Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as has already been noted, I raised concerns about an earlier version of this amendment in Committee, when I argued that, ultimately, it felt like it was legitimising a climate of demonising protests based on a subjective assessment of whether those protests were politically approved of or not.

Specifically, this new amendment relates to attitudes to Covid vaccines, which I want to look at. To put it beyond any doubt, I support the use of vaccines, although not vaccine passports or mandated vaccines—I say that too—but I do not believe that those who are opposed to vaccines, whether they are tennis players, NHS anaesthetists, fearful pregnant women or even conspiratorial cranks, should be criminalised or discriminated against because of their views, and I am concerned that aspects of that would happen from this amendment.

This new amendment would expand the use of the proposed fast-track public space protection orders beyond activities outside schools to venues providing NHS vaccination services to the public. We all have in mind those scenes—they have already been described—of vaccination centres being invaded, with equipment trashed and abuse shouted and so on. As it happens, like everyone else, I condemn that activity. However, if, as the amendment notes, such activities involve harassment, intimidation or impeding members of the public accessing a service that they want to access or impeding the staff or volunteers providing that service, surely we have laws on the statute book to deal with this, and those laws should be applied.

My question really is: why do we need to use PSPOs, and why are they proposed for non-specified activities outside schools, which could obviously be used, for example, to prohibit anything from leafleting to collecting names on a petition for any cause? In relation to the schools part of the amendment, anti-vaccine issues are not mentioned. I confess that I have long been an opponent of PSPOs. Sadly, I feel, they are used as arbitrary powers, issued by councils acting as though they run fiefdoms. I have written about the issue regularly in council publications such as the Municipal Journal since 2014 when they were brought in.

PSPOs do not ban any particular activities, which is why they are so broadly interpreted, often depending on the pet hates of local councils. Their name is something of a misnomer because, rather than protecting the public, they are used mainly to eject the public from public space, effectively privatising public space. Indeed, they are regularly used as dispersal orders for, for example, groups of individuals “hanging around”, often young people, or for political vigils or leafleters. Often, they are dispersed by authorised private security guards with the power to issue on-the-spot fines—one has to consider who would police the PSPOs in this amendment.

No wonder the civil liberties group the Manifesto Club has warned that PSPOs fundamentally undermine rights of free association and free expression in the public square. Indeed, in 2017, the Home Office recognised the overuse and overreach of PSPO powers and produced amended statutory guidance—but to no discernible effect as they are now being issued at an increased, and rising, rate.

The fast-track PSPOs proposed in this amendment have conditions, but those conditions simply use the phraseology usually associated with the orders in terms of activities that various individuals consider have

“a detrimental effect on the quality of life for pupils and staff”,

or whoever is being discussed. The phrase “detrimental effect on the quality of life” has been critiqued by many opponents of PSPOs as very vague and elastic. It has led councils in recent years to use PSPOs to restrict everything from cycling, charity collecting, rough sleeping, walking dogs without leads, begging and busking. A couple of dozen councils have used that phrase and PSPOs to ban—two of my favourites—swearing and loitering. I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever dropped their kids off at the school gates, but loitering in groups—often involving a little swearing, I confess—is almost a compulsory activity for parents.

More seriously, as the Manifesto Club has regularly noted, the test of “detrimental effect” is an unprecedentedly low legal test for criminal intervention, but there is also no requirement to show any substantial evidence of such detrimental effect. There is no proper democratic oversight locally, with no requirement for PSPOs to be passed through internal scrutiny procedures within a council.

Normally there is a requirement for consultation, but, as has been explained, this amendment would dispense with that. The consultations are usually fairly procedural, and many PSPOs have been passed with as few as 10 respondents. Anyway, in this instance we would remove even the formal need for consultation. Therefore, the PSPO would be issued. It would be signed off, as we have been told, by three people—the police chief officer, the school leadership and the local authority leader—and the public would be consulted only after the order is issued, which is laughable and contemptuous.

Also, there is no workable system for appealing PSPOs locally beyond an appeal to the High Court. Finally, to note the wording of the amendment, these fast-track PSPOs can be issued for activities not just carried on but

“likely to be carried on”,

and that not just have had a detrimental effect but are “likely to have” a detrimental effect. These are weasel words, wholly open to speculation and a pre-crime-like interpretation.

