Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing

Lord Beith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I do not disagree. I have always held up the arrangement at Peterborough prison as a model of where we want to go. It is exactly what I wish to encourage. People are imprisoned, first, because they have to make their reparations to the public and be punished for what they have done but, as my hon. Friend has rightly said, there is now an extremely interesting situation in place where attempts to start reforming criminals start in the prison and are followed through outside by St Giles Trust, which is the partner of the private sector managers of the prison. We hope to replicate that pilot across the country, which is an example of where we ought to go. People get the punishment first and then proper efforts to stop them offending when they are released.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

To pursue that point further, is it not the case that if we have a system that faces constant increases in numbers, overcrowding and prisoners being moved around in order to accommodate the problems that the system faces, we will not get sentence planning, the careful structuring of sentences or measures to prevent reoffending, which are needed.

[Mr Clarke]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, that problem has constantly recurred with the extraordinary explosion in the number of people in prison in recent years.

As I have said, I am not saying that everything is perfect in the wider criminal justice system. I freely acknowledge that reporting and public understanding of our system is far from ideal, which is one reason why the coalition Government have a far-reaching programme of criminal justice reform as well as measures to promote transparency and public understanding. However, we should not muddle the problems of an overly complex body of law, which is too rarely reported accurately, with the rules governing how our judiciary apply the law in particular cases.

For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth saying that although the Sentencing Council is a recent innovation, the approach that it embodies is not new. Sentencing has operated in England and Wales for more than 100 years under broadly the same well-established constitutional settlement, in which Parliament sets the overarching legislative framework within which courts sentence, including the maximum penalty and, for some offences of particular public concern, the minimum penalty available to the courts. The role of independent judges is to work within that framework.

Since 2010, the Sentencing Council and its predecessor, the Sentencing Guidelines Council which was created in 2005, have provided courts with a decision-making process to assess the harm that offences cause to victims and communities, suggesting common starting points and ranges, and highlighting aggravating factors. The Sentencing Council has not fundamentally changed the basic division of responsibilities or the balance of power between Parliament, Government and the judiciary. Before the previous Government created the Sentencing Council, the Court of Appeal carried out this function. Its criminal division gave guidance to courts when it thought that discrepancies were beginning to occur. The Court of Appeal has not lost that power entirely and still gives guidance when it feels it necessary. However, the council now provides the great majority of such support to the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

Is the hon. Gentleman making a commitment that a future Labour Government—if there were such a thing—would increase expenditure on policing by 20% and expenditure on justice by a similar amount?

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is committing himself to the coalition in perpetuity in making those comments, but he knows the answer to his question, because the shadow Home Secretary set it out very clearly. We would have made cuts, but we would not have made 20% cuts, and we would not have made the cuts in front-line police officer numbers that are happening everywhere, but particularly, as I can attest, in London.

We need options for judges; we need prison places, which, as we know, are already at crisis level; and we need community sentencing. Every probation service and YOT can name at least one community sentencing project that has had to shut down in the face of cuts, and that is without looking at the cuts in youth services that divert young people away from crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Secretary of State and his Ministers talk a lot about restorative justice, and we have heard about it today. Restorative justice can indeed be transformative justice. As compared with control groups, those sentenced to restorative justice see falls of between 10% and 50% in reoffending. However, despite its success in Northern Ireland, the Government will not resource restorative justice conferencing.

The Opposition support effective alternatives to custody, but where are they? If magistrates and judges do not have the option of, or the confidence in, community punishment, they will be forced to impose custodial sentences. Cutting probation service, YOT and community justice budgets to the extent, and at the speed, that this Government are doing will fatally undermine their plan to reduce detention numbers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I was going to begin by complimenting the previous Government on setting up the Sentencing Council, but given that the Labour spokesman devoted his final paragraph to the cuts, I have to say, before turning to the work of the Justice Committee, that since the Labour party envisages cuts on a similar scale to the Government’s—they might be slightly smaller, but spread over a longer period—we are all talking about the same amount of money. Were there a realistic prospect of removing from the Ministry of Justice the obligation to make significant cuts in expenditure, we could all think of ways of spending the money, but any party confronted with office now would have the problem of funding desirable things out of a shrinking resource of public expenditure. If we can all be realistic about that, we may be able to make more progress on those things that we agree on.

One of the things that we seem to agree on is that the Sentencing Council is a valuable body. The Justice Committee has a statutory role in being consulted on the council’s proposals, as has happened in several cases—a couple of reports are on the Order Paper today, one relating to drugs and burglary and the other relating to assault. Our normal practice is to take detailed evidence, after which I normally write to the chairman of the council, Lord Justice Leveson, on behalf of the Committee, and we publish the letter along with the evidence that we have received. I strongly recommend that Members concerned about the council read the evidence from representatives of bodies such as Victim Support and others who come to hearings and give their views about the impact of sentences and about what they think is appropriate.

We believe that the system works well but faces serious inherent difficulties. On the evidence base, we have drawn attention to a fundamental absence of sufficient empirical evidence on which to base decisions on guidelines—for example, those relating to the cost and effectiveness of specific sentences. This is a general problem for those in the judiciary, be they judges or magistrates. Rarely do they get much evidence on the effectiveness of sentences, still less on the effect of sentences on individuals—unless of course they see the same individuals coming back again and again, having committed further offences. We need to ensure that we have the empirical evidence to provide a realistic basis for decisions about appropriate sentences.

Another problem has been mentioned today: the need to produce guidelines which the general public can understand and which are not simply lawyers talking to lawyers—that was an expression that Javed Khan of Victim Support used in evidence to the Committee. There is a tension between providing guidelines that are reliable and soundly worded—for legal purposes—and enabling the public to understand what the Sentencing Council is doing. It is a challenging task, the importance of which we have drawn to Lord Leveson’s attention. We also encourage Lord Leveson’s efforts in matters of public awareness, to increase public understanding of sentencing and work more effectively with the media, a role that the judiciary did not want to undertake in earlier times, for understandable reasons, but which is now much more widely recognised to be important.

Having referred to the work that we do on the Sentencing Council, I want to address what the purposes of sentencing are. The first purpose in my view—this view is generally shared across the Committee—is public safety and the maintenance of law and order. Therefore, there are people who have to be sent to prison, in some cases for very long periods, because they represent a serious danger to public safety and there is no obvious way of reducing that danger while they are at large. Prison therefore has an important part to play in the system. However, public safety also requires that sentences be imposed that are most likely to prevent further offences and the creation of further victims. The vast majority of people who are sentenced in court will come out again—whether after a short sentence or after a longer sentence—committing further offences and still representing a potential danger to our constituents. In many cases, they will have committed offences for which it would not be reasonable, by comparison with more serious offences, to impose very long sentences; therefore, we have to accept the reality. People will come out of prison, and at the moment, far too many of them come out and commit further offences—often repeat offences—over a number of years, which creates more victims.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned and moderate contribution, if I may say so. Indeed, he certainly takes a more robust view than many in his party. However, what would he say to the family of my constituent, John Hutchinson, who on 31 October was attacked by a group of feral teenagers, one of whom has subsequently been sentenced to a nine-month referral order, which is effectively a glorified contract promising to be good? My constituent is now having to leave his home and go into institutionalised care. Where is the faith and trust of my constituents in the criminal justice system when such an incident happens, and when they know that that individual is likely to go out and commit further crimes in future?

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituent has obviously had a terrible experience, but we should all resist the temptation, in this place and elsewhere, to comment on particular sentences when we do not know all the circumstances in which they were given. If the sentence in a particular case is not appropriate, the Attorney-General has the power to return to the courts and seek a longer sentence, a point that the Lord Chancellor made earlier.

The second purpose of sentencing is deterrence, but the effectiveness of deterrence is often exaggerated. The fact is that when they commit offences, most criminals, first, think that they will not be caught and, secondly, do not have much idea what the sentence will be if they are. Therefore, sentencing is not usually a matter that is firmly in criminals’ minds when they commit offences in the first place. There are many circumstances where the function of deterrence in sentencing is exaggerated. It is there, and it has a role to play. For example, after the public disorder last summer, there was a legitimate reason to believe that unless we made people realise that the offence of theft in the context of public disorder would be treated very seriously, there might be a failure to understand how the courts were going to deal with such matters. There was a deterrence aspect in that case, but there are many offences where deterrence plays no role at all, even though it is one of the legitimate purposes of sentencing.

That brings me to the third purpose of sentencing, which is punishment. Punishment is a wide concept, because it involves the community declaring that it rejects and abhors crime with all its harmful effects. We sometimes fail to understand that purpose of sentencing. One reason why people react as they might have done on reading in the newspaper about the case that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) raised a moment ago is that they think the court has not demonstrated how seriously the community takes a crime of that kind.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I could not agree with my right hon. Friend more. Does he agree that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently in the other place, firmly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to that principle in relation to the crimes of sexual exploitation and paedophilia, by clearly saying that two thirds of a sentence must be served and that if somebody goes on to perpetrate another horrendous crime of that nature, they should receive a life sentence?

[Sir Alan Beith]

Yes, but there is also a public safety aspect to the kind of cases that the hon. Lady has described, in that they may involve criminals where the likelihood of their not reoffending is very low and where long, determinate sentences are therefore appropriate. However, the problem with this very necessary part of sentencing is that it can lead to a tension between society declaring very clearly that it will not put up with something and what would be likely to lead to that person not reoffending—I am not thinking of the kind of case to which she has just referred, but a much broader range of crimes.

Understandably, the public read about crimes and compare how different ones are treated by the courts; indeed, we all do that. We want to be sure that the worst crimes are taken the most seriously. Prompted by media reports in particular, the relative seriousness issue tends to be judged according to whether a sentence is a prison sentence and how long it is. Such sentences might not be the right answer for every case, however. The likelihood of reoffending could be greatly reduced in some cases by tackling a drug or alcohol problem, for example. If that is not done, it does not matter how long the person is kept in prison, because they will commit further offences when they come out, fuelled by their problem. The judiciary therefore has to bear in mind all the purposes of sentencing. Considerations of public safety, deterrence and punishment must all inform each decision.

In the light of those principles, we should also consider how the judicial processes work. We want them to enable the most effective sentences to be available and to be applied. As I mentioned earlier in a different context, however, we have a weak evidence base for allowing the judiciary to determine whether sentences have been effective. Few judges are able to tell how the sentences that they have passed have worked out in practice, or whether they have had the desired effect. The exceptions are those cases in which an offender comes back before the court. We need to deal with that evidence problem.

We have also seen a lack of effective management of sentencing and post-release provisions. The Government have set about improving that situation, and the Committee very much welcomes that. We have discussed in some detail the payment by results model and other ways in which the Government have sought to ensure that people coming out of prison have access to provisions that actually work. We cannot achieve that, however, if our prison system is in turmoil. A system in which people are simply shunted around in order to create spaces for other prisoners is the enemy of effective sentence management.

There is an institutional bias in the system in favour of the use of custody, regardless of whether it is the best option. If a judge or magistrate passes a community sentence, the first question has to be, “Are the necessary facilities available in this area?” That applies to residential provision for tackling a drug problem and to the various kinds of community disposal. We have to ask what is available. If a custodial sentence is passed, however, the prison van rolls up outside and the prisoner is taken away. The judiciary can be confident that that will happen, although it might not know where the prison place will be found. The system will find a place somewhere, however, and there is an institutional bias in the system in favour of such disposals.

