Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by expressing, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, our condolences to the people of Belgium? It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them at this very difficult time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on this important issue. It is a technical issue when it comes to how we respond and reform the system, but one of heartfelt agony for the families who have to endure the predicament that my hon. Friend expressed so eloquently.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have done so much to put and keep the subject on the agenda. They include, in the House, the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and the Justice Committee, which has called for reforms consistently in 2011 and 2012; and the charity Missing People, which has steadfastly campaigned on behalf of missing people and their families. I personally acknowledge the deep heartache of the many families involved, which lies beneath the technical details of the proposals that I will outline. It would be remiss of me to pass up the opportunity to pay particular tribute to Peter Lawrence and his family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend. I know that Mr Lawrence is here today, and I extend that recognition and tribute to him and his family.

Claudia Lawrence has now been missing for seven years, and I am pained every time I see or read about the case. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for her family and, of course, for others in the same position. I know that my hon. Friend and Mr Lawrence will be disappointed that we have not legislated sooner. I acknowledge that. All I can say is that we will do everything we can to progress the proposals into legislation. I am inspired by the example that Mr Lawrence and my hon. Friend have set in that regard. It is important, and I give an undertaking, to keep the case of Claudia and the many others like her whom I have learned about—and the human toll of those cases—at the forefront of my mind as we take forward the technical legal proposals.

At present, as has been recognised, the common law rather pragmatically assumes that a person is alive until proven dead. It can therefore be slow to enable control of a person’s property and affairs to be given up to another person following an unexplained disappearance. The truth is that that gives us all a degree of protection, but it also means that when a person disappears with no explanation, their friends and family are left to face the practical difficulties of protecting the interests of the missing person and carrying on with their lives, on top of the deep emotional and personal shock and the challenge of coping without that person at the heart of their lives.

Those left behind may have access to funds, perhaps in a joint account that was previously controlled by the missing person. However, without the good will of third parties, the chances are that they will not have access to, or the ability to control, the missing person’s assets, whether in cash or in kind. They may find themselves effectively in a legal vacuum or void. In practical terms, that may mean being unable to adjust standing orders with a bank, or something as simple as that. It may mean being unable to ensure proper care for dependants, or it may create complications for businesses that have to get on with their daily and monthly work. Joint mortgages may be rendered, in practice, effectively unmanageable. Lots of basic daily things become increasingly difficult to keep a handle on and to keep control of in such a legal vacuum.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. The Opposition wholeheartedly support the campaign by Mr Lawrence and Missing People. I have been through this myself. My uncle disappeared many years ago. He just walked out of our lives, and to this day we do not know what happened to him, which has made it very, very difficult to handle matters. This debate is close to my heart. I urge the Minister to proceed with the proposals as soon as possible and end the heartache.

I cannot imagine what you have been through, Mr Lawrence. My heartache pales into insignificance compared with yours.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her personal insight and for her expression of cross-party support for the proposals, which certainly helps. The Government acknowledge the very real predicament of families such as the Lawrence family.

[Chris Evans]

I have known the Minister a long time, and he will focus on this like a laser beam. When I was campaigning for a presumption of death Act back in 2011, Missing People said that the law is like crazy paving—that was the best way of describing it. There is no certainty, and people are looking to the Government for some form of certainty. I look for that assurance today.

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem with which we are grappling. I understand that people want to hear assurances today, and I will do my level best. Of course, we acknowledge people’s predicament, and we want to do everything we can to help the families of missing people address the administrative problems that can make life even more piercingly difficult at such a traumatic time. It is estimated that there are a significant number of cases of disappearance each year in which there are sufficiently serious problems to make the appointment of a guardian a worthwhile option to have on the legislative table, so to speak.

The coalition Government consulted on the proposals to create a status of guardianship, and the response was published shortly before the 2015 general election. I reassure all Members that the Government are committed to pursuing the measure and getting it into law.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will give way briefly, and then I need to make some progress.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate. I understand that some 2,500 people could be helped by the proposals. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence—Mrs Lawrence is a constituent of mine. They have kept hope alive for Claudia and they hope to help thousands of other people, and today they are hoping for a clear timetable. I know it is a question of finding time, but it is now time to make time for Claudia’s law.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has been a steadfast campaigner for this reform, and it is because of efforts such as his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that I believe we will be able to make progress.

I have mentioned the Government response to the consultation proposals, and the Government are committed to pursuing the measure. It is not, however, solely about creating a new status in law. We also need to be sure that, when the new system is introduced, there is a judicial and supervisory structure to support it. Putting someone in control of another person’s property is a significant and sensitive legal step that is not to be taken lightly. I am sure there is acknowledgment on both sides of the House that we need to get the detail of the proposals right, accurate and tailored in the right way to protect the interests of those directly affected—the families, first and foremost—and to preserve the integrity of the law as a whole. We need a framework in which the interests of the missing person, the families left behind and the third parties who deal with them are correctly calibrated and balanced.

It is wrong to say that progress has not been made. We are making progress, and I will briefly outline some of the key features of the proposed scheme on which we are actively working. First, guardians would be required to act in the best interests of the missing person. In that respect, there would be fiduciary-style duties. Secondly, guardians would be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Thirdly, guardians would be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest. That is important, because the appointment may be general, in which case the guardian would be able to do what the missing person could have done—they would effectively have a free hand, for want of a better technical term—or it could be limited in certain respects. It is right to have those options on the table.

Fourthly, anyone should be able to apply for appointment as a guardian, provided that he or she has a sufficient interest, which obviously would need to be carefully defined. We are looking carefully at that. We would also need to make sure that their interests did not conflict with those of the missing person. I suspect that we would envisage close family members, or professionals such as a solicitor or an accountant with the requisite familial support, being able to apply.

Fifthly, we envisage that a person should have been missing for a period of, say, at least 90 days before such an application could be made. I am interested in other thoughts on that, but we think 90 days is probably a broadly reasonable period. Finally, the appointment of a guardian should be for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of applying for an extension of another four years. That is a significant period but, ultimately, it would be a temporary provision.

There is obviously a lot of technical detail buttressing the bones of the proposals, and we will need to define in further detail the scope of the guardian’s responsibility, the imposition of appropriate duties on him or her, and the appropriate court procedures for the appointment of the guardian and for redress if the guardian’s conduct falls short of the required standards. There will need to be an adequate supervisory regime over the whole structure, capable of commanding public confidence as well as the confidence and buy-in of the families affected.

As has already been mentioned, there are precedents for such a status and model in legislation in other countries, including in Canada and Australia. Ireland is also currently considering legislation in this field, and we are carefully considering the different models on offer. Obviously, we want to tailor the proposals to ensure that we have the right regime for the legal system, the particular nature of the problems and the administrative aspects in this country. Our development and drafting work is not yet complete, but we are working to complete it as soon as practicable. Given the details that I have talked about, it is important to get it right. We are consulting parliamentary counsel, and we would not go down to that level of detail unless we were serious. I hope that gives some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the campaigners and the Lawrence family.

