Defamation Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the kind and generous sentiments that have been directed towards me and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright). My fellow new Minister has been sitting beside me for most of the afternoon, but he has just left his place. It is a great honour and privilege to stand at the Dispatch Box.

New clause 4 and other amendments in the group relate to the defence of responsible publication in the public interest, as set out in clause 4. The new clause represents a significant shift in the law towards the interests of defendants. To obtain any remedy beyond explanation, contradiction or correction, the claimant would have to prove malice—a high test that would require the claimant to prove the defendant’s state of mind, which in many cases is likely to be impossible. It could lead, effectively, to people printing what they liked and arguing it was a matter of public interest.

In his very good speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned the Flood case, but that does not change the core element of the defence of responsible publication. From my experience, courts will continue to interpret editorial discretion, and I therefore think that the Flood case is reflected in the Bill. My right hon. Friend also mentioned an early strike-out, and again my initial response is that courts already have that power under rule 3.4 of the civil procedure rules, which I have witnessed on numerous occasions. Indeed, such action has been threatened against me, and it can be quite intimidating.

The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) were concerned—among other things—about the narrowness of the list of factors for consideration. The list in the Bill has been drawn flexibly. It is illustrative and not exhaustive, and in any event the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

I will not comment on all the points raised today, but I recognise the wide range of opinions about clause 4 and the issues underlying them. This is a complex area about which there are well-argued and deeply held views on both sides of the House. The Ministry of Justice has a largely new ministerial team, but we are determined to get the legislation right and would therefore like to reflect further in light of the helpful points that have been raised by hon. Members in this debate and in Committee, and by stakeholders more generally. If we conclude that there is a better way forward, we will table appropriate amendments in another place.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, and may I say on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House that we welcome the approach that she and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), have taken in picking up this brief and this Bill?

When reflecting with advisers, and hopefully with outsiders, will she ask whether, if the Bill becomes an Act, it would be possible to dispose of the case I mentioned—El Naschie v. Macmillan, the publishers of Nature? Would it be possible to dispose early of the Rath v. Guardian case, the British Chiropractic Association v. Simon Singh, or NMT Medical’s case against Peter Wilmshurst? By the time the Bill gets to the other place and amendments come back to this House, we ought to have an understanding that cases with no merit whatsoever will be recognised as such by the courts early on.

[Mrs Grant]

I cannot comment on the details of individual cases, but if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will look at what he says.

In the light of the assurances I have given the House that the Government continue to look broadly at how a public interest defence might be framed, I hope hon. Members agree not to press their proposals to a Division.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be brief in winding up this valuable debate. I am grateful to colleagues, who have expressed different views on how we should proceed. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier) said that it would be best to leave it to common law, but the problem with the common law argument, as he conceded, is that someone is required to go to court to take the law on and test the case. Libel and defamation cases are hugely expensive. I and many hon. Members are trying to ensure first that the law is clearer, and secondly that we protect our constituents from having to go to court to assert their rights.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) argued for a differential test for those in public life and those not in public life. Those of us in public life are much better equipped and able to go to law if we want to do so. If the bar were to be lower for people in public life, so the capacity to respond would also be easier. I do not necessarily accept that that is where we want to go, but that is another debate. The bulk of my constituents and the hon. Gentleman’s are not in a position readily to go to court to defend their interests, and nor could they get an adequate remedy. The new clause therefore seeks to find a remedy outside the courts.

I hear what my hon. Friend the new Minister says about the level of evidence needed to establish malice, and therefore understand that we need to have a debate on that. However, I am encouraged by the fact that she and her colleagues are willing to draw breath, as it were, and to look at the arguments as they have been presented and at the unanswered questions that both current and previous Ministers have said they will address.

There is one last thing to say before asking the House for leave to withdraw new clause 4. Will Ministers look at the big question of the timetable for the Bill, and particularly this part of it, in the light of the Leveson report? We need to ensure that we are seen to be legislating carefully, but we would perhaps make ourselves look foolish if we tried to legislate this year or a few months into the next year in the certain knowledge that we would need to return to the matter. The House and the Government should reserve a space to legislate in the light of Leveson. It would be unacceptable for anybody in the months ahead to put the argument that we cannot return to the matter because we have addressed it in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) for raising this subject. His amendment refers to there being

“a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory”.

I think that is right. People ought to ask themselves whether there is a reasonable probability that the claim will be successful. In criminal cases, people are not brought to court unless there is a 50:50 chance or more of conviction.

We need to go further than the prima facia case, however. The court ought to hold that there is defamation, that it is actionable and that it is likely that a court case would end in success for the claimant. Too many cases are brought that will clearly not be successful when they come to a full hearing. That applies not only to booksellers—the category this amendment specifically addresses—but all the other types of case about which I have been concerned.

