Presumption of Death Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on his good fortune in securing a high place in the private Members’ ballot and his good judgment in choosing to introduce a Bill on the presumption of death. The Bill is clearly based on the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 and the Presumption of Death Act (Northern Ireland) 2009—and, therefore, the Presumption of Death Bill introduced in this House in 2009 by the then Member for Daventry, my noble Friend Lord Boswell of Aynho.

The Bill is important because it will greatly improve the position of people and businesses left behind when a person disappears. At present, individuals—often family members—may have to use a number of procedures to deal with different aspects of the property and affairs of the missing person. This can make a difficult situation daunting. Meanwhile, it seems that different businesses adopt different approaches, and even legal professionals can find it difficult to identify the right solutions for their clients. The Bill will make a real difference in such cases.

The importance of the Bill is brought home by the stories of real people. I have listened carefully to the stories of hardship and distress that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and others have described. I share their concern that the current law is not working as well as it should. I want to take this opportunity to add brief details from some case studies provided by the charity Missing People, which has worked so prominently in campaigning for a change in this important area of law.

The first case study relates to Janis from Merseyside. Janis told her story to Lucy Holmes, policy and research officer with Missing People. I shall summarise what she said. Janis’s husband James, in his 40s, went missing three and a half years ago. She spoke to solicitors, who told her that she would have to wait seven years until he could be pronounced dead. Only then would the mortgage and other financial matters be sorted out. The financial implications were an added stress, which Janis could have done without, and I shall mention some of the financial problems she faced. Janis and her husband held shares, but they were in her husband’s name. As a result, she was unable to access them. Janis and her husband had originally taken out a fixed-rate mortgage, but the fixed rate stopped a few months after he went missing. She tried to see whether she could get a mortgage holiday or a change in the product, but was told that she could not, because she needed two signatures—her own and her husband’s. She ended up locked in a standard-rate mortgage. Janis was also unable to sell her house without her husband’s signature.

The second case study relates to Julie, from west Yorkshire, who also told her story to Lucy Holmes at Missing People. Julie’s former husband Peter, in his 30s, has been missing for nearly 10 years. Julie believes that he has died but his body has not been found. He first went missing when they were in the middle of sorting out the finances for their divorce. The judge was sympathetic and explained that Julie would be able to go back and sort everything out, including her husband’s estate, if he was still missing after seven years. It was therefore always at the back of her mind that she would have to wait that long. The types of problems Julie has encountered include not being able to access Peter’s pension, which could be left to their children if she could declare him deceased. Julie also had problems finding a solicitor who could help her. None of the solicitors she tried—and she tried several—knew how to handle the case. Eventually she got a solicitor she knew to do it for free, in his own time. Julie needs to access endowment and insurance policies, but she cannot touch them because she needs her husband’s signature. She needs the money for her children’s university education, and finds the whole situation horrendous. She complains that there are no rules or guidelines.

These stories, taken together, create the strong impression that the disappearance of a husband has locked the wife who has been left behind into a financial conundrum from which there is no obvious escape and on which little information is provided.

The third case study was provided by Rachel Elias, the sister of Richard James Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers, in evidence to the inquiry of the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults in June 2011. She also provided written evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry into the presumption of death. Her brother disappeared on 1 February 1995, and has not been seen or heard of since that date. At the time of his disappearance, he was a member of the successful British band, the Manic Street Preachers. Once the family were convinced that Richard was dead, an application was made for a leave to swear death order. The process took about three years and cost them about £3,500. Rachel Elias commented on how hard it had been to prepare the paperwork and provide the corroborative evidence, 13 years after the disappearance.

The Justice Committee also took oral evidence from Vicki Derrick. Vicki told the Committee of the disappearance of her husband in 2003. She said that she could not change her mortgage or move house because they were in joint names, and that she could not get a life insurance policy to pay out. She described how she had moved overnight from having a joint income to being a single mother on a greatly reduced income, and how she had to rely on her family to support her. She somehow survived the eight years of uncertainty and difficulty, which came to an end in February this year when the remains of her late husband’s body were found. The finding of the body ended the need for a presumption of death certificate in that case, but that happened only by chance.

These case histories, and the other cases that have been described by hon. Members, tell of individuals from different backgrounds who have been visited by tragedy. I offer them my condolences and sympathy. I know that my expressing sympathy and solidarity will probably make little difference in the struggle that those individuals face in coping with their loss and trying to move their affairs forward when it seems almost certain that the missing person will not return. What can make a difference is simplifying the law to provide a clear path for people to take if they believe that the missing person is dead.

That brings us to the content of the Bill. There will be a single, obvious, all-purpose procedure for obtaining legal confirmation that a person is to be deemed to be dead. This should make the process of moving on more straightforward, not only for those affected by the disappearance but for those who advise them. Businesses such as insurers should also benefit because the making of a declaration will make it easier for them to know where they stand. In short, the Bill will provide a means to clarify the uncertainties caused by the disappearance.

Clarification and simplification must not, however, be introduced at the expense of rigour. The declaration of presumed death will be granted only following consideration of the evidence. No one should lightly be presumed to be dead. If the interests of the missing person, and of the people who would be affected by his or her deemed death, are to be protected, the process of obtaining a declaration of presumed death must be thorough and robust. To achieve this, the Bill creates a new court procedure and an associated process of registration.

The court procedure will enable a person with sufficient interest to obtain a legally binding declaration from the High Court that a person is to be deemed dead for all purposes, including the end of the marriage or civil partnership. The High Court will make the declaration if it is satisfied that the missing person has died or has not been known to be alive for a period of at least seven years. Based on experience in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we expect that on average between 30 and 40 declarations are likely to be issued each year.

A court also has the power to deal with myriad consequential property-related issues that may arise as a result of the declaration. Once the court has made the declaration and the time for any appeal has passed, the High Court will send details of the presumed deaths to the Registrar General for England and Wales, who will enter the relevant particulars in the register of presumed deaths created under the Bill. The Registrar General will also include the entry in that register in the index of the registers of deaths. This will enable those left behind by the missing person and others to find out about the presumed death and, on payment of an appropriate fee, to obtain certified copies of the entry in the register of presumed deaths. These certified copies will, without the need for more evidence, be conclusive evidence of the death of the missing person. They will be usable in the same way and for the same purposes as death certificates in relation to an actual death.

There is, of course, a crucial difference between actual deaths and presumed deaths: the actually dead do not return, but the presumed dead may do so. Experience in Scotland suggests that this happens only rarely. None the less, the Bill, as it must, makes provision for amendment or revocation of a declaration by giving the court power to make a variation order on application. A variation order will alter the facts on which any property-related orders made as a result of the making of the original declaration were based. The Bill therefore gives the Court power to make such further orders as it considers reasonable in relation to any property acquired as a result of the declaration varied or revoked.