We understand the importance of completing the legislation and getting it right, and it is worth saying that guardianship status is not the only measure that we are proposing to help those affected by the disappearance of an individual who is close to them. The Government are also reviewing the missing children and adults strategy, which was originally published in 2011. We are engaging with stakeholders, including Missing People, to update the guidance on cases of children and adults who go missing. That updated strategy will be published later this year and will include measures to help prevent people from going missing in the first place and to improve the response of all the relevant agencies.

Although I am sorry to disappoint anyone here today, I cannot give a specific date that is firmly etched in stone for introducing the legislation. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the whole House will recognise that the Government are committed to delivering the reform and are actively working to that end. It is vital to get the reform right, given that it creates a legal power over another’s assets. We are committed to proceeding as swiftly as we can, never forgetting for a moment the scope that it offers to ease, if only by a modest degree, the pain and suffering endured by the families who have lost loved ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on steps to remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons to their home countries. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

The Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary have regular bilateral meetings in which they discuss progress on removing foreign national offenders from UK prisons and more generally. It remains a top priority for both Departments.

[Bob Blackman]

In London, we welcome people who come here to study, be tourists or add to our economy, but not those who commit crime and are then imprisoned. With 40% of crime in London committed by foreign nationals, what more can my hon. Friend do to ensure that those responsible are deported at the end of their sentences and not allowed back into this country?

[Mr Raab]

The number of foreign national offenders in the prison population went down by 1,240 between June 2010 and December 2015, but my hon. Friend is right and we strive to do better. Further action is being taken. As the Prime Minister announced on 8 February, we have introduced in the Policing and Crime Bill a new clause that requires defendants appearing in court to provide their name, date of birth and nationality. That is an important tool, backed up by a criminal offence for failure to respond that will help us to remove even more FNOs. That is vital for public protection and vital to saving precious taxpayers’ money.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable for the British taxpayer to be paying for foreign criminals?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. We have a range of existing measures, as well as the new action I have just described. The early release scheme allows for the early removal of foreign national offenders. We remove about 1,800 prisoners per year under that scheme and there are also prisoner transfer agreements. Overall, 29,000 FNOs have been removed between 2010 and 2015.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Suella Fernandes. She is not here. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What efforts are made to ensure that EU national foreign offenders who have been returned to their countries are banned from returning to the United Kingdom—or is that sort of sensible precaution not possible while we are a member of the European Union?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes, if I may say so, a predictable but powerful point. There clearly are restrictions as a result of free movement, but we try to exercise the powers we have as strenuously and as vigorously as possible.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My constituent was stabbed by a criminal who was given an indefinite hospital order. In my view, he should be deported. If I write to the Minister, will he look at the case to see that justice is done for my constituent?

[Mr Raab]

Those kinds of cases are very serious and very traumatic for the family. I am very sympathetic, and the hon. Lady should please feel free to write to me. All I would say to Opposition Members is that when we come to consider human rights reform, I hope that on the substance we can enlist as much support across the House as possible.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that 25% of the foreign national offenders in our prisons come from three EU countries: Ireland, Poland and Romania. What is the reluctance of other EU countries to take back their own citizens who have been committing crimes in our country?

[Mr Raab]

We try, through our prisoner transfer agreements and residual national powers, to exercise powers as robustly as possible to remove as many people as possible. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the EU free movement rules and of the Human Rights Act 1998 and human rights regime—which is, in fairness, separate, albeit related to some degree—there are restrictions. As I said to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), when it comes to looking at human rights reform I hope sensible people with experience, such as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, will look very carefully at the substance and not just take a purely political stance.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

In July 2012, when the Government signed a compulsory transfer agreement with Albania, the then prison Minister said he hoped it would be the first of many. How many have there been since then, and how is the arrangement with Albania going?

[Mr Raab]

We have more than 100 bilateral prisoner transfer agreements, as well as Council of Europe and Commonwealth schemes. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can write to him in due course on the particular numbers under the Albanian agreement.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the deportation of foreign national offenders is in some cases inhibited by the operation of the Human Rights Act? If so, will the Minister update the House on plans to repeal it and replace it with a British Bill of Rights?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One specific issue we want to look at in some detail is the scope to which our Bill of Rights can facilitate the removal of serious offenders, particularly when they have relied on their rather elastic, opaque and ever-expanding rights under article 8. The removal of serious offenders is made even more difficult because of the Human Rights Act. Our proposals will be coming in due course.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

There are many convicted criminals in our prisons who, after committing crimes in the UK, fled the UK and were then returned here to face justice, thanks to the European arrest warrant. Will the Minister explain to the House how the interests of victims of crime can be protected if we leave the EU and, as a result, the scope of the EAW?

[Mr Raab]

I think the hon. Lady is slightly confused about the difference between extradition and deportation. As a result of European law, it has become harder and harder to deport foreign national offenders, while unfortunately the fast-track extradition of innocent British citizens has become easier and easier. That balance should be addressed, and in that I hope we can enlist her support.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to improve mental health treatment for young people serving custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

21. What steps his Department is taking to increase public understanding of the law. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

The Ministry of Justice is working to increase public awareness of the law and of important initiatives in the criminal justice and civil law system. We do that by disseminating information to the media, by using our website and digital channels, and through bespoke campaigns of particular importance, such as on access to victim services.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the efforts made by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. May I encourage my hon. Friend to do more to broaden public legal education? Having just set up a new all-party parliamentary group on the subject, I urge him to work with us to provide such education not just in schools and through adult services, but perhaps in prisons. Although it may not reduce the inmate population, it may reduce the future conviction rate.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. I commend him for his efforts and his initiative. One illustration of the things we are doing is the victims information service, which provides information on the criminal justice system, on what a victim can expect and on restorative justice. He is right—we need to strive to bring the law and its operation closer to the citizens it serves.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Jeff Smith]

The director of Amnesty UK has said:

“The UK is setting a dangerous precedent to the world on human rights.

There’s no doubt that the downgrading of human rights by this government is a gift to dictators the world over and fatally undermines our ability to call on other countries to uphold rights and laws.”

In the light of that advice, is it not time to drop plans to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

Absolutely not. Frankly, it is irresponsible of any of our critics to weigh in with that kind of scaremongering before having seen the substantive proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Government have given strong support to the idea of creating a new legal form of guardian, to help with the property and affairs of the 3,000 people who go missing every year in the UK. Will the Minister confirm when that might be brought into effect?