I hope those noble Lords who, on Monday, will oppose the swathe of legislative proposals that threaten to close down protests and chill the rights of free assembly will also oppose this amendment. I find the views of hardcore anti-vax protesters distasteful, nihilistic and absolutely things I would argue against. I actually feel the same about Extinction Rebellion, but that misses the point. We need to be very careful about picking and choosing which protesters we support. If there is a problem of obstruction or any kind of unlawful activity outside schools or vaccine centres it should be dealt with, but I fear this amendment would give succour to the Government ahead of Monday’s battles. I will therefore oppose it.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, surprisingly, my remarks will overlap substantially with the noble Baroness’s speech, although they come from a somewhat different perspective.

I thought that the opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was convincing and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply before I make my mind up on how to vote. But it left me wondering whether this approach ought not to be actively considered for extension around not simply schools and vaccination centres but seats of democracy such as Parliament and potentially local councils, where we have seen pretty disgraceful activities that are clearly designed to intimidate elected members—anti-vaccine activists have pursued a highly aggressive strategy. It is notable that that is off the table in the amendment.

There is no reason why this issue should necessarily be covered, but—this is my point of overlap with the noble Baroness—I raise it because I will be listening with interest to what Members of the Opposition and from all sides of the House say about the very controversial measures that are due to come on Monday. I share the concern that we have a real tendency as a House and a legislature to find ourselves in instinctive agreement with measures designed to avoid intimidation from groups whose causes we do not agree with; yet we find ourselves, often subconsciously, contemplating what can be equally intimidatory methods of protest deployed in the name of a cause whose broader case we do agree with. It is really important that we guard against doing that.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whitford]

Okay, I am just going to move swiftly on. It was a speech, so my hon. Friend has had his chance to get that in.

There are multiple agencies that are important for the nations across the UK, but my particular interest is of course health. We know that the European Medicines Agency is moving to Amsterdam, but the much bigger issue is the UK coming out of the European Medicines Agency. This is a body that has massively reduced bureaucracy, streamlined the launch of new drugs and meant that the pharmaceutical industry has to go through only one registration process for 500 million people. That is why drugs are launched in Europe at much the same time as America and about a year before Canada and Australia. Given some of what is going on in NHS England—including the budget impact assessment, which can allow expensive drugs to be delayed for three years—what I am hearing from those in the pharmaceutical industry is that they see the UK as a hostile market and that they may not come six months later or a year later. It may take longer than that because they only see the point in paying the extra cost to register when they have a chance of their drug being used in the NHS.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point. Is she also mindful of the fact that, at a critical time for the future of the pharmaceuticals industry, there is currently no certainty even on cross-border production, which many of our companies are involved in, including GlaxoSmithKline in my constituency?

[Dr Whitford]

I agree. Processes such as quality control, batch certification and lot release must take place in the EU. Several centres in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom will have to move.

Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As I have said, we are keen to complete this review as a matter of urgency. The legislative programme is a complex matter at the moment for reasons I have hinted at, so we will have to see what is possible, but we would like to tackle this urgently.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The focus of questions has understandably been on domestic violence, but can the Minister confirm he is also seeking to implement this protection for victims of emotional and financial control and other forms of non-violent abuse, which the Government have, to their great credit, sought to criminalise in recent months?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a cross-governmental approach to abuse that has its own definitions and so on, but the areas of abuse covered in terms of applications for legal aid are far wider than just physical violence and include sex abuse cases and the like, and we are alive to the need to cover a wider area than simply domestic violence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I remind the House that the Crown Prosecution Service is reconsidering this case and a second inquest is awaited. Right hon. and hon. Members should take account of that in carefully framing their remarks on the matter.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What assessment he has made of the coroner’s role in the case of Poppi Worthington.

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

The death of Poppi Worthington is deeply, deeply distressing and very tragic. I offer my deepest sympathies to those who loved her and those who cared for her. I am unable to comment on the decisions of the previous coroner, but I note that the new Cumbria senior coroner took steps to hold a fresh inquest as soon as he was appointed. As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), rightly said last week,

“there is nothing more important than keeping children safe.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1419.]