This power is subject to limitations—for example, to protect innocent purchasers—and in some cases the court is required as far as possible to have regard to the principles specified in the Bill in deciding what to do. These provisions are, I think, the most complicated in the Bill, but they are necessary and follow in general terms the Scottish and Northern Irish precedents that I have mentioned.

It is clearly vital that the court should have the best information that it can obtain in making declaration or variation orders. The Bill therefore gives the Court power, on application or of its own motion, to order third parties to provide specified information relevant to the question of whether the missing person is dead or alive. Details of the court procedure and the registration process will be set out in the rules of court and the regulations to be made in due course.

The Bill will, from time to time, result in the payment of a capital sum or of a transfer of a piece of property from one person to another, consequent on the presumed death. However, as described, circumstances could arise in which that capital sum or property should actually have gone to someone else. Recipients of these sums or pieces of property might well want to consider whether it would be appropriate to take out insurance against the possibility that these circumstances could arise in their own particular cases. That will be a decision for them.

In two cases, however, the Bill makes specific provision about insurance. First, it provides that the court can order trustees affected by a declaration to take out insurance against claims consequent on the making of orders in connection with the variation order. Secondly, the Bill allows an insurer to require the potential recipient of a capital sum made as a result of a declaration—for example, the sum assured under a life insurance policy—to take out insurance against claims consequent on the possible future making of a variation order.

The new procedure for a declaration of death will replace some, but not all, of the existing procedures by virtue of which a person may be deemed to be dead under the law of England and Wales. The Bill will, for example, repeal the declaration of presumption of death and dissolution of marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The new procedure is intended to replace the present probate procedure for obtaining leave to swear death orders. The retention of other existing procedures will preserve flexibility, and will ensure that not everyone seeking to establish a presumed death is required to go to the High Court if there is a suitable alternative procedure. However, the Bill will require assumptions regarding the time and date of death under other procedures to adopt the same conventions as are specified for declarations made under the Bill. There are similar requirements in the Scottish and Northern Irish Acts,

Members have made numerous points today. I acknowledge the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about guardianship, and assure them that I will take those concerns into account in reaching a decision on whether—and, if so, how—to develop legislation on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) asked whether there had been a revocation in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland legislation came into force only in 2009 and, as far as I am aware, no declarations have been revoked. The hon. Member for Islington North also raised the issue of guidance. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice acknowledges the role of good guidance, and that substantial work is being done in that respect.

By creating this procedure and process, the Bill will achieve the objective of recommendations made by the Justice Committee in its Twelfth Report of the previous Session. As a former member of the Committee—although I was not a member at the time when the report was produced—I am pleased to learn that its recommendations are being implemented. The Committee’s inquiry into the subject of presumption of death followed an extensive investigation earlier in the Session by the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults. I regret that I was unable to attend the round-table discussion organised by the APPG last week, but I am pleased to acknowledge the good work that both it and the charity Missing People have done to raise the profile of the difficulties faced by individuals and families when a person goes missing and does not return.

In their response to the Committee’s report, published in July 2012, the Government stated their intention to introduce

“legislation to create a certificate of presumed death…when Parliamentary time permits.”

If enacted, my hon. Friend’s Bill will achieve the same result as the Government’s intended Bill. I am pleased to confirm the Government’s support for it, and I wish it a swift and successful passage through the House.

Court-appointed Deputies

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hollobone, to serve under your chairmanship today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) on securing this debate. I know that he has a keen interest in these matters, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about the work of the Office of the Public Guardian and in particular the Public Guardian’s role in supervising deputies appointed by the Court of Protection. This is a vital and complex area of work, and people who have lost capacity are often very vulnerable indeed. It is absolutely right and proper that we consider whether the arrangements that are in place to support and protect them are completely acceptable and operating as well as possible.

My hon. Friend raised issues that centre on the role of deputies appointed by the Court of Protection and then supervised by the OPG. It would be helpful if I outlined how the system of deputyship currently operates, before describing how the OPG is considering, through a fundamental review, some of the wider issues raised about deputies and how they are supervised.

The decision whether a deputy is required, and who the proper person is to take on that role, is entirely a judicial matter. The court will only appoint a deputy when the person concerned lacks capacity to make the relevant decisions and if no legal arrangement had been made while they still had capacity. In the case of financial matters, if there are assets that require management frequently the only option is to appoint a deputy.

Once a deputy is appointed, they must always act in the best interests of the person for whom they have been appointed. They must also ensure that the individual concerned is supported to make as many decisions for themselves as they can. Where the deputy has to make decisions on the person’s behalf, they must still ensure that the person concerned is involved in the process as much as possible. That is especially important in cases where a person may lack capacity to make some decisions but not others, or where their level of capacity can fluctuate or vary over time. These factors make the role of deputy a challenging one and the balance between allowing a person to make decisions for themselves and having to make a decision for them is often a fine one.

When a deputy needs to be appointed, they will often be a family member or close friend of the person lacking capacity. Normally, the court will consider appointing a professional deputy only in circumstances where there is no one else suitable and able to act. It may be that the person lacking capacity has no close family or friends, or it may be that a conflict of interest exists within the family, or that the size and complexity of the estate mean that a professional deputy is better placed to act on their behalf. Such professional deputies are entitled to charge fees and in complex cases these costs can be very high. However, the costs must be representative of the work done by the deputy. The costs charged by professional deputies are set out in a practice direction issued by the president of the Court of Protection. If a deputy wishes to claim over and above the fixed costs, their claim must be assessed and approved by the senior court costs office.

Once a deputy has been appointed by the Court of Protection, the Public Guardian is responsible for supervising them to ensure that they carry out their duties properly and act in the best interests of the person they are representing. This is a statutory duty placed upon the Public Guardian by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and it is entirely right that, where the state has had to intervene to appoint an individual to make decisions on another person’s behalf, that individual is subject to adequate but proportionate oversight.

However, the Public Guardian does not have any role in directly managing the affairs of a person who lacks capacity. Their role is entirely to supervise and investigate. It is not within their jurisdiction to remove a deputy once they are appointed or to place limits on how the deputy exercises their powers. If the Public Guardian believes that a deputy is unable to fulfil their role or functions effectively, they may make an application to the Court of Protection seeking the deputy’s replacement or seeking to have limits placed on their powers.

In most cases, the Public Guardian will require the deputy to report to them on at least an annual basis. In the early stages of appointment, there may also be additional contact from the Public Guardian’s office to ensure the deputy is carrying out their duties properly and to identify any need for additional support. In certain cases, that may also involve a visit from an independent Court of Protection visitor who will report their findings to the Public Guardian. My hon. Friend may be pleased to know that almost 6,500 such visits took place last year.

I now turn to the work that is currently going on at the OPG as part of the Ministry of Justice’s “Transforming Justice” agenda. This work is being taken forward under Alan Eccles, who was appointed earlier this year as the new Public Guardian. The OPG is currently taking forward a major transformation programme that is designed to move its services on to a digital platform, to reduce the bureaucracy of the current paper-based system. The programme is focused squarely on placing the needs of users, including deputies and those whom they support, at the heart of the business, and on ensuring that the OPG is able to meet the demands placed on its services well into the future.