[Mr Raab]

I know that my hon. Friend has a family in his constituency who have been through the ordeal he mentions. We are absolutely committed to helping families of missing people to deal with the administrative problems they face over and above the heartache that is involved. We are working on creating the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person, and we will introduce measures to the House as soon as parliamentary time permits.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

T6. On International Women’s Day, it is truly shocking that one in four women will experience gender-based violence. On 4 February, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), stated that primary legislation was required to ratify the Istanbul convention to try to tackle that disgrace. When will that legislation be brought forward?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The last Government signed the convention in 2012. We have already implemented almost all its provisions, so the purpose would be to promote it abroad. There is a specific issue, as she may know, about extraterritorial jurisdiction under article 44. We are looking carefully at how that might be addressed.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I apologise for my absence earlier, Mr Speaker. In the recent case of Kiarie and Byndloss, the Court of Appeal roundly upheld the deport first, appeal later policy, which prevents foreign national offenders from extending their leave to remain in the UK while their immigration appeals are pending—the two men in the case were convicted of serious drug offences and had leave to remain here. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the judgment of Lord Justice Richards, which highlights the need for more clarity in the guidance given to caseworkers so that the policy can be better applied?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience from her time as a barrister. We welcome this decision. This is an important area of policy. It is also a Home Office lead, but I can reassure her that the relevant guidance for caseworkers was updated following the decision back in October.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T7. Today is International Women’s Day, as other Members have noted. A recent survey by Women’s Aid of women survivors of domestic abuse who have attended the family courts regarding child contact found that a quarter reported being directly cross-examined by their abuser. Does the Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable? What action is being taken to address it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

In 2013, my constituent Adele Bellis was the victim of an acid attack. There has been a significant increase in such attacks in the past three to four years. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm that the Government will bring forward a strategy to address this, particularly the need for tougher sentences. Adele has shown great courage, but she has to live with that attack for the rest of her life.

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That is an absolutely appalling case, and all cases of that kind are absolutely abhorrent. I would certainly be willing to hear from him about the specifics of the case, and we will of course look to see whether there is a case for additional sentencing powers over and above those that we already have.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Before the legal aid restrictions were introduced, 78,000 disabled people a year were able to challenge social security decisions, 80% successfully. How can withdrawal of legal aid to disabled people, who are twice as likely to live in poverty, be fair or just?

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

In 2009, Walter Scott and Ross, a solicitors firm in my constituency, was closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority due to financial irregularities. Since then, the SRA has systematically failed in its duty of care to former clients of the firm, leading to at least one bankruptcy. Will the Minister agree to investigate that case as a matter of urgency so that we can at last secure some closure for my constituents?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend will know that the regulation of the legal profession is independent of Government. It would be wrong and improper for a Minister to try to intervene in any individual case, but there is an ombudsman service that allows for review of complaints against the SRA, and I encourage her to consider that possibility.

Human Rights Framework: Scotland

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the first time, I think. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on many issues and you have steered us wisely thorough this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on their stimulating contributions. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for sharing his fantasy of a British Bill of Rights with us. The serious point that he made is that the Human Rights Act is not the last word on human Rights: it is not the perfect incarnation of human rights in this country, and therefore it can admit of change. I sensed agreement on that point, so the real bone of contention is what that change might look like, rather than the principled question of whether the Human Rights Act has become untouchable.

The Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights across the UK. This debate is an important opportunity to reflect on what that protection looks like now, what it might look like in the future and how it might be improved. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Government will work in the interests of all four nations of the UK, and it goes without saying that I share that commitment. One of the things that unites us as a country is our shared commitment to liberty and the rule of law. Although that commitment has evolved though different instruments, from Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights in England and Wales, to the Scottish Claim of Right, the nations of the UK have evolved with a shared commitment to the common values that underpin human rights and, indeed, the Union.

As an Englishman, I am proud to pay tribute to the Scottish landmarks on Britain’s long road to liberty. I mentioned the Claim of Right, to which can be added the Criminal Procedure Act 1701, which established and entrenched the principle of habeas corpus in Scots law. Scotland has produced some of our very finest thinkers on the subject of liberty and the rule of law. I would single out David Hume and his essays on the liberty of the press and civil liberty. He regarded Government not as the enemy of liberty but as a necessary condition for liberty. As hon. and right hon. Members will know, his work came in the context of the period after the Act of Union, so it was part of the intellectual fabric that binds this United Kingdom.

We share not only the values, but the things that emanate from them—the practical products of a commitment to liberty, such as free elections, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, free and fair trials, and free speech. Those values and their product found voice and strength in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom and are shared across the UK. At the same time, we must reflect on the pluralism within the UK and that the UK is a union of diverse interests, history and legal traditions. Notwithstanding our shared commitment to rights and liberty, there are areas where we diverge. We can look, for example, to the right to trial by jury that exists in England and Wales. Jury trial is practised in Scotland, but it is not there as a strict right, which is perfectly legitimate and respectable. There is room for different applications of fundamental freedoms across the UK. That diversity is not merely to be expected; it is to be welcomed. It would be odd were the SNP, which is effectively committed to secession, not to think that that pluralism was a good idea.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will just make a little progress and then I will certainly take interventions.

The balance between shared values and the different application of those values finds voice today in Scotland’s human rights framework. The protection of rights and liberty remains at the heart of Scotland’s devolution settlement—a point made well by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. The compatibility of devolved legislation with fundamental human rights is central to the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While competence for the UK’s human rights framework remains with the UK Government and this House, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are responsible for the application of human rights in devolved areas and are free to act on human rights issues within devolved policy areas. The core substantive rights are common across the UK, but we have an element of pluralism in our approach to the procedural mechanism for protecting human rights. That variable procedural geometry means that the application of human rights admits some measure of variation across the UK.

We had lots of theoretical considerations of the human rights position as it applies in the UK and in Scotland, but let us discuss some tangible illustrations. Unlike in England and Wales, for example, the Scottish Government do not provide for mandatory fatal accident inquiries for unnatural deaths of persons detained under mental health laws, despite some criticism from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Another example is the hourly rousing of detainees in police cells, which takes place in Scotland but applies only to vulnerable detainees in England. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland recommended reform in that area. A third example—again, this list is illustrative, not exhaustive—is the notification period for demonstrations in Scotland, which is 28 days compared with six days in England. That has been the subject of criticism by the UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. It is also highlighted in “Is Scotland Fairer?” the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s latest report, along with other areas that the commission concluded required improvement, such as violence and harassment against children and young persons and hate crimes perpetrated on grounds of disability or sexual orientation.

I should make it clear that the Government support the principle that Scotland should have the freedom to take action on rights in devolved areas, in line with its own priorities for implementation, and to decide how it balances fundamental human rights with the need to implement practical and sensible policies for the people of Scotland.

[Joanna Cherry]

I mentioned in earlier that the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights recently visited the UK. Is the Minister aware that the commissioner complimented the Scottish Government on the fact that they are looking to go beyond the European convention on human rights by implementing other international human rights treaties directly into Scots law? Is the Minister aware that the commissioner also said:

“The Scottish National Action Plan for Human Rights is also a good example for”

the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Raab]

I read the remarks of the commissioner. Indeed, I met him in person and he seemed satisfied with the assurances I gave him that our reforms, proposals and what we have in mind will not see us turn into the basket case of Europe or become like Belarus, which is nonsense that is bandied around frankly rather irresponsibly. I did meet the commissioner and did read his comments about Scotland, and it is right to pay tribute to the improvements and to what the rest of the Union can learn from Scotland. Action plans and the theoretical stuff is fine, but it is what we do in practice that really counts for the citizens of Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK.