Custodial sentences and non-custodial sentences are commissioned by different people. The commissioning of custodial sentences is a national function, carried out by the National Offender Management Service largely on a national basis. There is an attempt to provide prison places locally, but in practice, prisoners are often circulated and shunted around. Non-custodial sentences are commissioned much more locally. In the case of youth custody, we have seen how much more effective the process can be when it is handled locally. My Committee has regularly sought to interest this Government and their predecessor in the idea of more local commissioning of custodial and non-custodial disposals, so that a balance can be struck more locally. Clearly, there will still be a need for responsibility to be taken at national level for high-security prisons and other specialised services, but local commissioners could buy into that provision. In many areas, including the health service, this Government and the previous one have seen the value of a separation between commission and provision, and it seems strange that that is still not fully appreciated within the Ministry of Justice.

I want to refer to one of our Committee’s earlier reports, “Cutting crime: the case for justice reinvestment”, which was published not long before the general election in 2010. It was very well received and is still much quoted, which we find gratifying. The report identified a never-ending cycle of spending money on the punishment of offenders whose crimes we ought to have been able to prevent from happening in the first place. If we had spent the same amount of money on diverting young people away from criminality into positive activity, on education, particularly for those whom the education system has failed, on intervention to deal with problem families and on very early intervention for young children, we could have prevented some of the crimes. Instead, we are spending money on incarcerating the people who committed them.

I very much welcome what the Government are doing—particularly on the latter two issues I have mentioned thanks to the efforts of the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)—in insisting that even in these straitened times, we must find money for early intervention and early access to education, especially for those in deprived circumstances. I welcome that commitment.

The theme of our report, which has sadly been overtaken in this respect by the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, was that there should be a real resources shift from the custodial system into crime prevention. On this issue, people often say, “You can’t do that because the crime has happened,” but if we do not start in some way to inject and invest money at the stages where people’s propensity to commit crimes begins, we will continue to have to spend more and more money dealing with the consequences of crime.

We had, of course, hoped that financial circumstances might allow the money to start that process moving to come from elsewhere, but they have not allowed that— except to the limited extent to which the Government have been able to invest in early years education. The Ministry of Justice has thus had to find from within its own budget money to spend on more preventive measures. It is not just a matter for the Ministry of Justice, because it also involves the Department for Education, the Department of Health and a whole series of Departments whose expenditure decisions will determine whether some of our constituents are victims of crime in the future. Only to the extent that they divert those most likely to commit crimes away from that course will we achieve the purpose of preventing crime and promoting public safety.

The purpose of the sentencing system, as viewed here from the perspective of parliamentarians, must surely be the protection of our constituents—keeping our constituents safe. We should spend public money on sentences that cut crime rather than on the grim and often devastating consequences of crime. That is the principle towards which I believe all Governments should work, and I hope that this Government will work towards it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

These debates on criminal justice matters always resemble a lawyers’ dinner party; it is all very fascinating, but I am not sure that most of my constituents will be entirely impressed with the conclusions drawn from a lawyers’ dinner party. Once again, we have a cosy consensus in this place, and that usually precedes a disaster in public policy. There was the exchange rate mechanism, which all the parties fell over themselves to agree with, and which was, of course, an unmitigated disaster; and the Child Support Agency, which all parties thought was absolutely marvellous, but which, again, ended up a complete disaster. Today, all three parties are falling over themselves to agree on the merits of sending ever fewer people to prison. Once again, we face consensus, which is a disaster.

I am sometimes misunderstood, so I should say at the start that I think the Secretary of State for Justice is a great man. He would be a greater man, however, if he was in charge of a different Department. That should not be misconstrued as my lobbying for him to become the Minister for Europe, by the way, but I do think his talents would be better used in another Department.

We have had a sterile debate on this issue for far too long. I believe that the first duty of any Government is to protect the public. There has been a long-running debate in which people are characterised as belonging to one of two separate camps: the camp that believes in prison, and the camp that believes in rehabilitation. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) seemed to reinforce that view towards the end of his speech, and it is a false division. I believe in sending people to prison; I also believe in rehabilitating people while they are in prison, and I do not see why a difference should be seen between the two. We must have a more sensible and nuanced debate.

There are two myths about the criminal justice system—first, that we send far too many people to prison; secondly, that prison does not work—and I want to try expose them both. The liberal elite are always conditioning us to believe that we send too many people to prison, but according to figures provided by the House of Commons Library, for every 1,000 crimes recorded in the UK, we send 17 people to prison. That compares with 29 in Ireland and 31 in Spain—in fact, virtually every other country in the European Union sends more people to prison for every 1,000 crimes committed than we do. Of course, in America they send more than 200 people to prison for every 1,000 crimes committed. People may mock, but they have a crime rate that is less than half the UK’s.

I got the House of Commons Library to produce an interesting piece of evidence showing the prison population per 1,000 crimes committed, and the crime rate, in 45 different countries around the world. Obviously, there was not an exact correlation, but it was striking how close it was. The countries with the highest prison population also had the lowest crime rate. That really should not come as a great shock to people, because to be perfectly honest, most of the public would think it blindingly obvious that the more criminals we send to prison, the fewer we have on the streets committing crimes. It is blindingly obvious to everybody—apart, it seems, from the cosy consensus of the three major parties in this country.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the case again today that crime goes up when we have an economic recession and down when we have a boom. I asked the Library to test that theory, too, and it produced a graph showing the crime rate, prison population and gross domestic product in this country since the war. There is a striking, remarkably close correlation between the prison population and the crime rate: as the former goes up, the latter tends to go down. There is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between GDP and the crime rate, so that is an absolute myth. It might seem logical to think that such a comparison exists, but all the evidence from the Library shows absolutely no link whatsoever.

I would argue not that there are too many people in prison but too few. Of course, under the previous Government and the end of custody licence scheme, 81,578 prisoners were released early, including 16,000 violent offenders, 1,234 of whom went on to commit 1,624 new offences—including at least three murders— during the time when they would normally have been locked up. That is 1,624 unnecessary victims of crime as a result of having fewer criminals behind bars.

A district judge told me about a bizarre situation that arose. On a Saturday morning, he sentenced somebody to six weeks in prison for theft. Three days later, on the Tuesday morning, the very same person came before him, having already committed another crime, despite having been sentenced to six weeks in prison just three days earlier. I asked how on earth that was possible. The judge explained that only half such a sentence is served, which automatically brought the sentence of six weeks—or 42 days—down to 21 days. Everybody was being released 16 days early, so that brought it down to five days. The individual in question had spent five days on remand before his trial, so, despite having been sentenced to six weeks in prison, he was let straight out. What an absolutely farcical situation. It is an utter farce and then we wonder why nobody in this country has any confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Government’s policy is also based on a premise which we heard again from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith)—the idea, which we are encouraged to believe, that it is so easy to be sent to prison in this country. A myth has built up that someone can commit a minor offence and will be mopped up by the police, marched straight to the courts and, without a by-your-leave, sent to prison. If only that were the case. I would love to live in such circumstances, but it is far from the case. In the real world, people commit crime after crime and go to the magistrates court where they are given community sentence after community sentence until, eventually, a magistrate or district judge gets bored and finally says, “I have no other option, I have sent you on every possible programme going and I now have to send you to prison.” That is what happens in this country despite what the right hon. Gentleman said.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the evidence given by two ex-offenders who appeared before the Justice Committee during our probation inquiry, who both told us separately that their community sentences were extremely demanding, that they were fed up with them and that they had committed further crimes to get into prison, where they got three square meals a day and had much less to do.

[Philip Davies]

They must have had to commit an awful lot of crimes to get themselves into prison, because it is very difficult to get sent to prison in this country.

Let me emphasise the point. In 2009, according to the Ministry of Justice, 2,980 burglars and 4,677 violent offenders with 15 or more previous convictions were still not sent to prison. Today, the Secretary of State was saying that if someone commits a burglary they should expect to go to prison. In one year, however, 2,980 burglars with 15 or more previous convictions still were not sent to prison, which seems rather to defy the message that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is trying to give.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I agreed with many of the points that he so ably made based on his experience. It is easy to joke about the profusion of lawyers taking part in debates such as this, but in reality many of us stopped practising only within the past two years, before we came to this place. We therefore bring with us an abundance of experience and knowledge, especially those of us who were at the criminal Bar and both prosecuted and defended, which gave us an insight into cases from both perspectives. That is a great feature of the criminal Bar and, I hope Members will concur, adds to our ability to bring real experience and hopefully insight to this important debate.

I shall put my cards on the table. I practised at the criminal Bar for some 16 years until my election, and I am very proud of that. I should perhaps not put this too strongly, but it was one of the most rewarding and enjoyable jobs I have ever done, for all manner of reasons. As a member of the criminal Bar I defended far more than I prosecuted.

I should like to put it on record that I find it most peculiar that the Labour party, certainly in my constituency, seems to think it should criticise me for standing up in the House and talking about the law, particularly the criminal law. Often, I speak in defence of not only my own profession but solicitors, who are suffering in a way they have never suffered before due to the reduction in legal aid. I find it perverse that the Labour party attacks people such as me in those circumstances. It professes to be the party of the poor, the repressed, the deprived and some of the most needy in our society, but it is those very people whom so many at the criminal Bar and solicitors have represented for a long time, often with very little reward.

When I joined the criminal Bar, somebody said to me, “You are going to be a social worker wearing a wig.” Those of us who have been at the Bar or worked as solicitors and who have defended criminals will know from experience how often we go beyond the fee—and it is not a very great fee. We know how often we have given a fiver or £10 to clients who have no money in their pockets so that they can get home when they find themselves in the fortunate position—my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will despair at this point—of not going into custody when they thought they might receive a prison sentence.

I once gave a client £10 so that he could catch the train back to Worksop. This perhaps shows my naivety. I took him to Nottingham railway station and assumed he would spend the money I had given him on his ticket. In fact, he went off and bought a large amount of heroin and was arrested by the police. Hon. Members can imagine my reaction when I found out what he had done with the money.

I digress from the subject of the debate, but I want to make the point that the criminal justice system could not operate without the Bar and solicitors who often go that extra mile, often at their own expense, to ensure that it works properly. I fully understand and appreciate that the legacy we have inherited means we have no option than to reduce the amount that goes into the legal aid pot, which means that members of the criminal Bar are seeing a reduction in their fees—that is in the context of having had no genuine increase since 1997. I know the Government can do nothing about that at the moment, but when the time comes we must ensure that those who do legal aid work are properly remunerated. It could be said that I have diverged from the subject of the debate, but I wanted to make that point.

Consistency in sentencing can be truly achieved only when the following occurs. It starts at the beginning. To achieve consistency in sentencing, we must ensure from the outset that there is a proper and full investigation of the allegation. That means that witness statements must be properly taken and that all relevant evidence must be properly gathered. A constituent who has come to me has quite properly complained following an assault allegation—she was the victim. She suffered cuts that required stitching to her face and a broken jaw, but the police did not collect her medical records despite the fact that she had signed the right form. She has now been told that the police are going to make the charge “common assault”. On the basis that what she told me is true, it is clear that the charge should be either for wounding or for a section 20 offence, or perhaps for an even greater offence. It was not a common assault, and it is clear that the police did not do a proper job in their investigation and in ensuring that all relevant evidence was available, which is important not just for the progression of the case, but so that the sentencing judge can pass the right sentence. In order to do that, we need to ensure that there is a full and proper investigation from the outset and that the right charge is reached. We also need to ensure that witness statements are properly taken, which includes, if appropriate, a victim impact statement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said that the previous Administration were overly prescriptive and mandatory—a long-standing complaint of many of us about their conduct of the criminal justice system. I do not want police officers to go out with a checklist of all the things they must do when they take a witness statement. I want them to be properly trained to be able to rely on their own plain common sense. I do not want them to be overly prescriptive and certainly not stereotypical.