As part of that work, the new Public Guardian has launched a fundamental review of how the supervision of deputies is carried out. The aims of the review are twofold: first, to ensure that proper safeguards are in place to protect people who lack capacity and to ensure that decisions are made in their best interests; and secondly, to ensure that supervision is proportionate. That means focusing attention on those cases that require most support or where there are potential concerns, but allowing deputies who are operating effectively to do their job with minimal intervention. That might mean tailoring supervision to the needs of different kinds of deputies. Professional deputies, such as legal professionals and public authorities, might require a different type of supervision from lay people acting on behalf of family members. Also, a new deputy will often require additional support so that they understand their responsibilities and the support available to them.

Any changes will also need to be in line with the Public Guardian’s statutory duties, to which my hon. Friend referred, and must also consider the demands that the increasingly ageing population places on the OPG’s services. The OPG must be able to deal with the rising number of deputies in the future, as well as encouraging people to plan for the future by making lasting powers of attorney, which may remove the need for a deputy to be appointed at all. A key element of the work is the need to build a richer understanding of the deputies’ circumstances and their needs. I am pleased to say that the OPG has already surveyed some 1,300 deputies. In the coming months the OPG will conduct in-depth interviews with deputies to gain a deeper insight into their needs and the needs of those for whom they care.

The OPG will continue to listen to experts across the mental capacity field as it looks to improve its services. Building a clearer picture of its customers will help the OPG to design a more responsive and effective supervision regime, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham will support.

[Mr Bacon]

The Minister mentioned the Office of the Public Guardian and his statutory powers. In cases of over-billing, once it has been stamped by the court, as the Minister alluded to, the issue for the Public Guardian is that, under present legislation, his scope to act is extremely limited, even if, as it may transpire, the over-billing has happened as a result of the Court of Protection successfully being misled by a deputy.

[Mrs Grant]

The issue that my hon. Friend raises in relation to over-charging vulnerable people is extremely important. It is worrying and it is one of the reasons why the new Public Guardian has launched a fundamental review into the supervision of deputies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham raised the matter with me just a few moments ago, and I will look into it. I will write to him, and perhaps we can take matters forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, who I know has met the Public Guardian and who has extensive personal experience of the current system of deputyship. The issues are important and I hope that both my hon. Friends are reassured that the Government take matters very seriously. I will look carefully into the issues they have raised on accountability, visits, the statutory powers of deputies and panel composition. I hope they are both reassured that the OPG continues to look into this area to make further significant improvements.

[Duncan Hames]

I very much welcome the fundamental review that the Minister has advised us of this afternoon. She said that the OPG had been and would be surveying deputies as part of the review. I hope that she will ensure that the clients of deputies are consulted and interviewed and asked their views as part of the review in order that the true customers of the service have their voices heard.

[Mrs Grant]

I am happy to look into all the important issues that my hon. Friend has raised today. The Government consider vulnerable people to be very important and a high priority. I am happy to talk further to my hon. Friend about what more might be done.

Advisory Committee on Civil Costs

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The guideline hourly rates (GHR) for solicitors in legal proceedings are set by the Master of the Rolls. The Advisory Committee on Civil Costs (ACCC) was established in 2007 by the Ministry of Justice to provide advice on this and other issues— 12 September 2007, Official Report column 124WS.

I am grateful for the work which the ACCC has carried out since its inception. However, I have decided that the ACCC’s remaining function of advising on the GHR should be transferred to the Civil Justice Council (CJC) from January 2013. I envisage that a sub-committee of the CJC would be established to deal with this issue. The ACCC will be disbanded forthwith, which will reduce the number of advisory bodies.

This proposal does not go so far as Sir Rupert Jackson’s recommendation for a Costs Council as the new sub-committee’s standing role will be limited to a review of the GHR; other fixed costs will remain for the Lord Chancellor to consider in the first instance. However, there may be other costs issues on which the Lord Chancellor and judiciary would welcome advice from the new sub-committee from time to time. I will liaise with the Master of the Rolls, who chairs the CJC, concerning the membership, terms of reference and work to be undertaken by the CJC within the scope of its statutory role of keeping the civil justice system under review.

Inquests (Service Personnel)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House reporting progress with the inquests into deaths of service personnel who have died on active service overseas. As the season of remembrance approaches, we make this statement in solemn recognition of the sacrifice made by our service personnel who have given their lives for their country. We honour too the sacrifice of the families they have left behind. Our thoughts are particularly with the families of the 13 service personnel who have died since our last statement in July.

In this statement we provide details of inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire coroner, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 21 October 2012.

We have placed tables in both Libraries of the House giving supplementary information for this statement. The tables provide the status of all current cases. They include information about those cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held or has been directed to be held.

The Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice have worked together for several years to ensure that our processes are the best they can be. On 17 September His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC took up post as the first Chief Coroner for England and Wales. He will have a number of specific powers and duties in relation to service personnel inquests. Most recently, on 24 September, we commenced section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which for the first time enables deaths of service personnel killed abroad on active duty to be investigated in Scotland, where the Chief Coroner thinks it appropriate. We wish him well and look forward to working with him.

Our Departments will continue to support the coroners who are conducting these inquests. Once again we record our sincere thanks to coroners, to their staff and to all those who help, support and inform families throughout the inquest process.

Both Departments have provided funding for additional resources for these inquests since October 2007 to the coroners for Wiltshire and Swindon and for Oxfordshire. This is because the airbase for the repatriation of fallen service personnel was previously located at RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire; repatriations were rerouted to the RAF Brize Norton airbase in Oxfordshire in September 2011.

Current Status Of Inquests

Since the last statement eight inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Altogether, 563 inquests have taken place in relation to service personnel who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan or have died in the UK of injuries received in those operations. In three cases there has been no formal inquest. In one of these, the serviceman died of his injuries in Scotland and it was decided not to hold a fatal accident inquiry. In the other two cases, the death was taken into consideration during the inquest proceedings for other service personnel who died in the respective incidents.

Open Inquests

Deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan

Currently 51 open inquests remain to be concluded into the deaths of service personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 24 of these inquests relate to deaths in the last six months.

Nine of the open inquests have been retained by the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and 19 by the Oxfordshire coroner. Coroners closer to the next of kin are conducting the remaining 23 inquests. Two hearing dates have been set at present.

Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

Six inquests are open into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured but sadly died of their injuries. These inquests will be listed when the continuing investigations are completed.

We will continue to inform the House of progress.

Court Estates Reform Programme

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

On 14 December 2010 my predecessor announced to Parliament the final decisions following the consultation on the potential closure of 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts. This included the relocation of Rhyl county court to Prestatyn magistrates court (to be renamed Prestatyn law courts) in April 2013.