In addition, the more powers that the Scottish Government assume for the implementation of human rights for the people of Scotland, the more they can be expected to be questioned and evaluated on the degree to which they live up to the responsibilities that they acquire. We hear an awful lot from the SNP in this House about how the UK Government and Parliament are threatening human rights in Scotland, but I hope that that is not being used as a distraction from considering the degree to which the Scottish Government meet their commitments in reality in Scotland. It is not about brandishing action plans, to which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway referred, and making pious policy statements about human rights in theory instead of focusing on delivering in practice. Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady would like to respond to that point.

[Joanna Cherry]

I would not, because the Minister is here to answer questions put to him by us in this debate. I am conscious of the clock and that there is about three and a half minutes left. He has been asked a number of questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) that he has not yet answered. He has also been asked some important questions by the spokesperson for the official Opposition about the purdah period. Will the Minister answer those questions?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady. We have given answers to all those questions before.

[Richard Arkless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. It is usually customary to let the Minister respond to the question being asked.

[Mr Raab]

I am happy to give way, but if we have a Gatling gun salvo of interventions, that rather eats into my time and opportunity to address such matters. I will, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is his debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

Tell us!

[Mr Raab]

We have made it clear that the Human Rights Act can be revised only by the UK Government, but the implementation of many human rights issues is devolved. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland neatly summed up the position on the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions. Scotland cannot responsibly take a decision on such things until it has its package. In relation to the European convention on human rights, which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway also asked about, I do not know how many times I have said it in the House, but our current plans do not involve our withdrawal from the convention. If the hon. Gentleman has been in for Justice Question Time once over the past six months, he will have heard me say that.

In fact, the Scotland Bill, which is currently completing its passage in the other place, serves as a reminder of the Scottish Parliament’s role in deciding the right balance for Scottish people in Scotland. To take just one example, when competence for the franchise in local and Scottish parliamentary elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to determine whether the current ban on convicted prisoners voting ought to remain, as in the rest of the UK. The SNP has made it clear that it did not want the franchise extended to prisoners for the Scottish referendum. Nicola Sturgeon made that clear in May 2013.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not because I have so little time left.

Under the Human Rights Act, however, once Scotland has devolved responsibility for the franchise, the only way that the Scottish Government will be able to retain the ban on prisoner voting is by relying on the nationwide ban enacted by the UK Parliament here at Westminster. It is one of those things that SNP Members should remember, ’fess up to and be a bit more honest and straightforward about when they hurl around the suggestion that we are attacking human rights.

There is actually widespread support in Scotland for replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, which has been borne out by all the YouGov polling.

[Joanna Cherry]

Nonsense!

[Mr Raab]

The hon. and learned Lady does not like the facts.

The truth is that the UK’s history of respect for human rights predates the Human Rights Act in all parts of the United Kingdom. That protection will continue to be totally central to our human rights framework in the years ahead. I look forward to many more opportunities to discuss the substance and detail of the framework with hon. Members in due course.

Question put,

That this House has considered the future framework for human rights in Scotland.

The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.

Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).

Dog Theft: Sentencing

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on his habitual tenacity, which enabled him to secure this very important debate. The truth is that many people become very attached to their pets and treat them like family—sometimes better than family. I know at first hand that the distress caused when a pet disappears is heightened if it is suspected or found that the pet has been stolen for nefarious purposes of one sort or another. That can only aggravate the fear that the pet may come to some form of harm. As I say, I know this at first hand, because I grew up with dogs. I had a dog that I loved very dearly, so I know the worry when dogs go missing. In my case, the dog was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Anyone who knows the breed will realise that it is unlikely to be stolen. None the less, we fretted every time he jumped the gate or the back garden. I know what the feeling is like.

Sadly, the truth is that we are seeing a growing trend of disappearances and thefts of pets, with all the distress that can cause to individual owners. We in government have to make sure that the criminal justice system is able to respond to these incidents, that we have the resources and expertise to investigate the cases, that there is the will to prosecute them, and that the courts—this is the key to my hon. Friend’s debate—have the necessary criminal and sentencing powers to ensure that we punish offenders and, let us not forget, deter offending.

I hold ministerial responsibility for sentencing, so I need to be assured that courts have the right framework and the right powers in place. I would like to talk a little about deterrence, if only because it is not necessarily always talked about, yet it is an important part of the matter, preventing offences from happening in the first place. I will return to that in a moment, if I may.

Let me say a few words about the available offences and the sentences connected with them. First, we have offences of animal cruelty and failure to meet an animal’s basic needs. These are set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those offences carry a maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine, or both. The courts also have the power to ban an offender from keeping animals in the future. It is not always the case that a stolen pet has been mistreated, but where it has been, this offence may apply.

Where the offence charged is theft, under the Theft Act 1968, the maximum penalty is seven years. That applies to domestic animals, just as it does to any other goods or chattels. My hon. Friend has made the point that animals should not be treated just like some kind of inanimate object or chattel, and I think he is absolutely right. When it comes to the criminal law, we have to think carefully about how those concerns should be properly reflected.

Of course, justice must be more than the dry letter of the law. The courts will always take into account the circumstances of a case, but that does not necessarily mean that they will need definitions of separate and bespoke offences relating to every possible variation of the crime of theft or every possible contingency. I am slightly worried—I suppose I say this as a Minister, but also as a Conservative—about the creation of specific penalties for behaviour that is already covered; I am not sure that that achieves very much. We need to enforce the penalties that already exist. Creating new offences applying to every conceivable situation risks complicating the law, and making it less transparent and less accessible. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friend was calling for, but I think that the point is worth making. The rule of law requires clear, consistent, predictable rules for victims and for citizens in general, and the sending of a clear message of deterrence to offenders.

It is for the courts to decide the right sentence in individual cases, within the maximum set by Parliament. The courts hear all the circumstances of a case, and are best placed to make that decision. They are helped by the sentencing guidelines that are issued by the independent—I stress the word “independent”—Sentencing Council. They must follow those guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Even then, there is some wriggle room. The guidelines are there to ensure that sentencing is more consistent, and to identify sentencing ranges and aggravating and mitigating factors. There must be a balance between ensuring that rules are fair and consistent, and doing justice to the particular facts of a case and, in the case of a dog theft, the impact on the dog’s owner.

The new sentencing guideline on theft came into force at the beginning of last month. I understand that my hon. Friend may be disappointed that it does not specifically mention pet theft. If he has not done so already, he may wish to check out the Sentencing Council’s website, where he will see that the council’s consultation on the draft of the new guideline elicited responses and suggestions relating to this specific issue, including the suggestion that there should be a separate guideline on pet theft.