In his statement the other day, the Secretary of State talked about the changes we intend to make to the compensation scheme. This might be difficult to understand, but he quite properly mentioned the fact that not all victims of crime look at the crime in the same way. I have been burgled more times than I care to remember; in some instances, that did not have a particularly upsetting effect on me, and I would be the first to say that, but on one occasion it upset me greatly because my grandmother’s engagement ring was stolen. I do not know the value of the ring, and it does not really matter; what mattered to me was my sentimental attachment to that piece of jewellery. On another occasion when my home was broken into, I found it distressing that somebody had been through items of a very personal nature in my study. On another occasion, nothing much was particularly disturbed, so the trauma, or the effect, was not as great. However, we cannot say everybody will be the same, because, as we all know, crimes come in all different shapes and sizes, and they affect each and every one of us differently.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Did the hon. Lady welcome, as we on the Select Committee did, the fact that the Sentencing Council was prepared to treat burglary as an offence against the person, as well as against property?

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. If I may say so, there was so much I agreed with in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. From my short time on the Select Committee, I know he brings a huge weight of experience and plain, good common sense to his chairing of the Committee. I absolutely agree with what he says.

To be frank, I would never stand up and say we definitely want to keep the Sentencing Council. I know some of us disagree about this, but I always thought the Court of Appeal was a good place to determine the issues we are discussing, and I could see no good reason why that should not continue. However, we are where we are.

What we do know—this has already been mentioned—is that the sentencing judge will look at the aggravating and mitigating features in relation to every offence. It is therefore important that when the police go out and take witness statements, they make sure everything that should be in them is in them so the judge can pass the right sentence. If items of great sentimental value are stolen in dwelling-house burglaries, for example, that is an aggravating feature.

The same is true of trashing or ransacking the property, and of inducing fear in a particularly vulnerable person. One of the burglaries I suffered was at night-time, and my children were of an age where they were very frightened. They thought—this is common among children who have the misfortune to have their homes burgled at night—that the person would come back, and they were in fear of that. Such things must be in the witness statements so the judge can pass the right sentence. That will give us the consistency we want.

One of the things that is extremely annoying for somebody who has been the victim of a car crime is the fact that they lose their no claims bonus. There is also the huge inconvenience caused by the fact that their car has a broken window and that they will not be able to use it because it has to go off to the garage. Again, those are important aggravating features.

In offences of violence, there can be an assessment of the physical scarring that might remain, and of the pain and suffering the victim might have been caused, but their mental anguish must also be set out in detail so that the proper sentence can be passed.

I would go further and say that when police officers go out to get statements from witnesses, they should include in them the effect of a particular crime on the witness. The classic example is somebody who witnesses a fight in the street, which might be a particularly violent and unpleasant incident. That will have an effect on the witness, and if it does, it should be in the witness statement.

At the heart of good, consistent and transparent sentencing is an overriding and underlying belief in the fact that we should trust our judges. I say that with absolute certainty in one respect: if I had not come to this place, I would undoubtedly never have been made a judge. I am not, therefore, making these comments to curry favour with any judge. Hon. Members may not find this surprising, but the reason I would not have become a judge is that I fell out with so many judges.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Specifically, legal aid will be provided for a lot of debt advice after our changes. We are reducing our spend on legal aid, and law centres will be affected by that, but the Government recognise and highly value the important role of not-for-profit organisations such as law centres. That is why we launched a £107 million transition fund last year and the £20 million advice services fund this year. It is why the Cabinet Office has also announced a review of not-for-profit advice centres, which is a welcome and important development.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Is it not an assumption behind the Government’s reforms that the availability of advice needs to replace a great deal of litigation? If that is to be achieved, is it not necessary to ensure that there is a long-term, not merely a short-term, solution to some of the funding problems of law centres and citizens advice bureaux?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are changing the way funding works and looking for alternatives to be taken up. However, we appreciate that, in the meantime, while the reorganisations are happening, there is a need to support law centres, which is why we are looking at transitional provisions to ease that passage.

EU Criminal Policy

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Yes, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that that is the position.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise, when considering an opt-in or when seeking to establish whether there is genuine necessity, the importance of engaging with the relevant Select Committee at an early stage? The Select Committees, with their specialist knowledge of subjects such as agriculture and fisheries or home affairs, have an opportunity of ascertaining whether necessity has been established.

[Mr Blunt]

As a Justice Minister, I would be extremely unwise not to acknowledge the merits and wisdom of the recommendation of the Chairman of the Justice Committee. My right hon. Friend makes the proper point that there is an expertise in the Select Committees that should be engaged, if possible. Much of the process sits with the European Scrutiny Committee, and we are today making recommendations that the House should consider matters. I shall, of course, leave the detail of process, and the way in which the House should do that, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) says, and I acknowledge the force of his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have just heard a breathtaking example of complacency from the Government—sorry, I mean the Opposition. I say that because, unfortunately, the manner in which this issue is being approached, and the reason why the European Scrutiny Committee thought this matter should be debated, is very simple. We have heard reservations expressed so far by the Minister and shadow Minister, but they do not take express account of the fact that once a communication has got going—particularly a communication under the aegis of the Lisbon treaty—we effectively open the door to considerable, radical proposals for the expansion of European criminal law.

I am glad the Minister made the comments he made and I endorse all of them. I am also glad he agrees with the Committee on a wide range of matters, particularly the nomenclature and the phrase “Euro-crimes”. However, this is a substantial issue. The document that was presented to us by the Commission concludes that

“the new legal framework introduced by the Lisbon treaty … considerably enhances the possibility to progress with the development of a coherent EU Criminal Policy which is based on considerations both of effective enforcement and”—

it claims—

“a solid protection of fundamental rights. This communication represents a first step in the Commission’s efforts to put in place a coherent and consistent EU Criminal Policy by setting out how the EU should use criminal law to ensure the effective implementation of EU policies.”

It could be no clearer than that. That is the intention, and believe me, it is the direction and the line of route.

Other hon. Members will no doubt deal with other matters arising from that, but as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I want to explain why we insisted that this matter should be debated. The Committee recommended the document for one simple reason: the communication outlines how a supranational organisation intends to pass criminal legislation that will have a direct impact on our citizens. This is indeed a sensitive area, as the enactment of criminal law is traditionally the domain of sovereign legislatures.

In the conclusion to our report, we noted the emphasis in the communication that the Commission places on respecting the general principles of subsidiarity, necessity based on clear evidence, proportionality, including the principle of ultima ratio—in other words, criminal law as a means of last resort—and the legal traditions of the EU member states when deciding whether to propose criminal sanctions to ensure the effective implementation of EU proposals. Those words are welcome, but we wait to see whether they are respected. Evidence to the contrary is abundant in relation to matters of this kind. That is because the manner in which it is proposed to move down the route of criminal law—albeit under the Lisbon treaty, which my party opposed tooth and nail during its enactment—relies heavily on the fact that there is a desire among many people in the European Union to have one country, which, by its very nature, means they would prefer to have one European criminal law policy. There is therefore a direct contradiction between the manner in which the proposals are being made and the words used. We argue that we should wait to see whether the suggestions that lie behind the Commission’s statements are respected.

We are gratified by the Government’s reaffirmation that any EU action in the field of criminal law will have to be justified on the basis of robust evidence, as well as demonstrating why lesser administrative penalties are not appropriate. The Committee intends to hold the establishment to strict account on that question. We also support the Government’s cautious approach to the Commission’s communication, but we add further caveats of our own. The European Union should not seek to harmonise the traditional rules on extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in member states. The UK does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over those who are “habitually resident”—an expression that has found its way into EU criminal legislation—in this country. The EU should also refrain from defining “mitigating and aggravating circumstances” for the commission of crimes, which is best left to the discretion of the sentencing judge. Furthermore, the expression “Euro-crimes”, which is used in the communication for the 10 offences listed under article 83.1 of the treaty, is inappropriate and misleading. We ask the Government to do their utmost—in fact, we would go so far as to insist that they do this—to ensure that the term does not enter the EU’s lexicon. Indeed, I was extremely glad to hear what the Minister had to say about that.

The other point is that although there is the question of opt-ins and whether we are to accept the provisions, we have seen a torrent of opt-ins over the last few months, since this coalition Government came to power, and a significant number of Members of Parliament are deeply concerned about the tendency in that direction. Furthermore, in addition to the opt-ins, there is the emergency brake. We understand all that, but we have to have regard to that tendency, because of what can happen once the door is opened on that scale. In the light of what I said about what is in the mind of the Commission and others in the European Union, and about the tendency to move towards a policy of further integration, which would include criminal law, we should be not merely cautious, but extremely resistant towards any attempt to move further down that route.

[Sir Alan Beith]

When I was chairing the Justice Committee, I do not remember ever meeting anybody, in any justice committee in any member state, who believed that we should be working towards a single, harmonised criminal law that would replace the criminal law of member states across Europe. Is the hon. Gentleman not conjuring up a spectre?

[Mr Cash]

Certainly not. I am not conjuring up a spectre; I am talking about a tendency. In almost every area, the original proposals—from Maastricht, through to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon—have adopted a minimalist approach at the beginning, but then expanded, moving further and deeper into the areas of competence that have been acquired. I am not going to dispute what the right hon. Gentleman says about what he has heard; I am merely referring to what I have observed, which is also understood by many others, including the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I support the motion, and I shall preface my remarks by saying that any free trade area needs an enforceable and effective system to secure compliance with the requirements put in place to create and maintain an open market. Europe also needs to keep pace with the international, cross-border nature of a great deal of crime, and with the ease of movement that criminals enjoy. Indeed, in combating crime, Europe should take advantage of its capacity for co-operation and combined effort in order to defeat criminals and criminal organisations. All our citizens, whatever their views on the European Union, would recognise the value of that.

We cannot ignore enforcement failures in various member countries, because they often harm the interests of British businesses, which can be put at a competitive disadvantage. British farmers and fishermen can also be adversely affected by inadequate enforcement in other countries. Obviously, the converse can also be true. It is usually unhelpful, however, to add new structures and layers of law, of the administration of justice and of prosecution authorities to the well-developed national systems that exist in most member countries. I therefore agree with the motion when it mentions subsidiarity and the need for robust evidence of necessity when EU measures are to be considered.

I do not entirely share the European Scrutiny Committee’s dislike of the idea of fostering citizens’ confidence in the fact that they live in a Europe of “freedom, security and justice”. It is an important feature of the European Union that membership of it commits member states to maintaining a range of important values including freedom, justice, security and human rights. The Committee calls this an example of ideological thinking. I thought that ideological thinking was making a comeback in the Conservative party, but perhaps it is still disapproved of. I remember that during my earlier political life ideology was frowned on by the Conservatives, but then Mrs Thatcher came along with an ideology of her own. That is a byway that I shall stray no further along, however. The principal responsibility for achieving these aims rests with the member states of the European Union.