The work required to implement this decision has proved more difficult than anticipated. My officials are continuing to engage with local agencies and the judiciary about the best way to achieve this relocation. Pending the outcome of these discussions and any further consultation that may be required, I have deferred the relocation of Rhyl county court until no earlier than April 2014.

Criminal Justice System

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

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

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I am grateful, Mrs Riordan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate. I am conscious that this may be one of the final times we hear from him. I want quickly to convey that he will be missed right across the House. I wish I had time to say more. There is so much to say and so little time.

I am delighted to be responsible for representing the needs of victims and witnesses in Government. I am committed to ensuring that they are high on the Government’s agenda, which is exactly where they belong.

At the beginning of the year, we launched a consultation that sought views on a far-reaching package of proposals. We called it “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, because that is what we need to do. Victims too often feel themselves to be at best an afterthought and at worst forgotten in the process of justice. Despite improvements over the past two decades, the system has continued to fall short, whether in relation to helping victims recover from the aftermath of a crime, supporting them through the inevitable stresses of investigation and trial, or providing the right services in the right place, funded as far as possible by offenders rather than the taxpayer. The urgent need to remedy the current weaknesses is why we are implementing the package of proposals that we committed to in our response to the consultation.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure that practical and emotional support is provided to help victims cope with the initial impact of crime and, in the longer term and as far as possible, recover from the consequences of crime. We are proceeding with plans to make improvements to the support available, raising up to an additional £50 million from the perpetrators of crime. On 1 October, the victim surcharge payable by an adult on a fine was increased. More than that, it has been extended to other disposals such as conditional discharges, community sentences and custodial sentences. Similar provision has also been made in respect of juveniles. The increase in revenue will increase the help that we can give to victims.

However, there is little point in ensuring that decent funding is available if we do not use it in the best way possible. That means prioritising support to those who truly need it: victims of the most serious crimes, victims who are persistently targeted and victims who are the most vulnerable in our society, and who may be isolated because of lack of support or family. That prioritisation of support underpins a second, related reform. For too long most funding decisions about victims’ services have been made in Whitehall. Past Governments have tested to destruction the virtues of monopoly purchasing of services, which I do not believe are in the interests of victims or taxpayers. We will take a more intelligent approach to victims and witnesses.

Under our plans, the Ministry of Justice will retain responsibility for commissioning services where either proven economies of scale exist or they are genuinely of a specialist nature. In our judgment, that means continued support from the Ministry of Justice for those bereaved through homicide, for victims of trafficking, and for rape support centres. We are also continuing to consider where else this approach would make sense.

Our coalition agreement also promised much needed stability for rape support services across the country, and we have given them long-term funding. We have also opened new support centres in areas lacking such provision.

For the bulk of victims’ services, however, funding will be devolved to democratically accountable police and crime commissioners. It is a plain fact that the needs of victims vary locally, and PCCs, much more than officials and Ministers in Whitehall, will be best placed to decide what their communities want and what they need. Hon. Members have raised the issue of national budgets and how much money will go to PCCs. I envisage that the majority of the budget will go to PCCs.

For many victims of crime, of course, their contact with the criminal justice system involves neither drawing on services to help them recover, nor—I shall come to this policy in a moment—seeking compensation. Rather, their priority is that the system treats them decently during the investigation and trial. It is unacceptable that victims still frequently feel that too little is being done. They have been given too little information and they are expected to sit next to the families of offenders. The Government are undertaking a review of the victims’ code and the witness charter to consider in detail how they can be made more effective and robust.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester Central will be pleased to know that we are taking a careful look at the operation of victim personal statements, which can be invaluable to victims in court, making sure that the impact of the crime upon them is really understood. We are committed to ensuring that offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes and do more to repair the harm that they have caused. I have already talked about the additional money that will be provided to victims through the surcharge. Restorative justice is something that could transform lives, and I will certainly be pursuing that.

The Government believe that the role of the victims’ commissioner is vital to making sure that victims’ needs are championed and their voices heard across Government. The announcement of our intention to fill the post of victims’ commissioner is another clear signal that the Government’s commitment to criminal justice reform is real.

There have been numerous contributions made today by hon. Members. I will quickly list them: the hon. Member for Manchester Central; my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel); the right hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw); my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes); the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran); my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston); and the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into detail and comment as I would like on the issues that they raised, but I assure them that I have listened very carefully indeed to everything that they said, and I may have to write to them to clarify issues.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to respond to the points made by three hon. Members about road traffic victims. Would she at least agree to meet a delegation led by British Cycling to discuss the issue?

[Mrs Grant]

I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree to meet a delegation.

I am right out of time, so I will just say that our package of reforms is designed to ensure that victims’ services are put on a more intelligent and sustainable footing. It is designed, in particular, to ensure that those in greatest need of help and support get what they actually need when they need it. It is not about one size fitting all. I am committed to these reforms.

Chancel Repair Liability

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) on securing a debate on the subject of the approaching deadline for the registration of chancel repair liability. I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for general land law in England and Wales.

The debate has highlighted the issues that people affected by chancel repair have to address in light of the October 2013 deadline. I do not underestimate the seriousness and difficulty of those issues, and the problems that they can cause for communities; I am, however, for reasons that I will explain, not persuaded that any change in the law is necessary. I know this conclusion will be disappointing to my hon. Friend, but I will keep the matter under consideration and will monitor developments carefully.

As we have heard, chancel repair liability is an ancient, but enforceable, part of the land law of England and Wales, whereby property owners can be compelled to pay for the repair of the chancel of a church. The liability is thought to benefit about 5,200 ancient churches, and to burden a large number of properties. Liability as between owners is joint and several. However, the present owners of the properties affected by the liability are not the only people to whom chancel repair liability and the approaching deadline for registration are important. Anyone seeking to buy a property will want to know whether it may be affected by chancel repair liability. Searches will be conducted and insurance may be taken out.

On the other side of the liability, the owners of the benefit of the liability will have issues to address. In England, the benefit is usually owned by the local parochial church council. The members of the council, who are essentially charity trustees in relation to their local church, have potentially difficult decisions to make about registration and, should it be necessary, enforcement of the liability.

[Nia Griffith]

Given the difficulties the Minister has just referred to, could there not be a simpler solution by doing away with the need to have the liability in the first place? It seems very unfair, and she has just pointed out why it would be very difficult to put a halfway solution in place. Perhaps a final solution needs to be made that actually gets rid of it.

[Mrs Grant]

The main issue, though, is that it is a valid property right that has been upheld by the House of Lords. I will say a little more about the hon. Lady’s point as my speech develops.

In most situations concerning private property rights, only the parties directly involved are engaged, but with chancel repair liability, the surrounding issues may be important for the relationship of the clergy, congregation and wider community in parishes where the liability exists and may be enforced. The approach of the deadline for registration may well have given everyone in those groups pause for thought.

In the midst of all the activity that registration or the consideration of registration may have produced, however, we should not forget the essential fact that the existence of chancel repair liability over a property is long standing. No new liabilities have been created. The registration of a notice of the liability or a caution against first registration on the land register merely preserves the right to make a claim. Properties subject to a notice or a caution are therefore not subject to a new obligation. In legal terms, in relation to such properties, nothing has really changed.