The council’s response to the consultation is available on the website. Having carefully considered the views of respondents, it concluded that the aggravating factors already in the guideline would enable the courts to sentence appropriately for pet theft. Aggravating factors in the guideline include emotional distress caused to the victim, and the fact that the stolen item may be of particular subjective value to the owner regardless of its strict monetary worth. I think that that was one of my hon. Friend’s key points. Judges are human beings, and many have a strong sense of empathy. Moreover, they have all the powers, and, most important, the discretion, to take account of the full range of impacts on individuals of this very serious offence, including the emotional impact on owners and, indeed, dogs.

The guideline mentions the following aggravating factors: the offender is acting as part of a group or gang, so that there is an organised crime element; there is significant planning of the offence; or the goods are stolen to order. Unfortunately, all those factors are often present when a dog has been stolen. The courts have adequate criminal powers, and I believe that they have adequate sentencing powers at their disposal, as well as recent and substantial guidance to help them to reach balanced, proportionate and consistent sentencing decisions, all the while taking account of all the facts of the case. It is precisely because we want them to take account of the individual impact in an individual case that we must allow judges to retain that measure of discretion.

Let me say a little about deterrence. The sentences passed by the courts are partly aimed at deterring other prospective offenders, but people can, of course, take action themselves to prevent their dogs from being stolen. Improvements in technology are one of the major reasons why we have managed to reduce the incidence of crime in recent years. Microchipping of dogs has been available for more than 25 years, and I am told that about 83% of dogs are now voluntarily chipped by their owners. My hon. Friend was, of course, one of the tenacious campaigners for the compulsory microchipping of dogs, and I congratulate him on his efforts. He, like me, will have been pleased to learn that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to introduce compulsory microchipping in England on 6 April this year. Similar arrangements will also be in place in Scotland and Wales.

This measure is to be welcomed because it is an important step for animal welfare more broadly. It will make it easier to identify dogs and reunite them with their owners. It will also make it easier to prove that a dog has been stolen, which is important for prosecutions, and I know that my hon. Friend wants to see more of those. Most importantly, however, it can act as a deterrent. A prospective criminal who knows that a dog is microchipped is significantly less likely to target that animal for theft. The fact that all dogs must now be microchipped is as important a factor in reducing these distressing offences as the effective and flexible sentencing response, which I believe is already available.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has been tenacious in raising this important matter, and we will always keep these issues under review, but I believe that on balance we now have the right powers, criminal offences and sentencing discretion in place to deal with this very serious crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Offender Management

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I would like to provide the House with an update on the progress of our electronic monitoring programme which will introduce new satellite tracking technology to improve the supervision and management of offenders and suspects.

This is a huge opportunity to reduce reoffending, cut costs for taxpayers and keep the public safe.

That is why we are committed to delivering a new generation of tags through contracts designed to encourage innovation, deliver an end-to-end system for monitoring offenders and provide for future technological developments.

With this new technology we can be creative and look at how we can use satellite tags to devise new sentencing options for the courts. We want to use technology to make sure we not only deliver the punishments that society rightly expects but also improve supervision in the community and support offenders to change their lives.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), announced to the House on 13 July last year that there had been significant problems with this programme, leading to considerable delays. As a result, we initiated a review into the programme, looking at how to get the programme back on track. This review examined progress made on the programme to date and how best electronic monitoring technology can meet our ambitions for the future, and considered the experience of other jurisdictions around the world that have developed GPS tagging schemes.

Developing bespoke tags has been challenging and it is now clear that it will be more appropriate to pursue our goals using off-the-shelf technology which is already available. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be terminating our contract to develop a bespoke tagging product with Steatite Ltd and will shortly begin a new procurement process for proven tags already on the market.

This decision will mean we can proceed with wider changes to the way we manage the programme. We will simplify our approach in order to meet the challenges of technical and business integration and continue to drive and monitor delivery from the other suppliers.

This remains a challenging programme, which we will continue to keep under review.

As the Prime Minister announced during his speech on prison reform on 8 February, we will begin pilots later this year which will inform how we use GPS tracking technologies to best effect in the future. These pilots will be run in a variety of settings in conjunction with criminal justice partners and will be designed to test how GPS technology is used and how it affects behaviour. The pilots will be independently evaluated and the results will inform policy decisions on the future use of this important tool.

Furthermore, following the conclusion of the pilot in south London of sobriety tags as part of an alcohol abstinence monitoring requirement, the Secretary of State for Justice has approved the expansion of the scheme to the whole of London to give courts in the capital the means to tackle the damaging effects of crime committed while under the influence of alcohol. An evaluation of sobriety tagging in London will inform our decisions about wider national roll-out.

[HCWS549]

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice, Lord Faulks QC, has made the following written statement.

I have today laid the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations (“the draft Regulations”) before both Houses of Parliament. The draft regulations have to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before they can be made. Subject to that approval being given, I intend to make the regulations without delay. I will announce the commencement date of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) as amended by both the Insurance Act 2015 and the regulations in due course but the date will not be earlier than three months after the regulations have been made.

[HCWS556]

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Friday 5th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

At the outset, may I add my condolences to the family of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, and say that we feel his loss in all parts of this Chamber?

I add my congratulations to those of others to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), who, in getting the Bill to this stage, has achieved no mean feat. Many private Members’ Bills fall long before they reach this point, and he has shown considerable tenacity, sagacity and modesty in securing its passage to this stage—[Interruption.] But not brevity, he tells me—you can’t have it all. He has done so within nine months of being elected to this House, which is also no mean feat.

I thank the other hon. Members who have demonstrated their support for and interest in this Bill. I note that my hon. Friend has managed to amass an interesting range of sponsors, from the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition to the Conservative chair of the 1922 committee. I am not sure whether that is entirely unprecedented, but it is certainly a rare and potent cocktail of parliamentary support, and I congratulate him on that.

In short, the Government support the Bill. It may be modest in size, but we believe it will make a significant contribution to the effective workings of our criminal justice system. When we think about justice, we usually think about the police, the courts, or perhaps the judges. We rightly focus on the victims and the witnesses, and on ensuring that justice is meted out swiftly and surely. Perhaps we do not spend enough time thinking about what happens when things go wrong. That is mercifully rare, but it does happen on occasions that someone is convicted who, it transpires, was innocent all along. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to talk about the impact of miscarriages of justice on individuals—the human toll. He put it incredibly well. British justice should be firm, but it should be fair, and that is what this Bill is all about.

In the 1970s, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there were some very high-profile miscarriages of justice. He spoke about them, and I do not need to repeat what he said. Those cases exposed the weaknesses in the criminal justice system at the time, and that led to the establishment of a royal commission on criminal justice in 1991. As hon. Members will recall, the commission’s remit included considering whether changes were needed in the arrangements for considering and investigating allegations of miscarriages of justice when all the appeal processes have been exhausted. The commission’s recommendations led to the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which established the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The existence of the CCRC ensures that those who have been wrongfully convicted have someone to turn to who will thoroughly investigate and reconsider their case. If there is a real possibility that their conviction would not be upheld, the commission will refer their case to an appeal court. The commission consists of 11 commissioners, one of whom serves as chair. They are dedicated and experienced people who deserve our support and encouragement. As I say, its purpose is to investigate cases in which it is alleged that the system has gone wrong and a mistake has been made. That is no easy task for the commissioners. It can involve trawling through reams of paperwork and great swathes of historical evidence. The ability to obtain that evidential material is clearly an essential tool in the commission’s work; I think it is the key to its success.