That is why the Government have given child sexual abuse the status of a national threat in the strategic policing requirement.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for that answer, and the Lord Chancellor for his swift reply to my letter, which I received this morning. Our community wants accountability and wants to see improvements in services that have so tragically failed in these circumstances. So will the Minister make it clear that there is no reason why the serious case review into Poppi Worthington’s death and the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s report need be delayed pending the second inquest being carried out?

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stand up for his constituency and fight for the truth in this way. I completely agree with him that a second inquest should be conducted as soon as possible. Both the IPCC report and the serious case review are of course independent of Government and decide their own timescales. However, I can confirm that neither is required to wait upon the coroner.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I apologise for any confusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that this debate would come later. I will speak very briefly. I am grateful to you for allocating time for this matter.

I want to impress on the Government that they ought to consider adopting the extra protection in the new clause. The blanket ban is a good step forward for which many of us on both sides of the House have called for some time. However, the potential still exists for a significant gap between the police or a local authority seeing the substances being traded and their being granted a court order. The new clause would allow an interim ban to be put in place while the application for the court order was being heard. If the application turned out to be misplaced, compensation of some kind could be made, but the provision would give communities the extra protection they need and deserve in these circumstances.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise to the House that my comments will have to be short because of the limited time available. In respect of new clause 2, I fully understand where Labour Members are coming from, but judicial oversight is very important. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned the possibility of compensation if we got it wrong, but I do not want to get it wrong. I believe that we can get these matters into the courts very quickly; we do so with other court business and we can get judges to make these decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke to amendments 2 and 3, and I fully understand his argument. The logic behind the specific designation of schools in the Bill goes back to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I absolutely agree that we should bring our legislation up to date quickly, and I believe that the Sentencing Council is the place for that in a modern democracy. However, under section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, courts are under exactly the same obligation to consider aggravating factors when sentencing an offender, whether those factors are in this Bill or in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. So, sadly, although I fully understand both sets of arguments that have been put forward, I believe that we need to go with the Bill as it has been drafted.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Lyn Brown]

I like help, so do not stop trying to help.

I admit that I am sympathetic to the SNP’s amendment. If the ACMD, through Professor Iversen’s evidence, is suggesting that poppers pose a low risk of harm, it would be within the scope of the Bill to place poppers on the exemption list—but I am not an expert.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am a little puzzled. Perhaps the shadow Minister or members of the SNP might be able to shed light on this. Why, exactly, is the Scottish National party putting forward amendments about poppers that would, presumably, have an effect in England but not in Scotland itself?

[The Chair]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful with his amendment, but as has already been indicated, there will be a separate debate on that.

[John Woodcock]

Okay. I will raise that question again when it comes up.

[Lyn Brown]

When we get to poppers, experts will need to assess the evidence and decide whether the case for exemption has merit. If I may link this to our discussion on the second clause of the Bill, we know that there will be significant costs in testing the psychoactivity of substances, as there will be for enforcement measures contained within the Bill. By introducing a charge on applying for exemption, the Government potentially could raise the revenue and ensure that what is left of the industry pays for its own regulation. Does the Minister think that there might be scope for that?

While we are discussing exempted substances, I want to raise a concern that is pertinent to schedule 1. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 exempts those drugs that are controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 from the scope of the Bill. That is appropriate, because we do not want suppliers of drugs that we know to be very harmful being subject to the lesser tariffs contained within this Bill, rather than those in the 1971 Act. As the Home Secretary herself has stated, the 1971 Act must remain at the apex of our legal controls, and this Bill ought to be considered as complementary.

I want to press the Minister to ensure that part of this legislation will not slow down the process by which NPS we know to be harmful are brought under control through the Misuse of Drugs Act. It seems that there is a danger that the impetus for action will be lost, given that this Bill will provide some measures of control of new psychoactive substances. I do not want to see a time gap between a dangerous drug hitting the market and finding its way on to the controlled substance list as a result of this legislation—particularly given the lower tariffs contained within this Bill for supply. My worry would be greatly eased if the Minister resolved to ensure that this issue is included in the Home Office’s statutory review of the Bill.