[Mrs Grant]

Amendment 8 would add two additional hurdles to overcome before a court had jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim against someone who was not a primary publisher. We do not consider this amendment to be appropriate. It would significantly limit the circumstances in which a court would have jurisdiction to hear an action against a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of a defamatory statement. To provide that an action against a secondary publisher can only be brought where it can be proved that the secondary publisher had knowledge that the statement was defamatory and that there was no defence would raise the bar for establishing jurisdiction to a very high level, and would tip the balance too far against the interests of the claimant. It could leave them with no means of restoring their reputation.

In addition, it would be very unusual to require a court to consider the substance of a case at the same time as determining whether to grant jurisdiction for the action to be brought. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Robert Flello]

I hear what the Minister says. However, I urge her to consider the amendment again, if I am not successful in the Division I shall now seek.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Helen Grant Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a short but interesting debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on securing it. I have listened very carefully indeed to everything he has said.

Support for victims and witnesses of crime is a priority for this Government. That is why, for example, we have provided Victim Support with £114 million in grant funding spread over three years, enabling it to invest in long-term service provision. The victim and witness general fund provides £5 million a year in grant funding to voluntary sector organisations supporting the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims.

We are spending £2.75 million on individuals bereaved by murder and manslaughter in 2012-13, while in line with our coalition commitment—I am personally proud and pleased to announce this—we have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing, with 65 centres around the country receiving total grant funding of nearly £3 million a year until 2014. Over the past year we have funded the establishment of four new centres, and a further five will open in March 2013. Last but certainly not least, we aim to raise up to an additional £50 million from offenders, which is a very significant sum. It is to be spent on services for victims, along with the existing central Government spend of £66 million. I shall return to that in a moment.

The proper protection and support of those who have suffered at the hands of criminals is a fundamental and essential part of our civilised justice system. We are determined to provide the best possible support for the most seriously affected, vulnerable and persistently targeted victims of crime, helping them to cope with and recover from what are often terrible experiences. However, because of the financial climate, we cannot be blind to the question of which policies are feasible and which are not.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is demand-led, and the cost to the Government is more than £200 million each year. Historically, the scheme has been underfunded. Funding allocated at the beginning of the year has often needed to be topped up at the end of the year to enable the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, to continue to make payments for claims as and when they fall due. Last year the authority was provided with additional funding, and a total of £449 million in criminal injuries compensation payments was made, the largest ever in a single year.

Despite that cash injection, total liabilities currently stand at around £532 million. That includes an estimate of the claims for which payments are likely to fall due in the future but which have not yet been lodged with the authority; it also takes account of the remaining rump of pre-tariff cases. With new liabilities arising at a rate of about £200 million a year under the current scheme, that is simply not sustainable in the present economic climate. The scheme must be put on a sensible, sustainable footing so that timely payments can continue to be made.

Against that background, it made excellent sense for the Government to look carefully at the scheme and consider certain reforms. We concluded that the scheme needed to focus resources on the victims who are most seriously affected by injuries that they suffer as a result of deliberate violent crime committed in England, Wales and Scotland. We believe that the provision of support services for victims at the point of need is a much better use of money than providing small amounts of compensation, in some cases long after the incident involved, for relatively minor injuries. For that reason we are removing payments for less serious injuries such as sprains and fractures.

However, we concluded that, as well as protecting injury payments to victims with the most serious injuries, it was right and proper to protect tariff payments to the bereaved, to all rape victims and victims of other sexual assaults, and to those—including victims of domestic violence and children—who are subjected to a repeated pattern of abuse. We have also retained the vast majority of special expenses payments, with the exception of payments for private health care. Those are fair and sensible policy decisions.

Some Members may have seen one or two briefings about our reforms, including papers produced on behalf of postal workers and shop workers. While I am more than happy to acknowledge the valuable, indeed essential, role that many of those people perform, sometimes in the face of challenging circumstances, the Government do not believe that a compelling case has been made for maintaining payments for minor injuries, which is what has been asked of us. As with other applications to the scheme, if postal or shop workers’ injuries are sufficiently serious, they will be eligible. As I said earlier, our aim is for additional services to be funded by offenders, which will provide better support for those with minor injuries.

Another key part of our reform package results from our view that payments should be made only to blameless victims who co-operate fully with the justice process. Those with unspent convictions will not be able to claim if they have been sentenced to a community order or imprisonment, and those with other unspent convictions will be able to receive an award only in exceptional circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman made important points about loss of earnings. We believe that our proposals are the fairest way to achieve the necessary reforms and to create a sustainable system. I also wish to clarify the position on dog attacks, which he also raised. The purpose of the scheme is to compensate for injury caused by deliberate violent crime, and there are other avenues that people can pursue, including civil remedies, in relation to these incidents.