Of course, if the owners did not know about the obligation before registration, they will no doubt want to be sure that the registration is correct, but the issues brought out by registration would have arisen had the owner of the liability sought to enforce it. Failure to register may make a liability unenforceable, but registration does not guarantee that the claimed liability is legally enforceable. Whether a claim is sustainable will depend on the facts of the case. Homeowners and other landowners remain as free as they are at present to contest a claim. What registration removes is the uncertainty and unpredictability—the lack of discoverability—that currently surround the possible existence of chancel repair liability.

[Peter Luff]

What registration achieves is the unsaleability of property. Where a parochial church council wishes to give up the right in perpetuity, the Government have a moral obligation to enable it to do so.

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend met with officials of the Ministry of Justice yesterday and they had an opportunity to discuss that and other issues, but he might also find it helpful to meet me at some point in the near future. If he could be a little patient and let me finish what I have to say, I might cast some further light on the matter.

People should no longer be surprised to discover that their property is subject—or, rather, claimed to be subject—to chancel repair liability. It is a positive development for property owners in general that chancel repair liability will be brought on to the register or wither for want of registration.

Registration of chancel repair liability is of course distinct from actual enforcement of payment of the liability, which will only arise if the chancel needs to be repaired. The October deadline does not affect that or the type of decisions that parochial church councils and other owners of the liability will have to make when money needs to be raised. I do not deny that deciding whether to register a notice or caution is a new step for members of parochial church councils, but it is a one-off and should not be any more onerous than past decisions to do with enforcing the liability.

Such decisions may not be easy and legal advice may well be necessary, but the Church Commissioners, the diocesan authorities and the Charity Commission are available to help to some degree. For better or for worse, parochial church councils and others who own chancel repair liability have an asset entrusted to them for a specific purpose. I accept that they may not wish to enforce the liability to preserve the harmony of their local communities, but they cannot wish away their responsibilities and, in any event, the providers of public funding for the maintenance of historic buildings will almost certainly take a close look at the reasons behind any decision not to register or enforce the liability.

We need to be clear about the nature of the deadline of 13 October 2013. The date was the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002, and it is worth remembering why chancel repair liability became subject to a registration requirement. The need arose with the 2003 reversal by the House of Lords of the 2001 Court of Appeal decision in the Wallbank case. The Court of Appeal appeared to have resolved all the issues to do with chancel repair liability when it decided that the liability was not enforceable, and the Land Registration Act 2002 was drafted on that basis. The House of Lords subsequently decided that the liability was enforceable. In 2003, faced with a newly resurrected chancel repair liability, the then Government responded by making a transitional provisions order under the Land Registration Act, putting chancel repair liability on the same footing as other rights that had their status as overriding interests preserved for a period of 10 years.

Overriding interests are interests in land that bind a registered owner whether or not they are on the register. One of the aims of the 2002 Act was to bring more information on to the register, so that it formed a more complete record of legal ownership. Chancel repair liability is a good example of the kind of hidden burden that the policy was designed to expose. The October 2013 deadline for registration is a deadline in the sense that the liability needs to be registered before that date to ensure that it affects those who subsequently buy the land involved. No fee is payable for applications or registrations made before that date. Registration will generally still be possible after that date.

Naturally, the approach of the deadline has brought about a number of registrations and, unsurprisingly, issues around chancel repair liability have been awoken as the owners of the burden consider what to do, and those subject to it are reminded—or perhaps learn for the first time—that their property is claimed to be subject to chancel repair liability.

No doubt property owners subject to chancel repair liability would be delighted if the liability were to cease to exist. The Law Commission recommended abolition or apportionment of the liability as long ago as 1985. Abolition, however, would probably have to be accompanied by some form of compensation for the owners of the liability, and that money would have to come from somewhere.

There is no need to invent ways to release properties from the liability. It can be done by private treaty, although there are pitfalls, or under the formal procedure provided by section 52 of the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Measure 1923. I am not suggesting that they are easy or inexpensive options, but they are possible.

In conclusion, the requirement for registration will achieve a much better balance in the law between the interests of the owners of chancel repair liability, the interests of those who are subject to the liability and the interests of those who may at some time in the future become subject to the liability. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter before us today. We have had an intelligent and informed discussion. I am not persuaded that the case for a change in the law has been made, but I shall of course keep the matter under careful review.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing (Female Offenders)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies]

It is equally important that the hon. Lady listens to what I am saying rather than wrapping herself in her brief from the Prison Reform Trust. We have all heard it once but I will repeat it for her benefit. The Ministry of Justice’s own publication, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System” says:

“Of sentenced first-time offenders (7,320 females and 25,936 males), a greater percentage of males were sentenced to immediate custody than females (29% compared with 17%), which has been the case in each year since 2005.”

To suggest that more female first-time offenders are more likely to be sent to prison than men is not the case. The hon. Lady says that a higher proportion of women in prison are first-time offenders, but that is because they are less likely to be sent to prison unless they commit particularly serious offences and leave the courts no option but to send them to prison. It is a complete distortion of the facts, and the Ministry of Justice publication makes that perfectly clear.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether all those statistics take into account the type and gravity of offence, previous offending history and all relevant mitigating factors, which sentencers are required to consider? It would be an unjust system if they failed to do that.

[Philip Davies]

Yes, they do. I will happily supply the Minister with the relevant information from the House of Commons Library, which goes to show, beyond all doubt—I am sure that she trusts the figures from her own Department—that for every single category of offence, for all ages and in all types of court, men are more likely to be sent to prison than women. There is not one blip anywhere. For every single offence, for every age and in every type of court, women are less likely to be sent to prison than men.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, I will not, because that is a debate for another day. These are all important issues, but this particular debate is about the sentencing of female offenders, and I am concentrating on the likelihood of people being sent to prison. If my hon. Friend was listening carefully at the start of the debate, he would know that the myth that I am currently exposing is that women are more likely to be sent to prison than men. As the figures that I have just quoted show, that is palpably not the case. I will go through other myths as we go through the debate, but there may not be time to go through every aspect of the criminal justice system at the moment.

[Mrs Grant]

It is important to clarify something. Regarding mitigation, does my hon. Friend not accept that there may be some factors that are more relevant to women than to men and hence the difference—for example domestic violence, self-harm, mental ill-health and caring responsibilities?

[Philip Davies]

I will come on to some of those points later. However, as the Minister will know from her Department’s own figures, quite a lot of victims of domestic violence are men. In fact, for certain ages—I think that it is between 20 and 30—there are more male victims of domestic violence than female victims. The point is that all the things that apply—

[Mrs Grant]

indicated dissent.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister shakes her head. I know that she has not been in her post for long, but I advise her to go and look at the figures from the Ministry of Justice on domestic violence for different age ranges, because they were the figures that the MOJ quoted to me in a parliamentary answer about three or four years ago. They may well have changed, but I urge her at least to go and look at them before she shakes her head.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

We are getting slightly off the point, but I will respond to my hon. Friend’s intervention. The statistics do not suggest that. They suggest two things. The first is that people should perhaps have longer sentences, for which the reoffending rate is lower, not that they should have no sentences at all. The high reoffending rate for short sentences is an argument for longer sentences, not for no sentences.