In conclusion, the capacity to exempt substances from the controls introduced by this Bill is clearly central to the Bill’s receiving widespread support. The focus of the Home Affairs Committee report on the issue of poppers has already made that clear. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to our amendment or to other ways around the problem. I look forward to being able to offer a reassuring response to my concerns about the relationship between this Bill and the 1971 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I understand fully the shadow Minister’s concerns, but I hope I can alleviate them.

The Home Office greatly values the work of the ACMD. In my meetings, the chairman has been very helpful. The work has been going on for decades. Although we accept that clause 3 only provides for the ACMD to provide advice when asked, the relationship has always been two-way. The ACMD is not shy, and nor are we. Where the ACMD has had concerns in the past, it has come to us and we have dealt with them, and vice versa. Hon. Members have raised in the House issues to do with constituents, and we have gone to the ACMD. It has an ongoing programme of looking at what is out there and whether we need to move something into a different category. I can assure the Committee that that will not change in any way—far from it.

Recently, drugs that were classified as psychoactive have moved into a completely different regime.

[John Woodcock]

Does the Minister accept that there is a very significant shift in the burden of responsibility? He says the relationship works well at the moment, but the ACMD may now be judging whether something is a food, for example.

[Mike Penning]

I was about to come on to how we have looked at other parts of the world and how such changes occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

However, at this stage I am comfortable, unless something comes forward between now and Report.

[John Woodcock]

What if a way of trying to circumvent the ban is similar to what has been practised by some people involved, which is to say, “This is plant food” or “a washing product”? What happens under that scenario?

[Mike Penning]

The Bill is quite specific, in that the seller of a product needs to make sure that the product is being sold legitimately—[Interruption.] Sorry?

[John Woodcock]

I am sorry to chunter from a sedentary position, but those sellers are not the people we are trying to stop. They are nefarious people who will try to get round the rules.

[Mike Penning]

Some of them are. Some of them are genuinely and legitimately people doing business, for example, selling a certain gas that is inappropriately used by other people, such as laughing gas. The Bill is specific in that area to make sure that we protect people. We cannot protect everybody who completely ignores what a label says, but if someone is selling certain products, they will get up to seven years in prison. That is why the harshness is there at that end of the scale, although I fully understand and do not want to penalise people at the other end, who perhaps take the products—in my opinion wrongly, and I am sure that everyone would agree—thinking they are safe. We do not want to criminalise that. I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendment. We can look at this carefully again, if necessary, on Report.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have not put my name down to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I did not stand up to catch your eye. I have been listening to the debate carefully, however.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman would care to wait, that is all right with the Chair.

[John Woodcock]

I am delighted to be called. This is the first time in my parliamentary career that I have been genuinely undecided when coming into the Chamber and I therefore wanted to listen to the entire debate. I have listened to every contribution so far, and I am still undecided.

I have been affected by the views of my constituents on both sides of the argument, and by the people who have spoken today. I have been particularly privileged to spend time with Clare Coulston, who is listening to the debate today. Her husband Paul died of motor neurone disease just two weeks ago, and she herself is in remission from a serious cancer and has two young children. She believes passionately that this Bill should pass, and has stated her views with wonderful eloquence, given the grief that she is suffering now. It would be easy for me to say that I of course agree with her, because she is my friend, but I am still utterly torn and still struggling. Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will let others who have prepared a speech take the Floor now.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

All non-clinical negligence personal injury cases, including respiratory disease claims, have been out of the scope of legal aid since 2000—let us acknowledge that—under changes introduced by the last Government. Although some expert reports may be required in respiratory disease cases, the Government are not persuaded that they differ substantially from other personal injury cases in a way that merits the retention of the recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may be aware that Barrow is the constituency with the second highest number of mesothelioma suffers in the country. Does he not understand how insulting and potentially distressing it is to those sufferers to be branded as part of a compensation culture?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I said, this is a question of what lawyers get paid. I am in no way assessing the vulnerability of the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that significant steps have been taken in recent years to lower the barriers to bringing compensation claims for these disastrous diseases. A fast-track procedure for mesothelioma cases has been introduced in the High Court. Over the past few years, various legal changes, including primary legislation such as the Compensation Act 2006 and judgments of the Supreme Court, have removed many of the hurdles for sufferers of respiratory diseases in bringing claims.