We envisage that the cumulative effect of our reforms will help deliver savings of an estimated £50 million per year to the taxpayer. That does not mean that we are reducing the overall spend on victims—our aim is to keep overall spend on victims the same. That is to be achieved by offsetting the £50 million reduction in the criminal injuries compensation scheme with a similar amount raised from the offenders for victims’ services.

The Government’s intention is that the new scheme will be implemented around the end of September. For that to happen, it requires the approval of both Houses. There was a debate in the Lords on 25 July and there will be a debate in this House next week, on Monday 10 September. On that occasion, I will go into more detail than I have today about the changes to the scheme and I will also be seeking the House’s approval for our statutory scheme which will compensate victims of future overseas terrorism. In conclusion, the draft criminal injuries compensation scheme represents a coherent and fair way of focusing payments on those most seriously affected by their injuries, within an affordable budget.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

But the whole point of the change is to ensure that there will be accountability for the provision of victims services, which will lie at local level with people who are already responsible for the police and who will be champions for victims. The cross-party Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has already welcomed the proposal, and the youth charity Catch22 says it believes that police and crime commissioners generally have the potential to bring real coherence at the local level to the planning and commissioning of services designed to reduce and prevent crime and support victims. I am sorry that Opposition Front Benchers do not support what I believe is a very good idea that will strength victims services at the local level.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that community women offender facilities, in which this Government have invested substantially, provide a real alternative to custody for many women in the criminal justice system?

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The number of women in custody has been declining, in contrast with the number of men. We have been developing intensive treatment-based alternatives to custody for offenders with drug or mental health problems, including four women-only services in Wirral, Bristol, Birmingham and Tyneside. They are an important part of our strategy to ensure that offending by women is dealt with as effectively and appropriately as possible.

Defamation Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The decision is deliberately left to discretion, so in the end an experienced judge will have to decide whether a case is suitable, but one can conceive of a few exceptional cases whereby the whole thing depends on a question of the veracity of two teams of hard-swearing witnesses, and whereby the judge is persuaded that, because of the particular nature of the case, he would be helped by the judgment of a range of men and women, from a variety of backgrounds, who would bring their collective wisdom to deciding which side to believe.

That is simply one off-the-cuff example which comes to my mind, but if the whole thing turned on an elaborate argument about the application of the defamation laws to the particular circumstances of the publication of a scientific journal, for example, that would be a wholly unsuitable case to leave to a jury, and the whole thing would take longer and cost a lot more, even if the jury got it right in the end. That is the problem we are trying to address.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal could assist with earlier settlement, not just with reducing the length or cost of a hearing?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree strongly with that extremely good point. The more these things can be dealt with by way of a preliminary judgment by a judge, the more settlements we will get, because sometimes the whole thing really turns on one point, which can be dealt with much more quickly if a jury is not involved.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A lot of people want to get in and I want to get them all in as quickly as possible, so if Members can try to keep their speeches short, that would be great.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a legal aid family lawyer who specialises in domestic violence. I shall speak to amendments that deal with the widening of the evidence gateway for victims of domestic violence and the time limits applied to that gateway. However, at the outset I pay tribute to the Government’s wide strategy of combating the scourge of domestic violence. During the course of this Bill’s progress, they have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the legal needs of victims of domestic violence and their related family law issues. The Government have my support, but I would have liked them to go a little further on the time limits.

Let me turn first to the evidence gateway. Domestic violence is so often a hidden crime. It is committed behind closed doors, where the victim’s primal need to preserve a relationship or family unit can overwhelm their fear of continued abuse. There are often no witnesses, save for the sad exception of children, and it is one person’s word against another’s if the police arrive on the scene. The vast majority of victims are women. They find help, support and guidance in the face of adversity through their GPs, hospitals, social services and DV support organisations. The Government are absolutely right to ensure that the gateway criteria reflect and accommodate the alternative routes that women—and some men—take to address the pain and suffering that they are experiencing. Evidence, in the form of medical reports and letters from health professionals, social services and refuges, is successfully relied on every day in the courts. Judges use it all the time to justify the making of non-molestation orders and occupation orders, under the Family Law Act 1996. If such evidence is acceptable to the courts in establishing violence, it should surely be acceptable to the Executive agency of the Ministry of Justice in making its funding decisions.