The Minister said that we were about to embark on a complex opt-out—or opt-in—process, which is relevant to what we are discussing today. Under the Lisbon treaty, the Government could opt out of everything in the home affairs and justice area. They could also opt in to everything. The more likely outcome, however, is that they will seek a negotiated package, in which we opt in to those areas where it is genuinely beneficial for us to do so without complicating our system by opting in to areas that would be inappropriate for us. I hope that the Government will share with us their developed thinking on how that will be achieved, as a great deal of negotiation will be involved.

The Commissioners tend to proceed by launching a large number of proposals; they fire off a hail of bullets, very few of which reach their target. If the Select Committees of this House were to devote time and attention to every idea that appeared in a Commission paper, we simply would not be able to get on with our work on domestic policy issues. It is therefore important for Select Committees to be able to identify those elements that would benefit from careful Select Committee attention. This is true of home affairs and justice matters, and of others.

The European Scrutiny Committee carries out an important role. It does the valuable and not always very inviting work of examining the legality and proportionality of EU proposals. However, it is the Select Committees that relate to Departments that have experience and expertise in specific policy areas. It would be unreasonable to expect the European Scrutiny Committee to know enough in any given case about whether there was a necessity justification for something and whether it was a policy direction that would be appropriate in the United Kingdom. That is the kind of work that Select Committees are expected to do.

[Mr Cash]

I understand that there is obviously a complementarity between the European Scrutiny Committee and departmental Select Committees. It is important, however, to reaffirm the fact that we rarely recommend a communication for debate, but on this occasion, because of the nature and coherence of the proposals advocated by the Commission on criminal policy, we thought it was a good idea at least to give it a kick-start on the Floor of the House.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the action he has taken on this matter, and I very much welcome the fact that the debate is taking place. It is certainly the view of the Liaison Committee that more attention needs to be given to developing European proposals that will, if we are not careful, only come to the House at too late a stage for us to have any significant influence on them. The work of the European Scrutiny Committee in all that is extremely valuable, but there are limits to what it can do.

In conclusion, let me remind Ministers of two things. First, we want to secure as much help as we can get for Select Committees from the UKRep staff in Brussels, who are extremely good when we go as visiting Committees in giving us advice on what is happening, what is being proposed and which of the Commission’s brainwaves is getting somewhere and which does not look likely to do so.

[Keith Vaz]

I fully support what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know about his Committee, but we find we are so busy that we simply do not have the time to cover European issues, and we rely heavily on the European Scrutiny Committee to alert us if anything is going wrong. One way in which we could be more involved would be if UKRep was more responsive to our work.

[Sir Alan Beith]

It is not so much about being responsive, because when we have asked representatives for help, they have given it. I am looking for a proactive approach. It would be very helpful if the Foreign Office gave the team in Brussels a clear indication that it would be helpful to alert Select Committees to proposals that looked like gaining traction, and would have important implications for the United Kingdom.

Secondly, of course, it is important that Ministers come to Select Committees before important Council meetings and afterwards, if it is necessary to secure a report back. The House too often finds that a set of complex documents that are extremely difficult to decipher comes before us in the General European Committees at a stage far beyond that at which it would be possible to influence or change it. We have relied unfairly on the members of the European Scrutiny Committee, whose work I again recognise as extremely important, and Select Committees have a job to do that is difficult to incorporate in a crowded work programme, so the more help we can get from Ministers and our officials to alert Select Committees to important issues that are coming up, the more effective we can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

No, Government policies are going to improve the probation service. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the probation budget, he would see that the position of probation has been substantially protected relative to the demands being placed on the overall budget of the Ministry of Justice.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

What is the Minister doing to make sure that probation officers’ work with prisoners is not undermined by prisoners being moved from prison to prison for no very good reason or for entirely administrative reasons?

[Mr Blunt]

We are trying to give the notion of prison clusters much greater prominence. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the OLASS—Offender Learning and Skills Service—review presages a situation in which prison clusters would procure education and skills training, and that should reflect the prisoner journey. We want to have a prison estate that is not under the enormous pressure it is under now—due to the terrible situation we inherited—so that we can get prisoner journeys from local prisons through to resettlement prisons, while both getting support from offender management and delivering programmes.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I beg to move,

That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Lords have disagreed.

Following consideration of Commons amendments in the other place last Wednesday, hon. Members will know that the Government no longer intend to abolish the Youth Justice Board as part of the Bill. Therefore, I will not be asking hon. Members to insist on the Government amendment agreed by this House on Report. The amendment has reintroduced the Youth Justice Board into schedule 1 to the Bill. As my noble friend Lord McNally made clear in the other place, the Government have never waivered in our commitment to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. We have never proposed to remove youth offending teams or dismantle the dedicated secure estate for young people.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

It is an unusual experience for a Committee to publish just after midnight a report containing recommendations that are accepted by midday the following day. As my hon. Friend has mentioned youth offending teams, I wanted to remind him that the Justice Committee, as well as pointing to the dangers of abolishing the Youth Justice Board, stated that if it survived it would have to take a lighter touch and a less centralised approach to the management of youth offending teams than it had taken in the otherwise good work it had done.

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution and acknowledge that the recommendation appeared in his report. I will certainly take it back to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who will take up the matter in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Trickett]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the moderate way he expressed them. We will see over time exactly what the Government’s intentions are.

The Government have set out to remove the independence of the youth justice system. The Minister repeated that they want, in effect, to bring it under direct ministerial accountability. There is no financial case that I can see for what the Government are trying to do. I have reservations about something as important as the operation of the criminal justice system, whether or not it deals with young people, being brought under ministerial direction. That is not a debate to be had this afternoon because the Government have withdrawn the proposal. However, any attempt to bring the criminal justice system under direct ministerial accountability will be resisted in this Chamber and in the other place, because it is a long-established tradition that the criminal justice system should, as far as possible, operate independently of the Executive.

The Government have not recognised the case for independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said in Committee, the Government are committed to bringing the YJB under the remit of central Government. It is, in effect, a nationalisation. The Government want to nationalise the criminal justice system, whereas we want to defend its independence, as one would expect. In my view, none of the YJB’s core functions will be able to be carried out within central Government.

I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have been debated elsewhere, but I simply urge the Government to keep in mind, in whatever review they carry out in future, that the independence of youth justice and of the criminal justice system in general needs to be maintained. After all, as has been widely acknowledged, the YJB does an amazing job. It has reduced youth offending, it has protected young people, and on the whole it has made the youth justice system better. In Committee, the YJB was praised, as it has been here today and was in the Lords the other week, by Members on both sides. I am glad that the Government have now recognised formally that it does invaluable work, and that they have withdrawn this proposal. We look forward to seeing in due course whatever the Government do next in relation to this matter.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) is slightly confusing the very necessary and important independence of the courts with the status of a body such as the Youth Justice Board. The Executive are, and must be, accountable to Parliament for the efficient provision of things such as custody and alternatives to custody. They may choose to do this by way of a semi-independent or arm’s length body, but that is much more an administrative decision than a decision about judicial independence, for example. The two concepts are different and should not be confused.

I rise to underline and clarify the points made by the Justice Committee in its 10th report, which was published on 23 November, just after midnight. In that report, we set out our concerns about what would happen if the Youth Justice Board was abolished and what the Ministry of Justice would have to do in order to ensure that youth justice got the focus that the YJB had given it in the good work that it had done. We also set out what needs to happen in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, whereby the Government have taken the decision not to abolish the YJB. Our concern was that one of the YJB’s weak points—perhaps the only one that came out strongly in evidence—was that quite a lot of people working in the sector felt that it was too “top down” in its approach to youth offending teams. The success that we have seen in youth justice has been achieved by youth offending teams bringing together every agency at local level and working together. That has been encouraged and supported by the YJB. However, the YJB itself told us that its oversight of youth offending teams will be lighter touch in future and that it is working to

“promote peer support and allow more room for professional judgement”.

That lesson needs to be learned. Indeed, when the Minister gave evidence to us, he gave examples from his own experience to underline that that approach was necessary. He also set out his own case for having greater ministerial accountability and greater ministerial awareness of what the YJB is doing.

The Youth Justice Board will continue. Many people will welcome that because it has provided a very specific focus and enabled things to be achieved in youth justice that have not been achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system. There has been a much better understanding of where to strike a balance between custody and alternatives to custody in youth justice than in other fields. There has also been much better local co-operation between the various agencies that deal with young people. We need to build on those experiences.

I wish the board well in the future. However, I underline the point that the Select Committee made in its report and hope that Ministers have noted it.

--- Later in debate ---

The problem is that if aggrieved parties are denied the right of appeal to the chief coroner, they will seek judicial review, as the Minister confirmed. I suggest that the cost to the taxpayer of abolishing the appeal process will therefore be far greater than the savings made.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman talks as if the appeals system exists and is about to be removed, but in fact it does not exist, because the chief coroner was not appointed and the clauses were not put into effect. The situation that he is describing as some strange and horrific future possibility is actually what we have now.

[Jon Trickett]

Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post.

In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that discreet use of hand-held devices is allowed in the Chamber? If it were not, I would have disallowed it in this instance.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The Select Committee on Justice has taken extensive evidence on the failings in the coronial system and the need for reform. We felt strongly that there should be a chief coroner and I continued to press that argument with Ministers on many occasions. The Government found alternative ways of trying to achieve the same things, and it would be wrong to suggest that in their use of the powers of the Lord Chief Justice they were not hoping to achieve significant reform.

Clearly there is consensus about reform. Anyone who has seen the experience of families who have had delayed inquests or poor service from coroner’s offices, and who is aware of the completely patchwork system of support for coroners around the country, realises that fundamental reform is required. That can now be achieved through the office of chief coroner, which I felt all along was the sensible way to do it. That involves professional leadership, training and tackling the jurisdictional issues so that, for example, the chief coroner can move inquests to a coroner who is in a position to provide the service when there is too much pressure in another coronial area.

Where there is not consensus is on the appeal issue. I know how strongly the Royal British Legion feels about that and I respect its campaign, but significant legal questions are raised by whether we substitute the decision of one coroner for that of another—that is a quite different process from judicial review. We do not have time to debate that in detail today, but I simply say that there is wide consensus on the need to reform the coroner system. There are many good coroners and many excellent coroner’s offices, but it is a very uneven system. The chief coroner should now be a mechanism for undertaking that reform, but the issue of appeals is one on which there is much more to be argued over and we might be holding out to families the false promise that they will somehow be in a better position than they would be with the present system. It would be wrong of us in this House to do that, so I urge the Minister to get on with the crucial reforms of the system, which the chief coroner can achieve.

[Simon Hughes]

I strongly endorse the views just expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I represent a coroner’s court in Southwark and we have had very good coroners—Monty Levine, who was very famous, and Andrew Harris, the current coroner, who is a friend of mine. However, like other colleagues, I have had experiences, involving constituents and others, of really bad coroner’s decisions. The Taylor family have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and Michael, who died, was a constituent of mine. I am also talking about the inquests after the Marchioness sank in my constituency, the battle that the lovely late Eileen Dallaglio had to fight on behalf of her daughter and the battles that all the others like her had to fight. In the end, they had to go through a judicial review because they were terribly treated by the coroner who dealt with that case.

I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and that the scheme introduced eventually by Labour—we had to push but it was eventually put on the statute book—can now be implemented in respect of creating a chief coroner. I urged, as others have, that that decision be taken. It is reasonable to proceed gradually along the road that has now been accepted by the Government. They are clear that they are going to report back on Army coroner’s inquests—the Armed Forces Bill does that. As Lord McNally said in the other place, this is not just about training; it is about monitoring, reporting and direction. That will give us a good base. There will also be an annual report to Parliament.