The legal climate in which such cases are brought has been transformed in recent years. Judgments of the Supreme Court have removed many hurdles, and a judgment only last month means that victims of this dreadful disease who are able to trace an insurer will now be paid and not miss out on compensation. As I said, a fast-track procedure has been introduced to ensure that claims are dealt with as quickly as possible.

A key outstanding barrier is identifying the employer’s liability insurer when an employer no longer exists, and the Department for Work and Pensions continues to work with stakeholders to see what more can be done to address that. Overall, however, cases are much less difficult to undertake than in the past, and there is no reason to believe that legal firms will stop bringing them, even under the new arrangements, or that they will be particularly expensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is clear that this disease affects many people.

In recognition of the high number of cases of mesothelioma, and of the swift and horrible deterioration in the health of its victims, my local primary care trust continues to invest in providing specialist nursing for meso victims, including dedicated Macmillian nurses and support staff. That is hugely welcome for those who suffer directly, and for the families who support them through their dying months. I should like to thank them for their commitment and dedication in often very difficult circumstances.

I should like to see everything possible being done to support mesothelioma victims, especially in regard to providing financial peace of mind before they pass away. Anecdotal evidence shows that sufferers often pass away long before their claim has been settled, leaving their grieving families to settle the claim. Sometimes, the stress of doing so is too much and the claim is no longer pursued. Much has been done on the employers’ liability tracing office, but not much has been done on the insurer of last resort, the employers’ liability insurance bureau—ELIB. That is disappointing. Each party is blaming the other for the lack of progress, as is always the case. The people who lose out are the victims and their families. Although this involves a different Department, I hope that if the Government take away one message from my short contribution today it is that there should be no more delays. It is time to resolve the issue and set up ELIB now. Too much time has passed on consultation, and it is time for action.

If I have one concern about Lords amendment 31, it is its breadth. I want to see meso victims receive a fair package of compensation, and I am concerned that the Bill as drafted will cause a significant sum of their compensation package to be lost in success fees paid to lawyers. The amendment is not meso-specific and could be interpreted as relating to other respiratory diseases—hence my slight hesitation in wholeheartedly supporting it. However, meso claims account for over half of all asbestos-related claims, so, on balance, it is an important addition to the Bill.

I recognise that the proposed Jackson reforms include a 10% uplift in general damages. I note the Association of British Insurers is warning that mesothelioma sufferers might not benefit from those reforms if the amendment goes through. I do not believe that, and I want to issue the counter-warning that, on fatal industrial diseases such as mesothelioma, the Government will be judged on what they do to help victims, whether through financial or other types of support. The 10% uplift is necessary and right.

I know that others are keen to speak and, as promised, I shall listen to the rest of the debate with interest. I pray that I never contract a disease as nasty as mesothelioma, but I also pray that the Government do all that they can to support those who do, including by providing easy access to justice and ensuring that full and fair compensation is paid to the victims as quickly as possible.

[John Woodcock]

It is an honour to follow such a powerful and brave speech from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She spoke incredibly well on the subject.

I wish to speak briefly in support of Lords amendment 31, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) will listen carefully. I also hope against hope that he will reconsider his decision, because the sight of him sitting there laughing while this subject is being discussed, and labelling victims in my constituency and across the country who suffer horribly as being part of a compensation culture and a racket, does a gross disservice to those people, and ultimately to the Government he represents.

Let us be clear—as the Bill stands, individuals who have contracted horrific and rapidly life-shortening diseases could now be required to pay the cost of bringing their case out of the damages they receive rather than have the defendant meet the costs. This represents a major change to the underlying principles of criminal damages cases in the UK, creating the potential for unlimited costs to be borne by successful claimants. In extremis, it could lead to a defendant, having successfully proven that their employer’s negligence has left them with an almost certainly fatal disease, being left with a bill to pick up for bringing the case.

[Mr Djanogly]

It is important to get this right. The particular disease falls within the Government’s proposals to introduce one-way cost shifting, which will mean that losing claimants will not pay defendants’ costs.

[John Woodcock]

As the shadow Minister has made clear, it does not cover disbursements. The Minister has not been able to set out a proper case. He has tried to claim that compensation will go up as a result of these reforms. Frankly, all the people looking at this—I see the Minister nodding his head now—do not agree. Given the level of concern and alarm expressed by victims who contract the disease incredibly quickly, many thousands of people are left wondering when they are going to be struck, and the families left behind cannot understand the Government’s attitude towards this incredibly difficult subject.