Some who suffer abuse have even heavier armoury to prevent the disclosure and reporting of domestic violence. Be it a matter of duty, shame or honour, there is often huge familial and cultural pressure in black and ethnic minority communities to avoid the police, lawyers and other statutory bodies. Women also often feel compelled to use alternative but unacceptable community mechanisms for dispute resolution, which can often expose them to increased risk of harm and injustice. A widening of the gateway will especially help those women and girls, many of whom also have practical problems in reporting violence owing to language barriers, unawareness of services and fear of deportation.

There is also a need to maintain consistency across Departments in our treatment of domestic violence. Since 2004, in dealing with applications for leave to remain on the grounds of domestic violence, the UK Border Agency has used similar criteria to those advocated today by the Government. Although I appreciate that the list of criteria is now used as indicative guidance rather than compulsory evidence, it should be accepted that during the last eight years it has worked effectively, and without opening the fearsome floodgates to the outside world.

Having given reasons to support the widening of the gateway, let me now deal with one of the principal objections that has been raised against it. During earlier Government consultations, evidence was submitted by the Law Society and other bodies which suggested that a domestic violence gateway for family legal aid could lead to false allegations. However, having worked as a legal aid family lawyer for more than 20 years, I can tell the House that the overwhelming majority of my clients would not have deliberately recruited social services into their affairs, inviting all the risks that go with such involvement, nor would they have left the family to place themselves and their children in a hostel or women’s refuge, or deliberately inflict injury on themselves or their children and then falsely report the injury to a GP or hospital. Such acts require a high degree of wanton and malicious forethought. Yes, dishonesty exists across every section of society, but we need to weigh up the quantum of potential abuse and balance it against the harm that would persist if we fail to provide essential legal services for the most vulnerable people in society.

On the time limit applied to the criteria, I do not believe that the gateway should remain open in perpetuity, but there are strong reasons for extending it beyond 12 months. Such a limit does not recognise the dynamic of domestic violence or the genuine potential for post-separation violence. Research published by Women’s Aid found that 76% of those who have experienced violence also experience post-separation violence. Also, many non-molestation injunction orders are granted for just six months or a year. It is a sad fact that on expiry a significant number of respondents return and bring to bear a threatening presence, albeit one that is perhaps not sufficient to merit the making of a further injunction order. For many women, especially those who have suffered years of abuse before taking any action, 12 months is simply not sufficient to reach a state of physical, emotional and financial readiness to commence divorce or other legal proceedings. Indeed, a short, 12-month limit could encourage women to take action too early or miss out altogether on the help they need.

In the fullness of time, however, things settle down. Acrimony reduces, people move on, people remarry, children grow up, and old wounds start to heal. We therefore have to question the equity of bleeding the scars of old battles simply to obtain legal aid ad infinitum. All this suggests that at some stage a statutory line has to be drawn under the issues of the past. My personal view is that three years, rather than one, would be more appropriate for the majority of cases, but I of course leave that open for debate.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I want to echo the case made so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) and to talk about the importance of the Lords amendments in mitigating the impact of the Bill on some of the most vulnerable members of our society—namely, children. The passionate criticism of the Bill by Members in the other place revealed the short-term, short-sighted and potentially damaging aspects of this legislation, which will hit the most disadvantaged the most unfairly. I commend the work of the other place and the amendments that were passed as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I gladly accept that, but that does not address the underlying concern that the terms are unduly restrictive and will not cover all those who require support and assistance.

[Mrs Grant]

Would the hon. Lady not also accept that we have just heard from the Government that a letter from a general practitioner, a social worker or a refuge will be of assistance? Such letters will also form part of the evidence gateway, in addition to undertakings. Those points have already been made.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My apologies; I do accept what has been said by those on the Government Front Bench today. I am simply making the point that it does not go far enough to allay the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We shall see, when the amendments are voted on, whether that gives Members on the Government Benches the reassurance that they describe.

Lords amendment 194 would expand the types of acceptable evidence and harmonise the requirements for other agencies, such as the UK Border Agency, by permitting evidence from hospital doctors, GPs, and domestic violence support services and other “well-founded documentary evidence”. It provides a comprehensive list that far better reflects the reality of the forms that violence takes. It also mirrors the list of evidence already accepted by the Government in immigration law cases.

I want to quote the respondent to a survey by Rights of Women who said:

“Legal aid enabled me to resolve legally and permanently the issues around violence and emotional abuse which had been plaguing myself and my son for years. Legal aid made it possible for me to stand up to my ex-partner with the full weight of the law behind me.”

The importance of immediate access to legal aid for victims of violence and their children cannot be underestimated. It represents the difference between remaining in an abusive and life-threatening situation and finding safety. I also want to quote a member of the public who posted a message on Facebook at 7 o’clock this evening:

“I used to be a victim of domestic violence, back in the day when police did nothing and the courts gave out short-term injunctions, which was an insult. But what I do know is that domestic violence happens regardless of class. I got out of my violent marriage and was able to get a prompt divorce because I had legal aid. This Government is causing regression. What makes us proud to be British is being eroded away.”

