shadow Minister makes an interesting point. If, as a new Government, we had introduced a Bill within six months, it would have been argued that that was too hasty.

On the problems that have arisen as a result, a former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is no longer in his place, took to The Daily Telegraph just last year to point out some of the problems with section 2 of the Act:

“Too often, rather than ‘taking into account’ Strasbourg rulings and by implication, finding their own way, our courts have acted as if these rulings were binding on their decisions. As a result, the sovereignty of our courts and the will of Parliament have both been called into question. This needs sorting out.”

If the Labour party has U-turned on that rather thoughtful critique of its own legislation and now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, believes the Act to be a holy grail that cannot be touched, called into question or criticised at all, there are some questions for Labour to answer. I know hon. Members in the shadow Minister’s party would not all agree on that matter.

I shall take this opportunity to set out the Government’s position. I should say that I have found the debate very valuable at this still formative stage of the Government’s process towards enacting a Bill of Rights. To answer some of the questions put, we will be consulting formally this Session, including with the devolved Administrations—I am aware that there are some issues there—and I hope hon. Members will understand if I do not prejudge that consultation or its terms in my remarks today.

I remind hon. Members that the United Kingdom has a strong tradition of respect for human rights that long predates the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are proud of that tradition and will be true to it in delivering our reforms. As I explained at Justice questions, our plans do not involve us leaving the convention. That is not our objective. We want to restore some common-sense balance to our human rights, which are out of kilter, so nothing has been taken off the table.