Currently, the commission uses the powers set out in section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to require public bodies to give it documents or other material that may assist it in discharging its functions. Public bodies that the CCRC often deals with include the police, the NHS, councils, Whitehall Departments and the Crown Prosecution Service. Provided that the section 17 power is exercised reasonably, the CCRC’s ability to obtain information from the public sector is not restricted by any obligation of secrecy or limitation on disclosure. For example, it extends to information that may be relevant to national security and to personal information held by public bodies.

The CCRC does not, however, have the right to obtain the same information from private organisations and individuals. As we have discussed throughout the passage of the Bill, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, that can cause real issues in some cases, albeit a small number. There is no doubt that that has limited the commission’s actions and caused unnecessary delay in some of the reviews of cases it has undertaken. Obviously that is not just unfair but a waste of its resources.

When documents relevant to a particular investigation are held by the private sector, or indeed a private individual, the commission relies on voluntary disclosure. Although voluntary disclosure is not uncommon—most businesses want to try to do the right thing—organisations sometimes claim to be unable to provide the CCRC with the relevant material, perhaps because of a statutory restriction on the disclosure. Even when voluntary disclosure is made, it can often take protracted negotiation, which itself causes lengthy and expensive delays in the review process. As my hon. Friend has said, let us not forget the impact that that has on innocent people, particularly innocent people who are still in prison. The delay has a very real human cost.

The situation under the current legislation stands in contrast to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which, when it was established, was granted far wider-reaching powers under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The Scottish body has a similar function to that of its counterpart in England and Wales, to investigate miscarriages of justice in Scotland. However, it was established from the outset with powers to obtain material from both public and private sector organisations. It is a shame that there are no Members who represent Scotland present to hear us pay full tribute to the Scottish legal and justice system.

The Bill’s insertion of a new section into the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 is very welcome. It means that the CCRC will be able to obtain a court order requiring a private individual or private organisation to disclose a document in their possession or under their broader control. The court will be able to make such an order only if it thinks that the document or other material may assist the commission in the exercise of its functions. We are not talking about licensing or authorising fishing expeditions.

The involvement of the court is an important safeguard in the process. The individual or the company from which any material is requested will be able to put their case to the court if they think that the information either needs to be maintained for confidentiality or should not be disclosed. There are safeguards for documents that are, for example, commercially sensitive or subject to legal privilege. Clinics may want to safeguard personal medical records whose disclosure could be detrimental to the patient or patients concerned, and journalists want to protect their sources. All such things can be catered for in the process.

In short, there may be a whole range of circumstances where it is justifiable and appropriate that documents or other material remain confidential. The Bill provides a clear process for the courts to consider fully the circumstances of any particular case and to make an informed, sensible decision about how to proceed.

Once a court order has been made, failure to disclose the documents will be punishable by contempt of court. That is a significant sanction. The maximum penalty for that in the Crown court is two years, or a fine, or both. The penalty in any individual case will be a matter for the judges and the court, within the maximum limit. We think that is right and appropriate. Of course, it is not possible to imprison an organisation if it does not comply, but a fine has significant potential to damage a company’s reputation as well as to hit it in the pocket, and we think that will be a considerable deterrent. We also think that the prospect of being taken to court will probably be enough to persuade most companies to provide any relevant documents and material, and to do so quickly. Where a miscarriage of justice is concerned, it is even more important that we brook no delay in putting it right.

One reason why the powers are needed now is that more and more services that used to be in the public sector are provided wholly, or partly, by private companies. It was good to hear that the Opposition have no dogmatic objection to that. A good example of where that works effectively is the work that used to be done by the Forensic Science Service. As hon. Members will imagine, a key part of the commission’s work involves re-examining and re-testing material obtained from crime scenes. Much of that material is now initially tested and held by private companies.

When it comes to forensic evidence and samples, an important power of the commission under the 1995 Act is to request that samples are retained for later examination and testing. At present, such a request can be made to public bodies, but not to private individuals or companies. That is a good example of the situation that the Bill is designed to rectify. Documents that are in the possession of a private company might be destroyed, inadvertently or otherwise, and not be available for later examination by the CCRC. The Bill will ensure that the commission can request that the court orders a private organisation to retain documents or other material, which will reduce any risk that the company might discard or unintentionally destroy important material that the commission might need later.

Some private companies already have a policy covering what they retain, and they may be restrained by lack of space and facilities. The commission needs a mechanism to ensure that documents are retained in spite of any such policy. We think it will continue to be relatively rare for a company to intentionally destroy documents that later prove to be necessary in an investigation by the commission, but it is important that the powers in this Bill exist for future such contingencies.

We should, of course, acknowledge that the great majority of private individuals approached by the commission comply voluntarily. Cases in which organisations or individuals refuse to release documents are, thankfully, rare, but some simply refuse to assist. As with witnesses who are reluctant to come forward, there may be many reasons for that refusal. Some just cannot be bothered, others may be scared of reprisals—for example, where a case involves gangs—and others may be hostile to the criminal justice system in general, or to the commission.

We believe that the powers that the Bill gives the CCRC will make cases of non-assistance much rarer. The backstop of a court order will make it more likely that individuals and organisations will comply fully and without delay when approached by the CCRC. That is certainly the case in Scotland.

As we have considered what the Bill is designed to achieve, we have been mindful of the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Justice following its investigation of the matter during the 2014-15 Session. I will not go through all the points that it made, but the Justice Committee clearly felt that there was a need to act in this area. It argued:

“The extension of the CCRC’s section 17 powers to cover private bodies is urgently necessary and commands universal support.”

There appears to be cross-party agreement in the House to that effect. The Committee recommended that the commission should be able to apply to the court, and that important safeguard is in the Bill, so the Bill fulfils that recommendation exactly.

The Secretary of State for Justice wants a justice system that is firm but fair, and which delivers the best possible outcomes and commands the confidence of the public. It is clear from all the speeches, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove, that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that the criminal justice system delivers firm but fair justice. I think the whole House agrees about the importance of the commission’s role in performing independent investigations, and that, as it does so, it should have all the information-gathering powers it needs. The Bill is an important, though modest and incremental, addition to those powers.