The Government are targeting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people with this Bill. That is unfair; it is not economically sound and it will create bigger problems for the future. It is short-sighted and damaging, and I urge the Government to accept the Lords amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the benefits of more effective integrated offender management, which is another way of expressing the multi-agency working to which he draws attention. This good practice is widening across the whole system and, I am delighted to say, becoming the norm.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

One in four girls, some as young as 13, are hit by their boyfriend. What action will the Minister take to tackle violence among children?

[Mr Djanogly]

Tackling domestic violence is an absolute priority of this Government, and we are co-ordinating action with the Home Office. Indeed, my hon. Friend appeared in a debate that was held in Westminster Hall only a few days ago, and she will have seen the full picture at that time.

Legal Aid (Women and Families)

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend. Every hon. Member who has spoken has made a very good intervention. I agree with what he has said and am sure that everyone will have recognised and noted it.

I was referring to the speech delivered by Baroness Scotland. She is a practitioner of great experience and ability and is, of course, right.

I am fortunate enough to have the brilliant Southall Black Sisters in my constituency of Ealing, Southall. It is one of the UK’s leading organisations for black and minority ethnic women, and it told me that those women will be particularly hard hit by the Government’s plans. It said that

“the Legal Aid Bill will make it difficult for all vulnerable sections of society, especially BME women, to access justice and in doing so, remove meaningful legal protection from them and instead push them into community forums such as religious arbitration tribunals where not only will they be denied justice and protection but they will be encouraged to reconcile with abusive partners in order to uphold so called religious and family values. Women who have experienced and are at risk of violence and abuse will be at further risk of domestic and sexual violence, sexual exploitation and forced labour.”

It has been widely reported as fact that women who have experienced domestic violence will still be eligible for legal aid in private family law proceedings, such as disputes concerning the care and upbringing of children, but that is simply not the case. Experts in the field have unanimously raised the concern that too many women who have experienced domestic violence and need help will fall through the gaps in the proposals.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that men are likely to be financially better off than women and therefore better able to pay for legal work privately and that women are more likely to be in non-unionised jobs?

[Mr Sharma]

I agree with every word that the hon. Lady has said. I am sure that the Minister will also take note of those points in his response.

Experts in the field cite two particular concerns. First, the definition of domestic violence currently used in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill is inconsistent with the cross-Government definition of domestic violence, which guides statutory agency practice and governs access to Government services. Importantly, the definition used in the Bill fails explicitly to refer to financial abuse and sexual violence, which are particularly insidious forms of domestic violence. It is not clear why the Bill uses a different definition of domestic violence, unless the purpose is to restrict the number of cases that will be deemed eligible for legal aid. Under the current proposals, many who are already known to be victims of domestic violence by other departments will not obtain the legal support that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

The hon. Gentleman is avoiding the reality of the situation. In all except for fewer than five of those courts, the service is being transferred to other surrounding courts. I will write to him with the specific details because I do not have the numbers in front of me.

With that context in mind therefore, I will move on to the specific issue of the legal aid reforms. The £2 billion annual cost of legal aid, combined with the economic climate of the day, mean that hard choices must be made. It is essential that resources are focused on cases where legal aid is most needed—that is where people’s life or liberty are at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where their children may be taken into care.

As well as retaining legal aid for criminal cases, we are also keeping legal aid for mental health matters, asylum matters, debt and housing matters where someone’s home is at risk and legal aid for judicial reviews of public authorities. All of those are directly relevant to family welfare. That means that we are retaining legal aid to seek an injunction to prevent domestic violence and to oppose a child being taken into care. We are also retaining legal aid for private law family cases where domestic violence is a feature. We will also be keeping and extending legal aid for family mediation. The power to waive the financial eligibility limits in cases where someone is seeking an injunction against domestic violence also remains, so those who need help securing protection will be able to get it.

[Mrs Grant]

Does the Minister agree that excluding undertakings from the domestic violence gateway could have the perverse effect of encouraging litigation, thus potentially increasing costs?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said in Committee, the Government are looking at the question of undertakings and that continues to be our position. We hope to come forward with that as the Bill progresses through the other place. If I am to say very much more, I will not be able to take any further interventions.

We are also retaining legal aid for all child parties in family cases, and of course exceptional funding will be available in any out-of-scope case where a failure to provide legal aid might breach the European convention on human rights or EU law. Taken together, we expect such provisions to mean that we will continue to spend around £120 million a year on private family law legal aid, based on 2009-10 figures. When we include legal aid for public family law matters, spending will well exceed £400 million, again based on 2009-10. We will continue to spend nearly £130 million a year on legal representation for child parties. That represents around 95% of current spend.