May I end by saying that I also have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the headquarters of the Royal British Legion, and I know that INQUEST has worked with the RBL very well. They are very honourable organisations, they have fought an honourable fight and they have won an honourable victory. The House owes its gratitude to them and to the Government for understanding the strength of feeling on this case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

My hon. Friend has rightly been chasing me on this subject, and with her I have approached the Cabinet Office. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, hopes to make an announcement shortly about the distribution of the money. As the sort of people we are talking about need the general advice offered by such voluntary bodies, I very much hope that he will soon make an announcement on behalf of the Government.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Is it not clear that what most people will need with these changes is well-supported advice services, a user-friendly tribunal system, and Government Departments that give people what they are entitled to in the first place?

[Mr Clarke]

Yes, I entirely agree. That is what I hope we can deliver. The number of mistakes made by bodies that distribute funds, which result in appeals to tribunal, is obviously far too high.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I know the Minister does not want to hear this, but in relation to the director the point is that the Government wish to decide who has merit and who does not. That is the charge that the Government have to answer, and in this case they will do so only by ensuring the independence of the director.

Let me move on, because we are in the midst of a radical reform of the social welfare system. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has embarked on restructuring the way benefits are assessed, calculated and provided, local authorities have had budgets radically reduced, and a housing benefit cap is being introduced. In short, the benefits system is in a period of turmoil, and as a consequence the system of checks and balances on state decision making through the first-tier tribunals is also significantly under pressure, such that more staff are being taken on daily to deal with a growing number of appeals against decisions taken by Jobcentre Plus.

When in October last year the coalition produced its Green Paper on the reform of legal aid in England and Wales, we were shocked to see that there were cuts of £450 million, as defined in the latest impact assessment, and that they overwhelmingly came from civil legal aid. Things such as education, employment, welfare benefits, debt, housing matters and clinical negligence were taken out of scope, either in their entirety, as in the case of employment, welfare benefits and clinical negligence, or substantially, as in the case of debt, housing and education.

Means-testing will also change. The Government have proposed the abolition of capital passporting, by which those receiving certain income-based benefits are automatically eligible for legal aid, and the introduction of a new minimum capital contribution, a personal financial contribution towards legal costs.

The philosophy behind the cuts is explained in the Government’s impact assessment, in which they state:

“Legal aid may be regarded as a redistributive transfer of resources from taxpayers to those who are most needy, in relation to both the nature and merits of their case and also to their financial position… The Government may consider intervening if there are strong enough failures in the way markets operate…or if there are strong enough failures in existing government interventions”.

The amendments under discussion simply seek to address the Government’s failure to abide by those principles as set down in their own impact assessment. We are in a period of great need and of great changes to the system, and many meritorious cases are being referred to tribunal. By definition, the financial position of those requiring help with welfare benefits, employment law, debt and housing is necessarily the most precarious of any in society, and £70 a week is often all that stands between some of my constituents and utter destitution. They are in a desperate place.

Let me give the House one example, in relation to eligibility for disability living allowance. There are so many problems with the private contractor Atos that many seriously ill people are being judged fit for work. I leave aside operational issues, such as the fact that, according to its own website, 20% of Atos’s 141 medical assessment centres do not have wheelchair access, because, according to a newspaper report, one third of those refused DLA by Atos have appealed to the first-tier tribunals, and 39% of decisions have been overturned. Furthermore, the report states:

“The tribunals service…has had to double its capacity in the social security section to deal with the large number of appeals, recruiting an extra 170 paid medical panel members.”

In a letter to The Guardian, leading mental health charities and a senior consultant from the Royal College of Psychiatrists say:

“We’ve found that the prospect of incapacity benefit reassessment is causing huge amounts of distress and tragically there have already been cases where people have taken their own life following problems with changes to their benefits.”

These are not just economic issues; they profoundly affect the most vulnerable individuals.

The Government’s proposals will seriously damage access to justice for the most vulnerable in society, and their own impact assessment shows that there will be a disproportionate impact on women. Similarly, there is the potential for the cuts to impact disproportionately on black and ethnic minority clients and on those with disabilities.

That is something the Minister himself acknowledges. When it was put to him that groups with protected characteristics would be affected, he dismissed it, as only a Conservative Minister can, although the Liberal Democrats are getting there, by saying, “Well, that’s because they are disproportionately represented among the most vulnerable.” That is the logic of the Government’s case—“Because vulnerable people get legal aid, and we are cutting it, what do you expect to happen?” Those principles show an absolute absence of moral guidance.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but is he proposing cuts in other areas of legal aid in order to maintain his objective of cutting the overall cost while putting legal aid back in place in those fields?

[Mr Slaughter]

I was going to deal with that at the end of my remarks, but let me do so now. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to do so, because two days ago the Minister said, “Oh, the Labour party wants to reinstate £245 million of cuts.” On the same day, however, he put out a press release saying that the Labour party wanted to reinstate £64 million of cuts, and I have grown tired of responding to him. He has heard my response from this Dispatch Box, in Westminster Hall and in Committee time and again, and it is simply this: we would not have made at present the cuts to social welfare legal aid.

The Minister quantifies those cuts as £64 million, but why did he not proceed with the final parts of Lord Carter’s review and go through the criminal tendering exercise, which was in place and ready to go when the Government took office last year, and which included savings that might have raised twice that sum? I anticipate the figures changing. The figures on savings have changed from £350 million to £450 million within two impact assessments, but, without being more precise than that, we believe that if the Government looked for efficiencies in the criminal legal aid system, first they would save more money than they are by cutting social welfare legal aid, and secondly there would not be the same social or financial consequences.

The Green Paper talks frequently about the possibility of self-representation as a reason for withdrawing legal aid provision, but data provided in answer to a written parliamentary question indicate that there are considerable differences in success rates between those with and those without representation. Owing to a lack of representation, 51,223 meritorious cases that were successful in 2010 at the first-tier tribunals, many of which involved applicants for DLA, incapacity benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and so forth, would not have been successful if the proposed cuts had been in place. The changes will close or severely reduce the operation of law centres, citizens advice bureaux and hundreds of independent advice centres, and limiting the scope of issues which legal aid-funded advisers can help with means that they will not be able to solve people’s problems fully.

New clause 17, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, addresses precisely that issue. At the end of Monday’s debate, I gave the example of the Wiltshire law centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). That will lose 90% of its funding, and that is not untypical of the cuts being made. In most cases they are above 80%.

The specific issue that is dealt with my hon. Friend’s new clause is the interconnectivity of people’s problems. We are all too familiar, as constituency MPs, with the individual who comes in with two plastic bags full of paper and is unable to convey the scale of their distress, let alone the complexity of their problems, which may include unpaid debts, threats of eviction, underlying mental health problems and the inability to access the welfare benefit system. Sometimes we can help, and I pay tribute, as I am sure all hon. Members do, to the constituency staff who have developed phenomenal skills at unpicking these issues and dealing sympathetically with them. In many cases, however, legal expert help is needed, but that help will now be severely compromised. If one is allowed to deal only with the threat of eviction but not with the underlying issues of accessing benefits and dependency on debt, one is working with one hand tied behind one’s back.

The exceptions to the withdrawal of legal aid in certain cases, such as when an applicant for legal aid is at risk of homelessness, are nonsensical distinctions. People who come for aid early on, while they still have manageable rent arrears, can see their case deteriorate rapidly and drastically. The legal aid that would help exactly those people has been withdrawn, and that is Shelter’s No. 1 priority for what should be restored. Let me add, at this point, that we support the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr in his wish to undo what is a calumny in the Bill—measures allowing the Secretary of State by order further to restrict what is in scope for legal aid, but not to expand it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is going to press his amendment to a vote tonight but I hope that, if he has an opportunity to speak, the Minister will give an indication that that glaring error in the Bill will be corrected.

The cost of dealing with a single case of homelessness has been estimated at £50,000 by Shelter. Early intervention is an extremely efficient and cost-effective way of preventing cases from becoming more complex, difficult to resolve and commensurately expensive. The legal aid Green Paper suggests a shift to telephone advisory services, and this brings us to amendment 148. Although these methods are an efficient and often effective means of delivering certain types of advice, clients presenting with complex or chronic problems gain far better outcomes from face-to-face advice.

Research by the Legal Action Group has highlighted the issues faced by the most vulnerable in utilising telephone advisory services. It found that full-time employees were the most likely to access an advice service through the telephone line or the internet, at 43%, whereas people in the lowest social class, DE, were least likely to access advice through an advice line or the internet, at 26%. This class of people was also the most likely to experience a social welfare law problem. The Minister’s own impact assessment says that the bottom 20%, in terms of income, will represent 80% of those who suffer from the withdrawal of these services. Overall, people of social class DE are twice as likely as people in all other social classes to experience problems with debts or benefits.

Issues facing the most vulnerable people include language, comprehension and somewhat more prosaic economic issues such as the expense of calling an 0845 number from a pay-as-you-go mobile when trying to get advice upon being rejected for jobseeker’s allowance. Citizens Advice has noticed a dramatic rise in the volume of cases and the number of people seeking advice in this recession. Advice has been focused on debt, housing, employment and difficulty accessing the benefit system. For example, between April 2008 and 2009, CABs in England and Wales saw daily inquiries relating to redundancy increase by 125%. Local authority cuts combined with the cuts in the Ministry of Justice have inflicted a double whammy on law centres, CABs and third sector organisations. Many organisations that are staffed by a mixture of volunteers and modestly paid staff will be forced to close or reduce staff and service breadth, depth and reach. Indeed, that is already happening.

We agree that the legal aid budget needs to be contained, as I have already said in response to the intervention of the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and that ways of making savings need to be found. When we were in power we did not shy away from taking those decisions and containing the budget. We had begun and were continuing to implement the recommendations of Lord Carter of Coles and we believe that those outstanding recommendations should have been implemented by this Government. Frankly, we are at a loss to understand why the Government have not looked at the scope of criminal legal aid or at how it is delivered in this country, preferring instead to target the poorest and most vulnerable. I accept that those changes would not have been popular with all the legal sector but they would have delivered substantial savings, which would have been greater than the total cuts to social welfare legal aid we have discussed this week. Let me pay tribute to my colleague the noble Lord Bach who, as Minister with responsibility for legal aid, took exactly that line. He was prepared to be very tough on his own profession but he always protected social welfare legal aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady makes a point that is worth considering. Clearly, certain organisations are financial beneficiaries of some of the funding, but I do not want to throw out all the concerns that have been raised because, equally, there are legitimate concerns that the Government need to monitor very carefully.

I turn to new clause 17. I had hoped that during the debate on Monday we would reach the group of amendments on social welfare in which my amendment 149 on complex welfare benefits was listed. Also in the group was amendment 131, which sought to ensure that advice on housing repossessions was available sooner. I regret that we did not reach that group, as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is chairman of the all-party group on Citizens Advice. However, new clause 17 touches on many aspects of what was included in amendment 149. I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Makerfield has put the matter up for debate today because it provides an opportunity to discuss some of the points that would have been raised on amendment 149. Her definition in trying to ensure that legal aid is extended to complex cases is

“that the individual has complex, interconnected needs”

and that

“not all of those…legal services would otherwise be available to the individual”.

It is reasonable to speculate that many, or most, individuals with complex and interconnected needs will also have welfare benefit issues that will often also be complex. Under the Government’s proposals, welfare benefit cases, complex or otherwise, are excluded from the scope of legal aid.