For all those reasons, the Government are very supportive of the Bill. The powers are appropriate, and the Bill’s terms will ensure that the powers are exercised proportionately and appropriately. The involvement of the courts will ensure that we get the right balance between confidentiality and the broader requirements of due process and justice. I think I will be joined by many colleagues—indeed, I hope by the whole House—in welcoming and supporting the Bill, commending my hon. Friend and wishing the Bill a safe, secure and swift passage in this House and through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to increase value for money in its spending.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We are determined to help eliminate the budget deficit and deliver better justice, which is why we are cutting 15% from the Ministry of Justice budget over the spending review, but finding £1.3 billion to overhaul the prison estate so that we drive down reoffending and ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents get better value for money and better bang for their buck out of the justice system.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Ministry of Justice has faced spending cuts as deep, or deeper, than any other Department in Whitehall, and yet, despite the occasional criticism and row, I am not sure whether the public has noted any discernible reduction in the service provided by the Department. Will my hon. Friend summon in the Secretaries of State for Health, Work and Pensions, International Development and Defence and give them a verbal tongue lashing about how we can emulate the private sector and create more wealth, goods, enterprise, deregulation and lower taxation and still provide better services?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his insightful remarks. As a former Public Accounts Committee Chairman, he will appreciate that we have already slimmed back-office by £600 million so that we can extend rehabilitation to the 45,000 offenders on short sentences, where we have some of the highest reoffending. Now we are cutting the admin budget by 50%, but investing £700 million to modernise our courts. It shows that, whether we are talking about delays at courts or the offenders passing through them, we can drive efficiencies and deliver a more effective system.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Given the Secretary of State’s U-turns on things such as the criminal court charge and the ban on books being sent to prisoners, may I gently suggest that a good way of saving money would be to avoid such mistakes in the first place and listen to the Labour party?

[Mr Raab]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, given the litany of mistakes, errors and systemic failings that we have had to clear up over the past five years and will continue to do over the next five years, we might just reject that particular piece of counsel.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

One important area in which both service can be enhanced and value for money achieved is through greater efficiency both in the courts estate and the courts system. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Ministry has sufficient in-house capacity to deal adequately with major issues such as court restructuring, where negotiations have to take place at high commercial contractual levels, or will he bring in outside expertise where necessary?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have already explained some of the back-office savings that we are making not only to deliver better value to the taxpayer but to find the savings to reinvest. He is right to say that, where we need to engage with the private sector—or the voluntary sector for that matter—to take advantage of their ingenuity and innovation, we will do so.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Figures released yesterday by the Department show that more Ministry of Justice staff received bonuses last year than the previous year, and that the average size of bonus increased by more than 7%. Considering that the whole public sector has had a 1% pay rise cap, is this not a case of one rule for one and a different rule for another?

[Mr Raab]

No. I am afraid that that is not fair or reasonable to any of our hard-working public servants. There are strict rules and parameters on bonuses within the 1% pay cap and the guidance on that, but it is important, notwithstanding the savings that we have to make, especially in bureaucracy, back office and head- quarters, that we recognise outstanding performance.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

We are the only country in the world that uses taxpayers’ revenue to pay lawyers to sue our own soldiers as they return from active duty. Is that an area of saving that the Minister might consider?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need a balanced approach to access to justice. I will answer some specific questions about the military claims later, but he is right to say that we need to look at the rules on legal aid, and that is what we are already doing and will continue to pursue.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Talking of value for money, how much has the miscalculation of divorce settlements cost so far? The 2,200 closed cases will require specialist legal advice and negotiation to correct. Who is going to pay for that—the taxpayer or the people his Department has so badly let down? On the back of it, the legal press has dubbed the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), the Minister for cock-ups. We disapprove of this scapegoating. Does not the whole ministerial team deserve that title?

[Mr Raab]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with scapegoating. When we make mistakes, we recognise them. We have written to all the people affected, and we will make sure that it does not happen again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

16. What representations he has received from (a) international bodies, (b) the Council of Europe and (c) the UN on the UK’s membership of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I have met many of our international partners, from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Nils Muižnieks, to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid. The Secretary of State for Justice has met many others, including Secretary-General Jagland of the Council of Europe. Those meetings are important opportunities to reinforce Britain’s proud tradition of promoting freedom and discuss how the Government intend to strengthen it both at home and abroad.

[Mr Hanson]

I am sure that if it was just the Labour party saying, “Don’t scrap the human rights act,” the Minister could roll with it, but when the Minister met Prince Zeid, did Prince Zeid say that the Government’s proposals would be

“damaging for victims and contrary to the country’s commendable history of global and regional engagement”

and that

“many other states may gleefully follow suit”?

Is it not important that we listen to the United Nations?

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we should listen to all our international partners. I can tell him that Prince Zeid did not say that to me at all. When we have those meetings, they are a good opportunity to discuss the reality of our plans for reform. I made it clear that our forthcoming Bill of Rights proposals are based on staying within the convention. I explained the kind of abuses that we want to be rid of under the Human Rights Act and some of the challenges that successive Governments have had with the Strasbourg Court. That allows us to contrast our common-sense reforms with some of the baseless scaremongering coming from some of our critics.

[Andrew Gwynne]

But the UN special rapporteur on torture, Mr Juan Mendez, has warned that the Government’s plot to replace the Human Rights Act with a Tory Bill of Rights is “dangerous, pernicious” and would set

“a very bad example to the rest of the world”.

Is he not right?

[Mr Raab]

That is not right. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in all the meetings I have had with all the UN officials that pass through Westminster, none has ever used that kind of language in front of me. I very much doubt that they would.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Since when was it the practice of foreign legal and other entities to decide the views of this Parliament, and to traduce its sovereignty and the electoral mandate we have to introduce a British Bill of Rights? It is a tragedy that the European convention on human rights, which was founded by British jurists, has been distorted by perverse decisions such as trying to give an axe murderer the vote, which we have rejected. Is it not time that we got on with our manifesto commitment to a British Bill of Rights?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes his point in his characteristically powerful way. I would point out that the Labour Government had problems with how the Strasbourg Court operated. They did not implement prisoner voting—I do not remember the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) calling for it to be implemented when he was a Minister—and nor did they implement the Abu Qatada judgment.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that human rights have been part of our law in this country under the common law for many years, and that they will continue to be so after the repeal of the Human Rights Act, perhaps in a more modern and codified way?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a long tradition and pedigree of respecting human rights, dating back to Magna Carta and before that. We protected human rights in this country before the European convention, and certainly before Labour’s Human Rights Act. We shall continue to do so proudly in the years ahead.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

The Minister is yet to issue his consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British Bill of Rights, but it is eight weeks until the Scottish Parliament is dissolved and goes into purdah—it is the same with Northern Ireland and Wales. Will he give an absolute guarantee that he will not squash out Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales from this important consultation by issuing his proposal before, or worse still during, the election purdah period? Will he give that absolute guarantee?

[Mr Raab]

There will be no squashing out of any of the devolved Administrations. We are already in detailed soundings. When we come to our consultation, there will be full consultation with all the devolved Administrations. There are clear rules and Cabinet Office guidance on purdah, and we will be mindful of them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Another perverse decision of the European Court of Human Rights was on prisoner voting. Will the Minister please confirm that there are absolutely no plans to change our laws on prisoner voting?