I accept that women and children will often be directly and indirectly affected by private family law proceedings, but, as I have said in the past, we have had to make tough choices here. We cannot afford to fund generally lengthy and often intractable disputes in the family courts. However, we know that mediation can lead to better results that are consensually and less acrimoniously agreed and that are potentially longer-lasting than those imposed by a court. We expect an extra 10,000 mediations a year, which is up from the current figure of around 15,000.

Mediation will not always be appropriate, however, particularly when domestic violence is involved. We know that it can have a devastating effect on women and children, as well as men, who are a significant and often overlooked group of domestic violence victims. Domestic violence is also a significant predictor of children being taken into care as well as a precursor to all sorts of other social problems. On top of that, we also know that perpetrators of domestic violence can assert a controlling, insidious power over their victims, which could potentially stop a victim from effectively presenting their case against the perpetrator in court. On those points, I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall and with Baroness Scotland. However, the hon. Gentleman’s example of a woman who would not get legal aid after running from an abusive husband is not accurate. That sort of case would get legal aid. When a person is convicted of domestic violence against a partner, the partner will be eligible, as conviction would count as evidence. That is why we have made a large, and extremely important, exception in our proposal to remove most private family legal aid from scope of our reforms—that is where domestic violence is a feature.

There has been much debate about the definition of domestic abuse in the Bill and the fact that we do not use the definition of the Association of Chief Police Officers. We are considering that as the matter proceeds through the other place.

There has also been much focus on the evidence criteria for domestic violence to qualify for legal aid in private family law cases. We need clear, objective evidence of domestic violence to target taxpayers’ money on cases where the victim needs assistance. The allegation, which has again been made today, is that the Government’s criteria will miss a great number of genuine victims, and various pieces of evidence have been adduced to support this, and we will continue to look at them. They include the evidence provided by Southall Black Sisters, who have made a significant contribution to the whole case.

Those pieces of evidence refer to domestic violence victims as a whole and point out their difficulties in dealing with the civil or criminal justice systems. We are dealing with a subset of that group—those who are seeking private family law legal aid. They will have, in certain respects, slightly different characteristics to domestic violence victims as a whole. By definition, they will be engaged in the civil justice system. A significant number, nearly 10,000 in 2009-10, will be seeking civil legal aid for a protective injunction at the same time as they seek legal aid for their private family law matter. They will all meet the evidential criteria. We know that in total there were 70,000 legal aid family cases in 2009-10. Let me compare that figure to the prevalence of the types of evidence that we are requesting. Around 24,100 domestic violence orders were made in 2010, the great majority with the benefit of civil legal aid. Around 74,000 domestic violence crimes were prosecuted in 2009-10, and there were 53,000 domestic violence convictions. Around 43,000 victims of domestic violence were referred to Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences in the 12 months up to June 2010.

We also propose that an ongoing criminal proceeding for domestic violence and a finding of fact in the courts will be taken as evidence. Now these figures will clearly overlap to some degree, but what they point to is that a significant proportion of those 70,000 private family law cases that we currently fund will continue to be funded. We think that this proportion will be around 25%, which matches our rough estimate of the prevalence of domestic violence. I should also say, though, that this comes from a number of sources, and definitive evidence is not available.

I have also committed to look again at whether the issue of undertakings in a court can be used as evidence. We are clear about the need to ensure that those who are victims of domestic violence and need legal aid can access it and these requirements are designed to enable that.

Turning to legal aid for children, we have protected funding in areas that specifically involve children. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases, civil cases concerning abuse of a child, and for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We have also made special provision so that legal aid is available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings.

I should highlight that in civil cases, such as clinical negligence, claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s “litigation friend”, rather than the child themselves. That is a normal part of the rules around civil litigation. As I mentioned earlier, there will also be an exceptional funding scheme for cases where legal aid will not generally be available, which will take into account a person’s ability to represent themselves in legal proceedings where the European Court of Human Rights applies. That will clearly be an important factor in the case of children who might otherwise be left to present their case without assistance.

It is worth noting that the Government published an equality impact assessment, which laid out our assessment of the effects on women of planned changes to legal aid. It recognised the potential for the reforms to have an impact on women and children, but in the context of the cuts that need to be made, and the deliberate focus of legal aid on those who are most vulnerable and in need, we do not believe that this impact is disproportionate.