The second point is that, in the main, someone has to have committed many offences to get to prison. If someone goes to court with more than 100 previous convictions they are more likely not to be sent to prison than to be sent there. People have community sentence after community sentence, and the only reason they go to prison is that those community sentences have not worked—they have not prevented them from reoffending. The reoffending rate for that cohort of people in prison, therefore, is lower than for those people when they were on community sentences.

[Mrs Grant]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am very conscious of time, Mrs Osborne. I will give way one last time, otherwise no one will have spoken in the debate, bar me.

[Mrs Grant]

I understand. My hon. Friend has been very reasonable. Clearly, he has worked extremely hard on collating the statistics. I wonder, however, whether he has actually visited a female prison, or some of the alternatives to custody, one of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

[Philip Davies]

I have indeed. I have visited the intensive alternatives to custody in my part of the world and have visited 12 UK prisons, including Holloway and a women’s prison up in Yorkshire—so I have visited two women’s prisons in the UK. I have also visited prisons in Denmark and the USA, to see what they do. If my hon. Friend was trying to suggest that I did not know what I was talking about, I hope that I have made her aware that I have some experience in this field.

Interestingly, no one has, as yet, managed to tell me which of those people I listed should not be in prison. Perhaps we have a consensus that they should be in prison. If people want to limit the debate to the 1,800 women I have mentioned, let us continue to consider which of them should be let out. Perhaps it is the 91 arsonists, the 24 people convicted of violent disorder, or the 45 serving time for kidnapping and blackmail. Perhaps it is the 192 people who are in for serious fraud and forgery, the 320 who have been convicted of importing drugs that end up being sold onto our streets, or the 111 serving time for other serious drug offences. If we do not want to let all of them out, we appear to be running out of options. Perhaps people will tell us which of those women they think should not be in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My point is that men are parents as well as women. The problems that the hon. Lady articulates apply to men as well as women. The argument goes that this is all about women; it is not all about women. Let us not focus just on the very small proportion of women who are in prison. Let us also think about all the men, too. The whole point of the debate is to make people aware that where there are issues they apply equally to men, and that some of the issues are not even issues at all because the facts do not back them up.

[Mrs Grant]

On mother and baby units, it is not, with the greatest respect, all about the mother. The principal criterion for entering a mother and baby unit is that it must be in the best interests of the child. That is the most important criterion. Does my hon. Friend not accept that?

[Philip Davies]

The point is that 66% of women sent to prison who have children are not actually looking after their children when they are sent to prison. That is the point I am making, so I am not entirely sure why we are all pulling our hair out about people who are not even looking after their children. Those children have probably either been put into care or are being looked after by other family members, probably because the mother is considered unfit to look after the children. Why should the courts treat her less harshly when the children have already been removed from her? It is a completely spurious argument.

When it comes to the minority who are looking after their children, we should not assume that they are all fantastic mothers and role models for their children. Many will be persistent offenders with chaotic lifestyles. Some will end up dragging their children into their criminal lifestyles and some will scar their children for life along the way. We presume it is in the children’s best interest to stay with those mothers. It may not be in the best interest of the child for the mother to be released. It may be in their best interests for their mother to go to prison in some cases.

Others will have committed very serious offences. The same official from the Ministry of Justice said recently of women offenders:

“They can be very damaged and also very damaging.”

That is absolutely right. Sarah Salmon of Action for Prisoners’ Families said:

“For some families the mother going into prison is a relief because she has been causing merry hell.”

That is another worthy point we should consider. Let us, finally, not forget those who are in prison for being cruel to their children—for abusing their own children.

The final myth is that women are generally treated more harshly than men in the justice system. It is clear that women are less likely than men to be sent to prison. Therefore, we need to look at other court disposals to see if they are then treated more harshly than men in other areas. If they are not being sent to prison as frequently as men they are presumably being sentenced at the next level down—a community order. They are not. The Ministry of Justice’s figures yet again show that men are more likely than women to receive a community order: 10% of women sentenced are given a community order compared with 16% of men. The Ministry of Justice goes on to confirm that

“these patterns were broadly consistent in each of the last five years”.

Women are less likely than men to go to prison and less likely to be given a community order. That is not all. Of those who are given a community order the ones given to men are likely to be much harsher. The Ministry of Justice says:

“The average length of all community sentences for men was longer than for women…For women receiving a community order, the largest proportion had one requirement, whereas the largest proportion of men had two requirements.”

I do not want to veer into the realms of domestic violence that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle tried to go down; that is a debate for another day. However, one thing worth noting about sentencing is that despite all the evidence that shows women as the perpetrators of domestic violence in far more cases than some would like us to think, the community requirement imposed on those who commit an offence in a domestic setting is imposed only on men and cannot be handed down to women. As usual, this shows that the whole issue of equality works only one way, even when we are dealing with exactly the same offence.

Given the more severe sentences for men at the higher end of the sentencing spectrum, it is unsurprising that women are more likely to receive low levels of punishment at courts. It is a fact that a higher proportion of female defendants receive fines. All of that shows that throughout the court sentencing regime men are on average treated more severely than women.

Before I conclude there is another interesting statistic that is worth sharing. There is even an imbalance in the number of women reaching court compared with men, as more females than men were issued with pre-court sanctions. That has been consistently the case in recent years according to the Ministry of Justice. That is the evidence.

All the hysteria surrounding women in the justice system is completely without foundation, yet people want to be seen to be doing something about the so-called problem. We have the Together Women project, women-only groups for community sentences, a criminal justice women’s strategy unit, women’s centres, a proposal for women-only courts and, just the other day in Manchester, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) proposed a women’s justice board. That is all on top of the Corston report, which looked at the whole issue of female offenders and came up with even more suggestions.

Looking at the evidence, there appears to be sex discrimination in the sentencing of offenders, but the people being discriminated against are men not women. Women cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to be treated equally in everything in society except when it comes to being sentenced by the courts for the crimes that they commit. People may want to argue that it is reasonable for women to be given lighter sentences than men, and that it is right that fewer women are sent to prison than men. That is an argument for another day, but at least when we have these debates about sentencing for men and women let us stick to the facts as they are and not what we would like them to be. Men are treated more harshly by the courts than women. If we can at least have debates that flow from that, based on the facts, we will have made a good start today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on securing this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity to update the House on the steps that justice agencies are taking to address women’s offending. Before doing so, I want to set out two important parts of the wider context on female offenders: to explain how our current sentencing framework deals with gender and to show how important it is to look carefully at the evidence on how women are sentenced by the courts.