[Mr Raab]

As I have made clear to the Committee of Ministers and to our colleagues and partners in Strasbourg, it is for hon. Members in this House to determine whether prisoners should be given the vote. I see no prospect of that happening for the foreseeable future.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

When Nils Muižnieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, visited the United Kingdom last week, he said that the repeatedly delayed launch of the consultation on the repeal of the Human Rights Act is

“creating an atmosphere of anxiety and concern in civil society and within the devolved administrations”.

Will the Minister tell us exactly when the consultation will be published?

[Mr Raab]

As the hon. and learned Lady knows, I met Nils Muižnieks last week to talk through these issues, and there is absolutely no cause for anxiety. We will introduce proposals for full consultation in the near future—those proposals are going well—and she will hear more shortly.

[Joanna Cherry]

The commissioner also said:

“My impression is that the debate over the HRA in Westminster is not a true reflection of concerns outside England”.

Does the Minister appreciate that the impact on the devolved Administrations of an attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act would likely provoke a constitutional crisis?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that the debate within the Westminster bubble, particularly the shrill scaremongering, is not reflective of wider public opinion outside the House, which is clearly and consistently in favour of a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, including, she will note, in Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, patience from Pudsey is duly rewarded. I call Mr Stuart Andrew.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We do share my hon. Friend’s concerns. He will be aware of the Prime Minister’s announcement on Friday. The professionalism of our armed forces is second to none, but we cannot have returning troops hounded by ambulance-chasing lawyers pursuing spurious claims. The Justice Secretary has asked me to chair a working group with the Minister for the Armed Forces to look at all aspects of this—no win, no fee; legal aid rules; time limits for claims; and disciplinary sanctions against law firms found to be abusing the system—so that we prevent any malicious or parasitic litigation from being taken against our brave armed forces.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

T4. Can the Minister confirm how many times contract breaches at G4S establishments have occurred under contracts with his Department and what amount in fines has been incurred by G4S in respect of those breaches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

T10. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), does my hon. Friend agree that people in this House will find it despicable that two firms and possibly more are actively seeking—soliciting, in fact—people in Iraq to make spurious and bogus claims against our servicemen overseas? Will he reject reports in newspapers that we still intend to give legal aid to these appalling claims?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier remarks. I am concerned about the way in which the system operates. It is important to say that there is accountability for any wrongdoing, but that does not mean giving lawyers a licence to harass our armed forces. We will look at every angle, including the point about legal aid that he made, as well as no win, no fee, and, of course, disciplinary powers against lawyers who try to abuse the system.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

In 2012, the Minister’s own Department spent £1.7 million refurbishing St Helens courthouse to accommodate civil and criminal proceedings in the same building, declaring that it was efficient and logical. Are we to assume therefore that considering the closure of the same courthouse just four years later is illogical and inefficient, or would the Minister like to rule that out today?

Insolvency Litigation

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

My noble friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice (Lord Faulks QC) has made the following written statement.

The Government have made a priority of addressing the high costs of civil litigation in England and Wales.

To that end, part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 reforms the operation of no win no fee conditional fee agreements. Those reforms came into effect generally in April 2013 but were delayed in respect of insolvency proceedings.

After further consideration the Government have decided that the no win no fee reforms should now be applied to insolvency proceedings. The provisions will come into force for these cases in April 2016.

It has already been announced that there will be a post-implementation review of the LASPO Act part 2 reforms between April 2016 and April 2018. The review will take place towards the end of that period. The review under section 48 of the Act in relation to mesothelioma cases will also take place as part of the post-implementation review.

[HCWS420]

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

15. What the Government’s policy is on the UK remaining party to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We cannot rule out ever withdrawing from the ECHR, but our proposals for a Bill of Rights are focused on remaining within the convention, which contains a common-sense list of rights.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does the Minister agree that a constitutional court could have primacy over decisions in Strasbourg and that such a possibility should be at the heart of any further consultations?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We respect the fact that the convention includes a common-sense list of rights, and we want to ensure that we have the proper interpretation of those rights. We also want to ensure that we have a Supreme Court that remains supreme. It should be said that where the goalposts of human rights shift, it should be elected Members here that have the last word.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It was reported last week that the long-awaited consultation on the Government’s plans to scrap the Human Rights Act would not be published until the new year. Will the Secretary of State confirm when he intends to bring forward a British Bill of Rights, and will he commit to ensuring a full consultation on these proposals and that adequate time will be given to consider and answer any responses to the consultation?

[Mr Raab]

We have made it clear that the proposals will be brought forward in the new year for full consultation. One area that we want to look at a bit further is the impact of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg as well as the Court of Justice in Strasbourg. I can reassure the hon. and learned Lady that we will take the Scottish view very seriously. I have already met the Scottish Justice Minister, Alex Neil, and a range of Scottish practitioners and non-governmental organisations. I look forward to continuing that consultation.

[Joanna Cherry]

In June the Secretary of State assured this House that, in his view, human rights were a reserved matter. Last week, however, he told the House of Lords Constitutional Affairs Committee that legislation regarding human rights is neither reserved nor devolved. Does he therefore now accept that any legislation repudiating the Human Rights Act and introducing a British Bill of Rights will require the consent of the Scottish Parliament? Is he aware that there is no question of such consent being given?

[Mr Raab]

As we have said many times before, revising the Human Rights Act can only be done by the UK Government, but implementation of many human rights issues is already devolved. I have to say that the SNP’s policy on this issue is rather “cake and eat it”. SNP Members suggest that Westminster is attacking Scottish human rights, but the SNP continues to agree that it does not want to give prisoners the vote. After the Scotland Bill becomes law, the Scottish Parliament will be able to decide who votes in Scottish elections, so the only way that the SNP will be able to maintain the bar on prisoner voting in Scottish elections is by relying on Westminster legislation. Can the hon. and learned Lady confirm that that is her intention?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. and learned Lady has no responsibility to confirm anything. The Minister is a dextrous fellow, engaging in a certain amount of rhetorical pyrotechnics, but I do not think we need a treatise on Scottish National party policy on these important matters on this occasion. He should keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government’s policy of bringing in a British Bill of Rights will, I am sure, be welcomed across the House. Will the Minister confirm that rather than rushing through the proposal, we should get it right and bring it forward when everyone has had their say and it can stand the test of time?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We make no apology for thinking through tricky constitutional issues. If only the last Labour Government had done the same—but we were saddled with the Human Rights Act 1998. Tony Blair claimed that he had secured an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, only to find that it leaked like a sieve. It may take a little longer to clear up the constitutional mess, but that is what we intend to do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Daniel Zeichner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. May I return to the issue of Scotland and human rights? Clarity on that issue is now extremely important. The Deputy Leader of the House said that human rights were

“reserved for the UK Parliament and not a devolved matter.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 132.]

Will the Minister say quite clearly that she was wrong?

[Mr Raab]

I have made the position very clear; we have consistently made it very clear. Only the UK Government can revise the Human Rights Act, but the implementation of human rights issues in many areas is already devolved.