I do not pretend that the choices we have had to make will have no impact, but they needed to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The future level of crime depends on a huge number of variables, which are not within the control of any Government or Minister. What one does is to make sure that one does not exacerbate any problems, and that one accommodates those who come in. I am trying to establish in prisons a more intelligent regime that will achieve some improvements in reoffending rates for those who have to be punished by going to prison. If any of my predecessors ever gave an exact forecast of the prison population, two or three out, that predecessor was in my opinion an idiot. I do remember, however, that the previous Government so miscalculated things that they had to let 80,000 people out of prison, short of their sentence, because prisons were bulging at the seams and they had nowhere to accommodate them.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to reduce the level of reoffending by people sentenced to one year or less.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

We are supporting local areas to develop integrated approaches to managing offenders and testing payment-by-results arrangements for providers working with short-sentenced prisoners.

[Mrs Grant]

Around 4,000 women are in British prisons, most of whom are serving short-term sentences. Does the Minister agree that community women offender projects can provide a very real alternative to custody?

[Nick Herbert]

I suspect there is a consensus across the House about that issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, 15 years ago, there were only 1,800 women in prison. The Prison Reform Trust has pointed out that:

“During one year more than 11,000 women are imprisoned and almost 18,000 children are separated from their mothers.”

Some women need to go to prison, and it is important that custody remains available. However, we are focusing on developing suitable, intensive community sentences that can prevent such a flow into the custodial system wherever possible.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

The definition in the Bill embraces mental as well as physical abuse, neglect, maltreatment and exploitation. Those references would cover, for example, abusive behaviour relating to the family finances. The definition in the Bill would not exclude from scope any of the types of abuse covered by the definition used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and this part of the amendment is unnecessary. The amendment is, however, also potentially misleading. It would take a definition intended as a very wide operational net to catch behaviour that should not be disregarded and should be investigated —although it may emerge from the investigation that no action is called for—and place it in a context that is inevitably after the fact and directed to the effects of the behaviour in subsequent proceedings.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that the fact that the definition is not specific has the potential to create some uncertainty, and that uncertainty, especially at the beginning of court proceedings, will create even more hardship for the victim, which may well lead to litigation in itself? Is it not possible to be more precise, so that people need not worry about what is and what is not acceptable?

[Mr Djanogly]

I shall be discussing that in a little more detail, but I would answer my hon. Friend’s more general point that the definition could make things harder for a court by saying that the court will in any event have to take a view at some point

[Mrs Grant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

Post-separation violence is very common in domestic violence cases. I am concerned that there is a 12-month time limit on the gateway criteria for family law matters, which means that if the violence occurs after that period many highly vulnerable women and children could fall through the net.

[Mr Djanogly]

That relates to amendment 74. I am going to deal with it and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased with the answer I will give her.

Accepting self-reporting without objective evidence would prevent us from effectively focusing assistance on victims of domestic violence who were unable effectively to present their case against the other party because of the history or risk of abuse by that party. Both amendments refer to evidence from professionals in a variety of roles. I explained that we have widened our criteria so that legal aid will be available where the victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk-assessment conference as a high-risk victim of domestic violence and a plan has been put in place to protect them from violence by the other party. Such referrals can be made by a range of professionals. Furthermore, a finding of fact in the family courts that domestic violence has occurred will trigger legal aid, and a court will be able to assess any relevant evidence.

Amendment 74, to which my hon. Friend referred, would prevent a time limit from applying to any evidence. We have said that a 12-month period, where relevant, will apply. We consider that 12 months will be an appropriate period to protect victims and to enable them to deal with their private family law issues. However, if the criteria were to arise again—for instance, if a second protective injunction is made—the time period would start again. It is also important to remember that legal aid will remain available for exceptional out-of-scope cases where the failure to provide such funding would amount to the breach of an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights, particularly article 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I will come to that later in my speech, but it was exactly the point that I tried unsuccessfully, as so often, to raise with the Minister in my intervention. In the amendments, we accept the evidential basis, but we are seeking to broaden it to include exactly the sort of organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. Last time I checked, at least 21 right hon. and hon. Friends supported amendment 74, some of whom wish to speak in the debate, and we have other important debates this evening, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.

According to the Home Secretary’s November 2010 publication, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, 1 million women a year experience domestic abuse in Britain. When those women make the decision to leave their abusive partners, often quite suddenly, they need care and expert legal help to escape safely and, if they have children, to ensure their safety too. For more than 60 years, family legal aid has provided that expert legal assistance, helping millions of people, mainly women, to escape violent, abusive and sometimes life-threatening relationships.

In November last year, the Government announced consultation on their plans to reform legal aid. As the Minister said, they plan to take family law out of the scope of legal aid, except when domestic abuse has occurred, but reason that making domestic violence the “gateway” to legal aid will also create an incentive for false claims of domestic violence. So they proposed a limited range of objective proof of domestic violence that would need to be presented before legal aid was granted.