To begin with, therefore, it is important to be clear about how our sentencing framework is gender-neutral: everyone is absolutely equal before the law. The same criminal offences and maximum penalties apply to every case, regardless of the offender’s gender. Alongside that, however, we also need to remember that every offender who is brought before the courts is unique. A long-standing principle of our justice system is that courts should consider the full circumstances, not only of the offence but of the offender, when sentencing. A sentencing framework that did not allow courts to take into account individual circumstances would not be a just one.

In many cases, an offender’s personal characteristics, such as previous convictions, failure to comply with earlier court orders or abusing a position of trust, can all be treated as aggravating factors when sentencing. Other personal characteristics, however, may provide mitigation. Previous good character, age, physical or mental health and caring responsibilities are all factors that courts can take into account when deciding the appropriate sentence.

All such factors may apply to both male and female offenders. For example, that an offender is a primary carer for dependent relatives is the important fact for the court, not whether the offender is the mother or the father. Probation pre-sentence reports give courts the detailed assessments that they need to make informed judgments about the factors that they should take into account.

I should make it clear that courts need to weigh mitigating factors against the others circumstances. For example, although it is recognised that parental imprisonment can have considerable effect on the lives of children, caring responsibilities will not necessarily mean that an offender will be spared prison. The overriding aim of the courts will always be to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and that is proportionate to the culpability of the offender and the harm caused.

We need to bear in mind all such issues when looking at the sentences imposed on male and female offenders. Differences in the type and severity of sentence given to men and women may be attributable to a wide range of factors, such as the type and gravity of offence committed and the individual’s previous offending history.

[Philip Davies]

Is the Minister therefore conceding—the main purpose of my debate—that for each category of offence men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? She did not say so explicitly, but she was about to give reasons for that being the case.

[Mrs Grant]

No, I do not accept that at all. What I have just said is that the sentencing framework and guidelines are gender-neutral: everyone is absolutely equal before the law. That is exactly what I said.

[Philip Davies]

I will give the Minister one more chance, because I do not want her to mislead the House inadvertently. She can use her Ministry of Justice figures for the answer. Does she accept that, for each category of offence, men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? We can take all the reasons why that may be the case and we can put in all the mitigating factors, but will she confirm for the benefit of the House, as the Minister in this Department, that for each category of offence men are more likely to be sent to prison than women? The reasons are irrelevant; it is only the facts that we want at this stage.

[Mrs Grant]

We could go round in circles, but I shall repeat myself: the sentencing framework and guidelines are gender-neutral and everyone is equal before the law. The sentencer has an obligation to take into consideration all factors relating to the offence and to the offender. In our judicial system, if the sentencer failed to do so, we would have an unjust system.

We need to be careful when interpreting the statistics, many of which have been cited by my hon. Friend today. At a high level, for example, the figures show that 10% of male offenders and 3% of female offenders were sentenced to immediate custody in 2011. The average custodial sentence length for males was longer than for females, at 15 months and 10 months, respectively. Equally, however, proportionally more males than females received sentences in 2011 for serious offences such as violent crime, sexual crime and robbery. There were also differences in the severity of offences committed within the groups. For example, 343 offenders were sentenced in 2011 for murder, but only 23 were female offenders.

The available statistics on aggravating factors suggest that a similar proportion of males and females sentenced to short custodial sentences are persistent offenders. In June 2011, around half of both men and women serving sentences of six months or less in prison had 15 or more previous convictions.

A number of mitigating factors are particularly associated with women offenders, including the high prevalence of mental health needs and child care responsibilities. Prisoner surveys tell us that more than a quarter of female prisoners reported having been treated for a mental health problem in the year before custody, compared with 16% of male prisoners.

Women are also more likely than male offenders to have child care responsibilities, and 60% of mothers with children under the age of 18 lived with those children prior to imprisonment, compared with around 45% of fathers. So there is a nuanced story behind the statistics, which reflects the fact that every offender, whether male or female, is a unique individual. Whether offenders are punished in custody or in the community, the Government are committed to ensuring that both men and women who offend are successfully rehabilitated.

For those offenders who are best dealt with out of court, we are piloting mental health and substance misuse liaison and diversion services in police custody and at courts by 2014. We are also developing intensive treatment options in the community for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services in Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside.

In prisons, we are piloting drug recovery wings for short-sentence, drug and alcohol-dependent prisoners at three women’s prisons: HMPs New Hall, Askham Grange and Styal. We are also ensuring that courts have the right mix of punitive and rehabilitative requirements available when sentencing female offenders to community sentences. The National Offender Management Service is providing £3.78 million in this financial year to fund 31 women’s community services that can be used as part of, or in conjunction with community sentences. To protect the provision of services for women in these times of financial challenge, that funding will be embedded within the baseline for future probation trust settlements with a requirement that it results in enhanced services for women.

We have issued gender-specific standards in all areas of the prison regime, including training for staff working with women offenders in prisons, now extended to services provided in the outside community, and new search arrangements, ending routine full searches of women prisoners.

Seven mother and baby units in England and Wales provide an overall total capacity of 77 places for mothers, with capacity for up to 84 places for babies to allow for twins. Mother and baby units provide a calm and friendly place within prison for babies to live with their mothers. They enable the mother and child relationship to develop, thereby safeguarding and promoting the child’s welfare.

In closing, I thank the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and for Hexham (Guy Opperman), as well as the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), for contributing to the debate. We can continue to improve how we tackle offending together only if we continue to address the wide range of factors associated with offending, whether the offenders are male or female. I welcome the constructive and knowledgeable contributions from all hon. Members this afternoon, as they have highlighted how important it is to continue to focus on responding to the specific circumstances of women offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

2. What recent progress he has made on changes to the arrangements for no win, no fee agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government have made it a priority to reform the costs of civil litigation and, in particular, the no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. A package of major reforms is being implemented in April 2013, under the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I would also refer my hon. Friend to two written ministerial statements, dated 24 May and 17 July.

[Iain Stewart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role. Will she give the House an estimate of the cost of the current no win, no fee arrangements to the NHS, and of the savings that might consequently be achieved by the changes?

[Mrs Grant]

Defendants such as the NHS were required to pay inflated success fees under the old regime, as well as after-the-event insurance premiums. In 2010-11, the NHS Litigation Authority paid £200 million to claimant lawyers. Under the new reforms, those costs will be reduced, allowing more money to be spent on patient care.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her new job. I am sure that she will be an absolute star. May I urge her, however, to think carefully about no win, no fee agreements? Last week, scurrilous and despicable low-lifes in France invaded the privacy of a young woman who is able to take legal action because she is very wealthy, but many people in this country, including the Dowler family, would never have been able to take legal action in a privacy case had it not been for no win, no fee arrangements. Can we please, please ensure that we do not chuck the baby out with the bath water?