I acknowledge that the scope of the hon. Lady’s new clause is slightly different from what was proposed in amendment 149. However, if it had been restricted to individuals with complex and interconnected needs who require legal help with complex welfare benefit issues, I suspect that we would have been discussing exactly the same area of legal aid, because virtually every individual who has a benefit advice problem involving issues of legal complexity, significant evidential hurdles or daunting adjudication processes will have complex and interconnected needs. According to Citizens Advice, that more targeted approach would help to achieve a compromise position whereby more complex cases can be covered by the legal help system. When we asked Citizens Advice what it would identify as a single priority as regards what the Government should change, that is what it proposed.

Citizens Advice has calculated the cost impact of its proposal. It says that the current welfare benefits advice spend is £25 million on just under 140,000 cases, and that restricting it to complex welfare benefit cases covering only reviews and appeals, which applies to two thirds of the current welfare benefit cases, would cost £16.5 million and help around 100,000 people. The cost could fall further if, as the Government and all hon. Members intend in practice, decision making first time round is improved and becomes much more effective. The CAB calculation is that if we were to improve first-time decision making by 30%, the costs of that provision could fall to £12 million.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Is it not absurd that the Government should be scrabbling around for money to meet the costs of bad decision making and bad communication between Departments and those who are affected by their decisions? Ought not the Government’s priority be to ensure that those Departments change those processes, which they are more likely to do if they have an incentive, which is provided by the fact that their budget will meet some of the costs if they do not do so?

[Tom Brake]

There has not been much consensus in the Chamber, but I suspect that there is broad agreement on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

I absolutely understand the case that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) makes in her new clause. I have many constituents—we all do—who present with one issue, whereupon we discover that there are four, or their whole life is in a mess, whereupon we have to start trying to put it together again. Their situation will involve finance, relationships and housing, and it may involve the custody or care of children, but those complex cases absolutely need to be looked at and with legal support. That ties in to my point about telephone advice services, because people with such complex needs—whether or not they have plastic bags when they come through the door—cannot quickly and efficiently put their case on the telephone. Sometimes they cannot do so face to face, either, but one is much more likely to get an answer having had face-to-face engagement than if one tries to do so remotely, on the telephone.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in just those cases a high proportion of the advice required is not legal advice, but the advice of a sensible person with some experience in the area? Bodies such as Citizens Advice are very good at providing it.

[Simon Hughes]

For example, there is an organisation based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East called Christians Against Poverty, and it has people working in my constituency who are really good at dealing with debt. They have been tried and tested by me and others, so if one such element is debt I will often refer my constituent to them. They will unravel those issues and try to get them sorted even when in the county court there might be a legal issue, such as a possession action by the council or a housing association for the person’s flat, which one might need to manage as well.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I shall just finish explaining this point and then answer questions.

The new sentence can be given for any sexual or violent offence, provided that the court thinks the offender presents a risk of causing serious harm through reoffending, and that the offence meets the four-year seriousness threshold that is currently in place for IPP sentences and extended sentences for public protection. The new sentence can also be given when the offender does not reach the four-year threshold, but has previously been convicted of an offence listed in proposed schedule 15B. I will cut out further detailed explanation, but that means that any offender who would previously have received an IPP will be eligible for the new sentence if he has not received either the mandatory life or the tougher, discretionary life sentence.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I very much agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend is trying to do, but he is writing what is the likely practice of the court into the statute book. He mentioned the Parole Board and new clause 34, which causes me concern. He appears to be giving to himself and the Executive the power to direct a court when dealing with existing IPP prisoners, because the Parole Board is regarded in law as a court, and he will give directions to it under new clause 34.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor, as will be the many disabled people and their families who have been in contact with me. I am delighted that a Government amendment will be brought forward in the other place and I shall not detain the House further.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) must be delighted that so brief and concise a speech has produced so immediate, thorough and satisfactory a response. I welcome what the Government are doing about this.

I want to be brief so I shall resist the temptation to go into the extraordinary intellectual journey that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) seems to have undertaken. I shall also resist the temptation to go into the habit of the previous Government of releasing people from prison at any moment when the jails seemed to be rather full without any reference to sentence planning or, for that matter, to the annual criminal justice Bill to which new clauses were always added on Report as far as I can recall—a practice I rather deplore because, as in this case, it denies us the opportunity to give new clauses proper scrutiny. I want to make it quite clear that the continuance of what I regard as a blot on the system—the use of indeterminate sentences—is something that I do not support. I therefore welcome the Lord Chancellor’s action to remove such sentences from our system, and I believe that view is widely shared in the criminal justice system.

People are concerned about the possibility of serious criminals re-entering society and committing other very serious offences, but how can they conclude that the best thing to do with such people is to put them in prison without our having any idea how long they might stay there? Surely, it is better to have a much clearer idea that they will be in prison for a long time and that if they are ever released, it will be under licence for life. I do not see why it should be preferable for the public to be told, “Well, we’ve put the chap in prison, but we’re not really sure when he’ll come out and a board that you know very little about will decide whether it’s safe.” I think most members of the public would be quite suspicious of that and would rather hear that there was a clear and long sentence. I am suspicious of mandatory sentences, but as a means of giving reassurance on how the courts might be expected to behave in the sort of cases we are discussing, the mandatory sentence we are discussing can be justified, especially as it is very carefully worded with appropriate provision for justice.

However, all this is only part of the story. None of it is any use unless we have proper sentence planning and proper offender management. Proper sentence planning is virtually impossible under the indeterminate sentences for public protection system, especially for those on shorter terms. People have not been completing the courses that they need to have completed to satisfy the Parole Board that they could be released. That system is untenable. We need effective sentence planning—and more determinate sentences are a better way of achieving that. We need proper offender management for offenders who are eventually going to leave prison. The Justice Committee has regularly stressed that the concept of offender management needs to include proper control. It should not be a system in which people are handed from one agency to another without a continuous process of supervision.

The trouble with the procedure in the new clause is that we do not have the opportunity to probe the details by tabling a probing amendment. I asked the Lord Chancellor earlier about new clause 34. I think that it is well intentioned in that it is an attempt to deal with existing indeterminate public protection prisoners, but I am bound to question it because it gives to the Executive the power to direct the Parole Board on what should be done with an individual. That is a direction to a court—there have been court cases that have ruled that the Parole Board must be regarded as a court. So it is an odd way of proceeding and one that we might have amended in Committee had we been able to consider the measure. If there is an opportunity, I hope that I can hear a little more about why the measure has been introduced as a new clause tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

New clauses 18 to 22 seek to prohibit the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by regulated persons, namely solicitors, barristers, claim management companies and insurers.

I pay tribute at the outset to the work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in pursuing the case for a ban on referral fees. I know that there are some differences between us about the detail of how we should implement the ban—we will come to his amendments in due course—but those differences of detail should not obscure our agreement in principle on tackling this important issue. I acknowledge his efforts in this regard.

I must also mention the consistent campaign by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) as Chair of the Justice Committee, who has also been a very keen supporter of the ban. I note that last week his Committee formally welcomed our commitment to the ban, which will be implemented by these clauses. I should also acknowledge the work of the Transport Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), before whom I was privileged to appear last month.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice announced the Government’s intention to ban the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases by way of a written ministerial statement to the House on 9 September 2011.

I strongly believe that the current arrangements under which lawyers and others are able to pay and receive fees for referring work have led to both higher costs and the growth of an industry that pursues claimants for profit. By introducing the new clause, the Government are taking decisive and much needed action to remove these incentives.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson recommended that referral fees should be banned as part of his comprehensive package of recommendations to make the costs of the civil litigation more proportionate and this recommendation was echoed by Lord Young in his report “Common Sense Common Safety”. The Bill already includes provisions to implement the other key elements of those recommendations. The referral fees ban under our new clause will complement the wider Jackson reform already in the Bill by further reducing the costs of personal injury litigation and deterring frivolous or unnecessary claims from being pursued in the courts.

The new clause creates a regulatory offence for any breach of the prohibition. It will be for the appropriate regulators, for example the Law Society, the Financial Services Authority or the claims management regulator, to enforce the prohibition. The regulators will also be responsible for taking appropriate action against regulated persons for any breaches. We have thought carefully about how to ensure that all the main players, including insurers, are captured by the ban, which is why there is a separate clause, new clause 20, giving the Treasury powers to make regulations allowing the FSA to enforce the ban under its existing regulatory powers.

There have been calls from some people, but not most people, for the payment and receipt of referral fees to be made a criminal offence. Not least among those who have called for that is the right hon. Member for Blackburn, who has tabled amendment (e) to that effect. We considered the matter carefully but believe that creating a criminal offence would be a very blunt instrument in this case. One would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consideration had changed hands for the referral of a potential claimant, but the grounds for determining whether something was or was not a referral fee could be blurred. It would be very difficult to convict in many cases on the basis of the complexity of those arrangements. That is why we consider a regulatory offence to be more appropriate, whereby the principle of what is happening can be looked at by the regulator and a view can be taken.

I am conscious that a criminal offence would impose additional costs on the police and the courts in investigating and enforcing a ban. I believe that a regulatory prohibition covering all the main players in the sector, including lawyers, claims management companies and insurers, is the most appropriate and effective response to the issue. I am confident that the industry regulators are best placed to investigate and enforce the regulatory ban.

[Sir Alan Beith]

As my hon. Friend has indicated, I strongly support the action he is taking, but is it not the case that in many of those circumstances a criminal offence may well have been committed by way of a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998? The problem then is that custodial sentences are not available for someone who is doing that on a large scale and making a great deal of money by releasing personal information and committing a criminal offence.

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not one that is covered by the Bill, but it is something that the Government are looking into, and I hope that there will be further developments on that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

As a preliminary, I wish to draw the House’s attention to the fact that against my name on the amendments relating to referral fees there is an R, which indicates that I have a declarable interest. It arises from three engagements that I undertook for fees on matters relating to referral fees and the motor insurance industry generally. They were on 28 September, 12 October, and earlier today. In respect of the first two, I have made a declaration to the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests, who told me that because I have not yet received payment, the time for these is not yet running. The declaration for my engagement this morning will be made tomorrow.

I tabled amendments to new clauses 18 and 19 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) indicated, in the absence of a sudden Pauline conversion from the Government Front Bench between now and when the question is put, I shall press amendment (e) to new clause 18 to a vote.

According to the AA, over the year to March 2011, there has been a 40% increase in motor insurance premiums. In many areas of the country, mine included, although it is by no means the worst, the increase has been even higher. As a number of colleagues of all parties have pointed out, that has very severe social consequences.

May I say that I am extremely grateful for the wide support that my Motor Insurance Regulation Bill has had throughout the Chamber? Motor insurance is the only insurance affecting an individual that is compulsory, and in certain areas and for certain categories, particularly younger drivers, premiums are now so high as to place motor insurance out of reach altogether. A driving licence is often a necessary qualification for taking a job. In any case, people in areas that are not blessed with a high level of public transport, which means most places outside inner urban areas, need a motor vehicle to go about their business. The increase in premiums, and the fact that they are much higher in some areas than others, is leading to some people not being able to work or move around.

The increase is also unquestionably leading to an increase in criminality, both through people going around uninsured and, increasingly, through people deciding to borrow a friend’s address with a lower-premium postcode. People also fail to disclose relevant information about themselves, to enable them to become insured. It cannot serve any public purpose that we have ended up with such a dysfunctional system.