Five thousands groups and individuals responded to the Government’s consultation, and almost all were opposed. As a result, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced a partial U-turn, adding to his list of evidential criteria. In the revised list, legal aid will be granted when a victim has obtained a civil injunction or criminal conviction against her abuser. We welcome that additional criterion, but fear that it is insufficient. Research has shown that, whereas more than half of women have suffered some form of domestic abuse during their lifetime, only a minority ever apply for injunctive release or report the abuse to the police. Women who, for whatever reason, do not want to go through legal proceedings, whether because of fear or simply because they are unwilling to relive the abuse again and again during the judicial process, will be disfranchised by the Government’s plans.

Legal aid will be granted when a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference—a MARAC—as the Minister confirmed today, or domestic violence must have been established as fact in the family courts. MARACs are a great success, but they are typically used for very serious cases. The final criteria that the Government allow are especially perverse, given that legal aid will not be available to obtain a finding of fact in the family courts. The Minister may say that that is not the case, but that is what the Bill seems to say. As such, the Government’s plans to remove family legal aid, except when a narrow and onerous range of objective proof is present, will place thousands of vulnerable women at considerable risk. That is why women’s groups, practitioners and the Opposition continue to harbour deep concern.

Labour’s amendment seeks to widen the evidential criteria of domestic violence to ensure that as many victims as possible receive help, while retaining the Government’s decision to limit private family legal aid to victims of domestic abuse. In doing so, we have tried to come to a joined-up, comprehensive view of the evidential criteria for domestic abuse that already exist in various Departments. The Government’s statement of intent, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, recognises that violence against women requires a focused and robust cross-government approach, underpinned by a single agreed definition. The Opposition entirely agree, as do the courts.

The recent Supreme Court case, Yemshaw v. London Borough of Hounslow, reinforced the courts’ view that there is but one definition of domestic abuse, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has promulgated that definition. The evidential criteria for domestic abuse are not currently set out in the Bill, but they are set out in the response to consultation. The Government plan to promulgate the evidential criteria by order, which is why I fear that the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is insufficient by itself. We entirely support her amendment, but mine would go further in placing the evidential criteria into primary legislation.

The criteria in my amendment are an amalgamation of the objective criteria for ascertaining whether domestic violence has occurred from the Government’s response to consultation and the UK Border Agency’s criteria used in immigration cases. The amendment would do nothing more than unify best practice across government by ensuring that we have one singular evidential definition of domestic violence, much as the hon. Lady’s amendment would ensure that we have one singular descriptive definition of domestic violence.

The sort of evidence that my amendment would allow is as follows:

“a relevant court conviction or police caution…a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction…evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence…evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party…a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim”.

I suspect that, so far, the Government are broadly with us, but what I sought from the Minister and did not obtain, is the reason the following evidential criteria are inappropriate:

“a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries…a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant has injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence…an undertaking”—

the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is not in his place, but he raised this point—

“given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse”.

I hope that the Minister has read the Law Society’s comments—he may be familiar with practice in the family courts—that many more matters are dealt with by way of undertaking than by way of trial process. Excluding undertakings from his criteria makes it not only logistically more difficult, but almost certain that the trial process, with all the inherent difficulties of inflaming the situation, will be the norm rather than the exception.

[Mrs Grant]

On a point of clarification concerning the undertaking, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) raised, an undertaking is a legally binding document. It is signed by the parties and usually sealed by the court. It is a solemn promise that is given to the judge. If it is breached, the person who breaches the order can commit on it, so it is specific and clear, and eminently acceptable in my opinion to be part of the criteria. Having been a domestic violence and family lawyer for the past 23 years, I am worried that the exclusion of undertakings from the criteria will create a perverse incentive not to dispose of a matter at the earliest opportunity, but to continue with the litigation from fear that further problems may come out of the woodwork, which, as family lawyers, we believe are coming in the future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that.

[Mr Slaughter]

If he wishes, I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me, and to reply to the hon. Lady, or he may wish to deal with the matter subsequently. I have nothing like her experience, but I have had the experience many hundreds of times of explaining undertakings and their seriousness to clients. She is absolutely right. In law, there are clear differences, but in practice the effect of an undertaking is the same in relation to perpetrators as the outcome of a trial in terms of the penalties available against them. Excluding undertakings is a huge and glaring omission from the Bill.

The other criteria are

“a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence…a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation…or…other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful for that detailed question from the hon. Gentleman. I will write to him with a full answer.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that prison is not the right place for women who pose no risk to the public, and that robust community sentences would be a much better option?