[Mrs Grant]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we firmly believe that, while meritorious claims will continue to be made, unnecessary and avoidable claims have to be deterred. Legal aid will, of course, be available for those who need it most, and for the most serious cases, under the exceptional funding rules.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect on victims’ services of the work of police and crime commissioners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the language services for courts provided by Applied Language Solutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The hon. Lady may be aware of problems that occurred when the contract started in January, but the National Audit Office’s recent report, published on 12 September, showed that ALS was filling 95% of its bookings and complaints had fallen. The Department continues to monitor the performance of ALS against the key performance indicators. We published a statistical report in May and plan to publish an updated report later in the year.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her post. She brings a unique expertise to the team. May I also pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He was a good Lord Chancellor.

The Minister will be aware that there is a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to provide interpreters, and a judge last month said ALS was dreadful—a plague on the courts and incompetent. What steps will the Minister take to ensure there is no waste of public money in delayed and adjourned cases?

[Mrs Grant]

The Ministry of Justice acted quickly to put a plan in place when it became obvious that there were performance problems. We are not being complacent and we will continue to monitor performance, but we are seeing some substantial improvements. The framework with ALS is intended to provide better value for money. It also provides an opportunity to reduce a great deal of the administrative burdens that were placed on the justice agencies under the old system. The contract is also expected to save the Ministry of Justice in the region of £15 million a year.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister must be irritated to be spending her first few days in office reading NAO reports detailing her predecessor’s cock-ups. Does she agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the NAO inquiry into the language service contract has uncovered some shocking failings which have had a dreadful impact on clients of the Court Service and people who work in the interpretation service? If she does, will she now suspend the contract with Applied Language Solutions, or is she happy to see interpreters with no experience, qualifications or criminal records checks being used in serious and sensitive criminal cases?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with that. We are seeing significant improvements—

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Really?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes we are, and the Opposition also need to accept that the NAO report accepted that the Government had good reasons for making changes from the old system.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

7. How many staff posts have been abolished in youth offending teams in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the need to review the law on chancel repair liability; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Chancel repair liability is a long-standing interest in land under the law of England and Wales, and the Government have no plans to review the law relating to it.

[Peter Luff]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her richly deserved appointment, but I am rather disappointed by her answer. As the October 2013 deadline for the registration of liabilities under this archaic law approaches, more and more parochial church councils will face the kind of acute dilemmas faced by my constituents in Broadway. I urge her to bear it in mind that this law does need fundamental reform, for the sake of fairness and justice.

[Mrs Grant]

I am aware that my hon. Friend has an ongoing interest in this area, and I thank him for drawing it to my attention. However, chancel repair liability is a valid property right, which has been upheld by the House of Lords. Properties have been sold subject to the liability, and insurance can be made available. The requirement for registration will help greatly in dealing with the problem of discoverability, but I will, of course, keep the matter under consideration and monitor developments carefully.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What progress he has made on televising court proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

12. What estimate he has made of the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Estimating the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence is difficult, as the information is not recorded centrally. However, surveys tell us that half of female prisoners report having been the victims of abuse of some kind. That includes abuse at any age, and is not necessarily domestic violence. The figures could also be a significant underestimate, as the hon. Lady knows, because admissions from victims of domestic violence are not always forthcoming.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her responsibility; she is a rare creature who cares seriously about this issue in her bones and not just in her words. If it is right that half or more of women in prison have been victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and other kinds of violence, should not those victims be diverted from the criminal justice system rather than incarcerated in it?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable on such matters, having worked hard and effectively for a number of years, campaigning for both victims of domestic violence and female offenders. It was to my absolute delight that I was given this brief as a new Minister by the Secretary of State and I hope to draw on some of my experience before I came to this place while I undertake the role. Tackling domestic violence and women’s offending are priorities for the Government and me, and I am delighted to note that the National Offender Management Service has been working very closely with Women’s Aid to develop policies, strategies and training to support women who are in prison and to identify domestic violence. Considerable work needs to be done and I look forward to working closely with the hon. Lady and other Labour Members to drive through change and make a difference in this area.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

14. What plans he has for the future of the role of the victims commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Ministry of Justice often receives representations regarding coroners.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I add my welcome to the Minister in taking up her new role and also welcome the new chief coroner, who of course takes up his role this week. Will she take the opportunity to disassociate herself from the actions of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who did much to obstruct the role of chief coroner, and will she welcome the extra accountability the role will bring to the coroner service, particularly in assisting bereaved families?

[Mrs Grant]

The chief coroner will take up his role either tomorrow or the day after, and the Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting him shortly thereafter. The first of his new powers will come into force next week. The Government are determined to improve the coroner system. There needs to be much more focus on the bereaved and we must ensure that we minimise delays.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

In welcoming my hon. Friend to her new post, may I ask her what is the average length of time for an inquest and whether there is anything she can do to speed up the process? Will she meet me to discuss the case of a young boy who died on the A64 and the trauma suffered by his family during the course of the inquest?

[Mrs Grant]

The average inquest lasts for approximately 27 weeks. On the matter my hon. Friend refers to, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

16. If he will take steps to ensure that time served in prison by a prisoner reflects the sentence handed down to that prisoner by the court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

There are British girls at risk of being taken abroad to be subjected to horrific, permanent violence. I know that the Ministry of Justice has been working with the Home Office on a draft declaration against female genital mutilation for at-risk girls to carry in their passports. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends ensure that the most robust legal language possible is used to maximise the document’s deterrent effect and better protect British girls?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked long and hard for many years to stamp out this abhorrent practice and that it affects a large number of women and girls in Britain today. I assure her that I will look very carefully at the language of the declaration to make sure prior to its being signed off that we will achieve optimum effect.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

T2. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who sit on jury service are not in the country illegally? That point was raised with me by a member of the judiciary.

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Crown court carries out checks on jurors on their first day. Passports, national identity cards or Home Office documentation confirming their immigration status must be produced.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T5. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons recently said of HMP Liverpool that“resettlement resources were not adequate to meet the needs of the population held, with backlogs of the reviews necessary to address offending behaviour and little planning for short-term prisoners.”Given that HMIP report, what comfort can the Minister provide to my constituents that he is taking seriously the important issue of an overstretched service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new ministerial team, because I am ever hopeful that, unlike his predecessor, the Secretary of State or a relevant Minister will meet me to discuss the scandal of 10,000 people driving legally with more than 12 points on their licences. Will he do so?

[Mrs Grant]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Chief Coroner's Powers

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and I wish to make the following statement to the House regarding investigations into service personnel who have died overseas:

On 24 September 2012 the Government will commence powers under sections 12 and 50 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to enable for the first time deaths of service personnel killed abroad to be investigated in Scotland under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 where appropriate.

His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC, who has today assumed the role of chief coroner of England and Wales will be able to recommend that investigations be transferred from England and Wales in appropriate circumstances, for example where the deceased’s family is based in Scotland.

The provisions aim to reduce the additional distress that can be caused by ensuring that bereaved service families from Scotland do not have to travel long distances to England or Wales to attend an inquest.