I readily concede that that has happened because of a nexus of factors going back a number of years. The operation of the conditional fee system was introduced in the Access to Justice Act 1999 for good a reason: it was thought that it would improve access to justice. To some extent that has certainly been true, but as we all know, it has had the unintended consequence of generally —I am not talking the Trafigura case or one or two others—creating an imbalance in the equality of arms between parties on either side of a legal action. It has gratuitously encouraged the so-called compensation culture.

That, in turn, has been compounded by the costs of the road traffic accident electronic portal being too high. In a recent statement, the Minister said that the figure that was introduced when I was Secretary of State had been agreed in the Civil Justice Council. It was agreed to by both sides, which was why I did not interfere with it. I believe there is now widespread agreement that the current fee, of at least £1,200 for claims under £10,000, is at least twice as high as it should be. It is leading to lawyers advertising as two firms at the end of my street in Blackburn do: they have great banners across their windows saying, “Bring your claim in here, we’ll pay you up to £650 in cash for it.” They can do that and still make a profit out of the £1,200, because the actual costs of running the portal are about £100.

Claims for whiplash, which I have described as an invention of the human imagination, undiagnosable except by dodgy doctors employed by claims management companies, have got completely out of control. The level of whiplash claims is not related to the level of accidents or physical injuries. Accidents are reducing, as is the possibility of being injured in an accident, because cars and road engineering are much safer. It is related principally to the density of claims management companies operating in a particular area. The evidence of that is incontrovertible.

I concede to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the regulators have acted properly on claims management companies in some ways, but the regulatory system established under the Compensation Act 2006, during our Administration, has not had sufficient resources to control the trebling in the number of claims management companies that has taken place in recent years.

Another change that took place was in the 2004 solicitors conduct rules, which allowed solicitors to pay referral fees that were previously banned. I will come back to that point when we deal with the enforcement of a ban on referral fees.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I very much welcome all the effort that the right hon. Gentleman has put into this matter. I hope that in talking about referral fees, he will recognise that although he has devoted a lot of his effort to motor insurance, the same problems affect the cost to consumers in numerous other areas, such as employment law, conveyancing and divorce—all areas in which quite large sums change hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

The hon. and learned Gentlemen may have noticed that I need to research that point, but I have in the back of my mind a number of cases where breaches of regulations are dealt with both by the regulator and in criminal proceedings. He is experienced in the law and will know that plenty of criminal offences are also civil wrongs of some kind in common law or by regulations.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The right hon. Gentleman has an arguable case on the merits of a back-up criminal offence, but will he concede that the system proposed by the Government can be made to work, because it combines the regulatory framework with the criminal offence behind it, particularly if there is a custodial sentence? The data protection offence, which lies behind the Government’s proposal, is already a criminal offence.

[Mr Straw]

Christopher Graham, the distinguished Information Commissioner, made the point that one reason why the penalty for breach of section 55 of the Data Protection Act needs to be increased—as it is by sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to a maximum of two years imprisonment or an unlimited fine—is to send a message to people in those industries that they could end up in prison if they go in for an egregious breach. Of course, other breaches of data protection rules could mean that an organisation loses its licence, but in extremis, we need criminal proceedings for a criminal offence.

My view is that the same must apply in respect of breaches of the law banning referral fees. My amendment (e) would produce exactly the same penalty—it is entirely proportionate—as applies under sections 77 and 78 of the 2008 Act, which I hope the Government bring into force quickly given that they are already on the statute book. With that, and because I know that many others wish to speak, I thank Members on both sides of the House for the support that they have given to my campaign, and commend the amendment to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

I congratulate the Minister on banning referral fees, but he must ensure that the multitude of scams that existed to hide the way in which referral fees were being paid before 2004 does not re-emerge. If this is going to work, he must ensure that those who dream up inventive ways of charging referral fees are looked into. I suggest that he talk to the claims management regulator, because it will have seen most of the scams that came to light in relation to the miners compensation scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has also highlighted some of the scams, or inventive ways in which people can get round the regulation of referral fees. I welcome the ban on referral fees, and I wish the Minister’s proposals well. I would, however, issue a word of warning in that he will need to look out for the various scams that people will come up with in order to get round it.

[Sir Alan Beith]

Like the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I had coal mines in my constituency. There were three working mines there, and I saw evidence of the scandal that he described. It was absolutely dreadful in many ways. Today, I want to ask for clarification of the Government’s intentions in two areas. One relates to the broadening of this issue beyond personal injury. New clause 18 provides for the Lord Chancellor to make regulations specifying wider ranges of legal businesses. I hope that there is a clear intention on the Government’s part, probably involving consultation, to move on to all the sectors in which referral fees have the potential to distort or damage competition or to undermine the position of the consumer. I would like a clear indication that the Government are going to examine a number of other areas.

Secondly, the Minister was very helpful earlier on the question of custodial sentences for breaches of the Data Protection Act, and I hope that that means that the Government have moved on from their position of saying, “We’ll have to wait until the end of the Leveson inquiry.” That represented a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The question of custodial sentences for data protection offences is not primarily about the issues that have been raised in the Leveson inquiry about the media; it is about the everyday circumstances of our constituents whose personal information is abused by the organisations that hold it. That matter ought not to have to wait until the completion of an inquiry into a wider range of issues. I hope that the Minister’s earlier helpfulness will be repeated in implementing a measure on which the House has already decided—namely, that there should be a custodial penalty in such cases.

[Mr Djanogly]

We have had a good, far-ranging debate this afternoon. Given that another important debate needs to be completed by 8 o’clock, I am sorry to say that I shall have to make my way quickly through the points that have been raised. I am pleased to hear at least a grudging agreement in principle with our ban on referral fees from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter). I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and all the other right hon. and hon. Members for their support for our desire to implement the ban. I am pleased that the debate today has been about how that should be done, not about whether it should be done.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked why we had not consulted on banning referral fees, and I can tell him that Lord Justice Jackson made 109 recommendations, and it would not have been practical to consult on them all at once. It also made good sense to await the outcome of the Legal Services Board’s work in this area. Many respondents to our consultation on implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations included their views on referral fees. Those views, along with the work undertaken by the LSB and the Transport Committee, have been carefully considered. The hon. Gentleman clearly raised some serious issues relating to the regulation of claims management companies, but they were not directly relevant to the Bill. I must point out that, in the past year, the Ministry of Justice has cancelled 349 authorisations of CMCs, whereas in the last year of the Labour Government, it cancelled only 35.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) asked a number of important questions. If he does not mind, I will write to him about those issues. I can say, however, that under the Compensation Act 2006, it is an offence to provide regulated claims management services unless authorised or exempt. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that the exemption applies to trade unions, and that is part of the problem that he rightly highlighted. I was present at the debate that he held on that subject several years ago.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith covered several other matters, but he essentially spoke to tomorrow’s debate, and we will deal with those issues then. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about some important aspects relating to the consumer. The Chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly mentioned that share premiums had risen by 40% in the last year alone. This is of course a matter of concern, and we have discussed it with the Association of British Insurers. It has said that if the proposals are effected with the other changes to recoverability of success fees in after-the-event insurance, it would hope to see a fall in insurance premiums. I certainly hope that that is a credible position.

As I said at the outset, there is broad support across the House for a ban on referral fees, although there is some disagreement on how best to implement the ban. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) spoke to his amendments with typical passion, but I would like to set out briefly why the Government cannot support them. Amendments (a) to (c) to new clause 18 seek to capture within the prohibition all arrangements to pay or receive referral fees, even when a payment has not yet been made. These amendments might have been tabled in support of his amendment to make the payment and receipt of referral fees a criminal offence. However, I am concerned that capturing an agreement to pay referral fees when payment might not have occurred would be very difficult to enforce. A solicitor’s accounts, for example, might well show that a particular payment had been made that could, on the face of it, be a referral fee. However, it is unlikely that agreements, which in some cases might be no more than verbal agreements, could be so readily identified without time-consuming investigation. In any event, we do not think that it is necessary to provide for this eventuality, first because such agreements would be unenforceable under subsection (6) of new clause 19 and, secondly, because whatever might be agreed, the payment of the referral fee would still be prohibited. So, in practice, it is unlikely that a party would enter into an agreement to pay a referral fee when payment would be a breach of the prohibition and the agreement would not be enforceable.

I have already dealt, in moving the new clause, with the arguments against amendment (e), which seeks to create a new criminal offence. I should just reiterate that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that the ban will work effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I thank the Minister for his clear account of the effects of these proposals, but I wonder why they are being introduced at this stage. He may wish to explain that. They are not controversial. We do not intend to oppose them as we think their measures are sensible, and we are glad that the Government are, for once, in favour of judicial discretion. They made certain concessions in Committee, one of which was not withdrawing magistrates’ powers to impose longer custodial sentences. We believe the magistrates system serves this country extremely well—this year marks its 650th anniversary. However, although these are sensible changes to current magistrates powers, we are concerned about the fact that, once again, they are part of a package of new measures.

I will not take up any more of the House’s time as we shall shortly come on to discuss two very important and significant new provisions in the criminal law, of which we have had very little notice as they have been introduced at a very late stage. I therefore simply ask again why we have had to wait until Report stage for the measures currently under discussion to be introduced. We do not oppose the proposals, however, as we consider them to be sensible and uncontentious.

[Sir Alan Beith]

How nice it is to hear the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in conciliatory mood. The Minister has made a perfectly good case for increasing the level of fines available in magistrates courts. He gave several reasons for doing so, and I would add to them the giving of further encouragement to magistrates to deal with cases themselves wherever that is possible, rather than referring them upwards to the Crown court. This is part of a general increased empowerment of magistrates to deal with cases.

The Minister has mentioned the wider issue of community penalties and non-custodial sentences, and the review and consultation that will address them. I hope that proves to be a fruitful process. There is a danger that he is giving two signals at once, however. He is hoping to give the necessary signal to the public that many offenders consider community sentences to be more demanding and rigorous, and much less congenial, than very short terms of imprisonment. Some offenders who have appeared before the Justice Committee have said they committed further offences because it was easier to spend the time in prison than to continue with a community sentence. The Government must also give a signal to the judiciary that it should make the maximum use of the available range of penalties, on the basis of what is most likely to reduce reoffending. If a rigorous, well-supervised and policed community sentence is more likely to reduce reoffending, the judiciary should be encouraged to choose that option. I hope people do not find the signals too confusing, that we end up with a well-supported system of community penalties, and that people have confidence that for many offenders such penalties reduce reoffending more effectively than prison does.

[Gareth Johnson]

Although I support the Government’s proposals, it would make sense to remove the upper limit on financial penalties imposed by magistrates courts. The proposals do not relate to levels of compensation, so if magistrates are asked to sentence for, say, a theft of £5,000-worth of goods, they will still have to refer the matter to the Crown court for sentence if they do not have the power to award more than £5,000 compensation. I therefore wonder whether the Government would be willing to look at the levels of compensation in the future, to see if there is any scope for lifting the upper limit of compensation awards that magistrates courts can impose.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I will address that when we reach the amendments in two days’ time—[Interruption.] Well, that is exactly where the Labour Government were two years ago. We are attempting to clarify the law and reassure people that the use of reasonable force is indeed legitimate in English law. The main thing it deals with is the fact that there is no duty to retreat when facing a dangerous or threatening attack, but we will discuss that when we come to that part of the Bill. If that was a fundamental change in the law, I would probably face objections to its introduction on Report. It is an attempt once more to build up public confidence in the perfectly reasonable right people have to use legitimate force when defending themselves and their property.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I happen to be sympathetic to all three things the Secretary of State is trying to do, but surely he must take account of the fact that the procedures of the House, which he is trying to bypass, provide that there should be a general discussion on the principle of doing something, followed by a detailed discussion in Committee of how it can be done and then an opportunity to make further amendments on Report if necessary. Does he not have to mount quite a strong case that that is unnecessary in these circumstances?

[Mr Clarke]

The case I am making is that there are essentially no surprises here, because Members have been perfectly well aware of the proposals for all three subjects. They have been debated widely and consulted on, and we are introducing them in a form that I do not think adds a great deal of controversy to the Bill. As we all know, the Bill is very large and included some very important elements. These three subjects are relevant to what we are trying to do to the justice system. The right to self-defence was in the coalition agreement when the Government were formed, so everyone knew that we would return to it, and the Prime Minister announced it again in June. Banning referral fees was in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on reform of civil litigation costs, which we are already acting on, as far as no win, no fee arrangements are concerned. We delayed making proposals on referral fees because we were waiting for the Legal Services Board to give its opinion following consultation. We have been consulting on squatting, as I have said. The inclusion of these subjects is hardly surprising. All three have been referred to and debated on the Floor of the House, so I hope that it will agree to extend the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I want to add briefly to the intervention that I made earlier. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has been quite honest about the fact that all Governments get into this kind of situation, including the one of which he was a member, when he exercised responsibility for the conduct of the business of the House. He has made some sound points about the lack of an adequate amending procedure for material introduced at this stage. I can see that there has been extensive public discussion on all three of the issues, but the Government ought to find a way of ensuring that the House has a proper legislative process.

There are a number of ways in which that could have been achieved in this case. The Government could have put down their initial plans in the content of the Bill or by amendment in Committee, making it clear that, if the consultation led them to believe that the proposals should not be proceeded with in that way, they would accept that at a later stage. Alternatively, parts of the Bill could have been recommitted by a recommittal motion, to allow a couple of Committee sittings to deal with those matters. We ought to be very cautious about a motion that contains the word “notwithstanding”, because that means that the procedures that the House has set in place to ensure proper consideration are not being observed in this case. That is why I pressed the Lord Chancellor to provide a strong defence of what he was doing.

Question put and agreed to.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Beith Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

I am not entirely sure whether the right hon. Lady is talking about all cases of divorce or partners separating, or just those where there is domestic violence. However, I can tell her that in 90% of cases where there is a separating of the ways, the couple will reach an agreement. We are therefore talking about the remaining 10%. What we are saying in terms of policy is that for basic divorce—if divorce can ever be basic—people should not rely on legal aid for carving up the family assets or settling contact issues. However, I want to make it clear that funding for victims of domestic violence who seek a protective order will remain available.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Is it not also important to point out that the family courts have great difficulty dealing with contact issues, many of which are naturally unsuited to such treatment? Frankly, it is not very easy for a court to sort out arguments about whether a child can go to the scout group on a Friday night or whether they have to be with the other parent.

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I can tell him and other hon. Members that it has become clear to me, from my many meetings over the last year and a half with mediators and lobby groups such as those already mentioned, that in the vast majority of cases the parties are better off sorting out their problems together with the help of the mediator. For the most part, mediation is empowering. In most cases, the best way forward is for people to be able to sort out their own futures and those of their children without being told what to do by a judge, and that is what the Government support.

--- Later in debate ---

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that 61% of immigration appeals were successful, and that that demonstrated a need for legal aid for such cases. However, most appeals are factual and are not brought on points of law. I said to him earlier that I would consider further the question of complex cases, and I will come back to him on that.

[Sir Alan Beith]

What that 61% success rate on appeal demonstrates is a bad decision-making system. Ought not the Minister be more sympathetic to the Justice Committee’s view that Departments that make their decisions so badly that they generate large numbers of successful appeals should be penalised, perhaps even to the extent of contributing to a fund for the advice agencies that help the people who are affected?

[Mr Djanogly]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. High levels of successful appeals perhaps show that too many cases are going before the tribunals in the first place. The other day, I saw a figure of about 80% for special educational needs tribunals, which was not very impressive either. I can also tell him that I am personally engaging with Ministers in the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education with the specific intention of getting them to work with the Department of Justice to improve their initial decision making. I am pleased to say that they are all are working with us, and that they want to make the system better. This is a matter of significant concern to me, not least because I would like to see fewer appeals relating to my Department coming through the courts and tribunals.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about domestic violence, immigration and legal aid. She also talked about people who fall outside the domestic violence immigration rule, such as EEA nationals. As I mentioned earlier, we are looking at cases of EEA spouses who have suffered dramatic abuse. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned immigration judicial reviews. I think that he accused the Government of putting appellants into a Catch-22 situation because legal aid would not be available for immigration appeals or for some judicial reviews. I can tell him, however, that people will still be able to appeal immigration decisions themselves and, as is often the case at the moment, they will still be able to get legal aid for a subsequent judicial review, as long as it is not on exactly the same or substantially similar issues, or on a removal direction. As I said earlier, we are making various exceptions to the exclusions, which will include ensuring that, when there has been no possibility of an appeal, legal aid will remain for judicial review.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised various points about immigration, and I will write to him about those. He specifically mentioned children, as did other hon. Members, so I shall briefly address that point. In most immigration cases, a child’s interests are represented by their parent or guardian. Most cases in which a child is unaccompanied involve an asylum claim, and legal aid will remain for those cases as at present. Unaccompanied children with an asylum or immigration issue would have a social worker assigned to them, whose role would include helping the child to gain access to the same advice and support as a child who was permanently settled in the UK. They could also offer assistance with filling in forms and explaining terms, and give emotional support. Legal support in such immigration cases may be found, if needed, from law centres and from pro bono legal representation. The Refugee Council provides services for separated children, which can include litigation friends.

A number of hon. Members asked how we justified plans that could disproportionately affect women. That question has also been asked in relation to disabled people, ethnic minorities and people who live in rural areas. The equalities impact assessment, published alongside the Government’s response to consultation, sets out our analysis of how the reforms will affect people with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010. We have identified the potential for the reforms to have a greater impact on some groups, but we believe that those impacts are proportionate, and justified by the need to meet our objectives, including the pressing need to make savings from legal aid. We are also keeping discrimination claims relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010 within the scope of legal aid, which we consider will make a significant contribution to the fulfilment of our public sector equality duty.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about the removal of legal aid in many family cases, which she said would remove access to justice from many people. She asked how that could be right. Legal aid will remain available for family mediation and private family law cases, including private law children and family proceedings and ancillary relief proceedings. We want to encourage more use of such mediation. In ancillary relief cases, courts will be able to make orders for payment against a third party or a party who has the means to fund the costs of representation for the other party. Removing costly and often unnecessary legal aid does not mean removing access to justice. Litigants in person already feature in the justice system. Judges and magistrates currently assist litigants in person without compromising their impartiality, and we expect that to continue.

Finally, I was asked whether we expect all cases to be resolved through mediation. As I said earlier, the answer is categorically no. Cases involving domestic violence and child abuse, and emergency cases will still not be required to go through mediation. In addition, exceptional funding will be available when necessary for the UK to meet its international and domestic legal obligations via a proposed scheme for excluded cases. On that note, I rest my case.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations, but he may be eliding two matters. The first is the unavailability of legal aid for what we might call cases in the middle—neither the severe cases that will be picked up by the exceptional funding arrangements or CFAs, nor the cases in which solicitors and counsel will be prepared to take the case on and earn their money well down the line. I agree that that middle group of cases is the difficult group, but as well as the CFA arrangements mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East, one must consider whether those cases are likely to be picked up and run with by the legal profession. My judgment is that they are.

Never having done a clinical negligence case, and having no expertise in those cases at all, I base that judgment partly on my experience of the position as it prevails in many jurisdictions in the United States, where of course no state or federal funding at all is available for civil cases. A legal profession has grown up in which attorneys have had to educate themselves about which cases they should be prepared to take. They consider which cases are worth taking forward, but also those that they believe have merit from a perspective of social justice and ensuring that there is access to justice for all.

Having worked with many attorneys across many jurisdictions in the United States, I can tell the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that there are attorneys who take cases that they suspect will lead either to a settlement, out of which they will get very little or nothing, or to an eventual loss if they have to take the matter to court. They consider that part of their professional obligation.

I hope that both limbs of the legal profession in this country will come to appreciate that we owe an obligation not merely to try to make money out of the practice of law, but to do what we all did when we first came to the law—have a burning sense of justice on behalf of our clients, so that they are properly represented whether or not we believe them, whether or not we think their case is meritorious and certainly whether or not we think we will make money out of it. I hope that that deals to a large extent with the right hon. Gentleman’s points. I am, of course, as concerned as he is that there may be a group of cases in the middle that will somehow fall through the net. If that is the position, we may have to revisit the issue later.

[Sir Alan Beith]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Sir Alan Beith.

[Stephen Phillips]

With the leave of the House, I was about to make my final few remarks.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend; I thought he had concluded his speech.

[Stephen Phillips]

The amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) addresses schedule 1 and the non-exclusion of clinical negligence cases in the context of convention rights. As I have informed the House more often than, perhaps, I ought, I have never conducted a clinical negligence case. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker tells me that the House has taken that point on board, and I am pleased it has taken at least one of my points on board.

Notwithstanding the Government’s insistence on the exclusion of clinical negligence in this context, I find it difficult to envisage any circumstances in which a case could be brought under the convention that engages this part of the law. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend addressed that point adequately—or, indeed, at all—when I intervened on him earlier, but he has said that this is a probing amendment that may have to be debated further in another place. At present however, I remain perplexed by the amendment.

[Stephen Phillips]

It may be an area the Government have to come back to. The amendment would change schedule 1 and, specifically, the cases for which civil aid is, and is not, available in the context of breaches of convention rights by a public authority. It addresses the convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, a piece of legislation of which the House will know I am not greatly enamoured. Clinical negligence is itself defined in paragraph 20(6) of the schedule, and the amendment suggests that civil legal aid should continue to be available in cases where a breach of convention rights is asserted in the context of clinical negligence. Although I think the Human Rights Act is bad law, I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which the convention might be used and legal aid ought, in any event, to be available.

I therefore do not support the amendments, as they are unnecessary and misconceived, and the Government will have my support tonight.

[Sir Alan Beith]

I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for having misinterpreted—and for perhaps leading you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to misinterpret —his meaningful pause, which sometimes occurs when senior counsel are delivering their well-chosen words, and which led me to think he had finished his speech.

I commend the members of my Committee who have brought this issue to the attention of the House: the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). The current system reveals many shortcomings in dealing with matters of this kind. I can recall a case, which went on for many years, of a young man who was brain damaged for life because he was not provided with proper recovery following an operation after a road accident. It was only when I managed to drag some information out of a health authority that the third firm of solicitors involved sued the second firm of solicitors for its professional negligence in allowing the matter to run out of time when a claim against the health authority would have been successful had it been undertaken with that information in the first place. These very difficult matters frequently involve the kind of cases that most of us are concerned about tonight: lifetime injury cases with very high care costs for those involved. My understanding is that when it comes to recovering costs from people who have been awarded damages in these circumstances, they will be recovered not from their damages for care, but from the other aspect of damages; a provision that the court has made for someone’s lifelong welfare ought not to be affected.