On average, those who successfully pursue claims for mesothelioma see compensation in the order of £65,000. Under the unamended Bill, their lawyer could receive 25% of that. On top of that, their after-the-event insurer could take an increased premium, and because mesothelioma claims are risky, those premiums can be very high indeed.

From my own constituency, I have seen the appalling impact of mesothelioma on the lives of those who suffer and their families. The industrial tradition of Barrow and Furness means that shipyard workers are particularly affected because of the historic use of asbestos in ship construction. This has left the town, as I said in my intervention, with the second-highest mortality rate from this disease among males anywhere in the country—topped only by West Dunbartonshire, which is, of course, another shipbuilding area. These people served their country through the fine ships they built to defend our shores. They were failed by successive Governments, and this Government now have a duty to address that wrong. That is why sufferers have pushed and pushed for better compensation, and that is why it would be a travesty for this House to vote today to reduce the payments they can get.

[Toby Perkins]

I start by echoing the distress expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) about the tone of the Minister’s remarks, which showed a real lack of empathy with the situation that mesothelioma sufferers and their families face. What happens in so many of these cases is that victims become aware of the illness many years after they been exposed to asbestos, and often after the organisation responsible for that has long since disappeared. They face a troublesome problem in identifying who was responsible in the first place and they are then faced with the shocking news that their lives are shortly going to come to end and they are going to experience agonising circumstances in the run-up to their deaths.

For many of the people who have been on that journey, the last thing on their minds when they receive this appalling news is the idea that they need to embark on some complicated and potentially costly hunt for compensation. People who work with victims of asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, say that it is hard to persuade them to make claims because they are so heartbroken by their recent experiences. They tell me that if those who seek advice learn that there may be a cost impact, many are likely to choose to let the matter drop. It would be a real dereliction of duty on the part of all of us if we allowed that to happen.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Walney Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way; time is short.

I raised such a risk in questioning the DPP, but he made it clear in his evidence that

“the decision is the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, taken independently.”

He added that consultation between the DPP and the Attorney-General, which is regular,

“acts as no inhibition on the independence that I would bring to the decision. At the end of the day, the decision is mine, it is independent and it is reviewable.”––[Official Report, Police Reform and Social Responsibility Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2011; c. 124-130.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, the DPP also said that there are powerful public interest reasons to prosecute in a case that has satisfied the evidential threshold.

The necessity for the provision has been questioned on two grounds. It is said that the sort of people whom it is designed to safeguard are already covered by immunity. Although this is true of some of the visitors against whom arrest warrants have been sought in the past, it is not true of all. Immunity from criminal jurisdiction applies to certain Ministers, and warrants have been sought against Ministers not covered and those who are not Ministers at all.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Herbert]

I am sorry. I do not have time.

It is said, too, that few warrants have been issued in universal jurisdiction cases, but the problem lies in the perception that a person who is not a British citizen, does not live here, and indeed has no connection with this country apart from being present here, might be at risk of arrest for a very grave crime where there is no prospect of a viable prosecution. That such an occurrence is rare misses the point. The fact is that people who are, or have been, in leading positions in their countries, with whom the Government would wish to engage in discussions, may be discouraged from coming here. That is our concern. That, in turn, creates a risk of damaging our ability to help in conflict resolution or interfere with foreign policy.

Amendment 154 would require special units to be set up in the police and the CPS. The responsibility for investigating universal jurisdiction cases lies with a specialist unit of the Metropolitan police. That unit has the specialist skills and expertise required to conduct those cases, or to decide that an investigation in this jurisdiction is not warranted or feasible. The unit is best placed to evaluate the prospects of being able to protect witnesses or secure their evidence at any trial, identify an individual responsible for the particular conduct to the criminal standard, and deal—

Firearms Control

Lord Walney Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I certainly agree that it is necessary to review the gun laws, as the Home Affairs Committee has done, and to consider whether sensible measures might be taken to improve them and, in specific areas, tighten them. I am not sure whether I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s implication that there needs to be a wholesale change in our gun laws that would restrict the legitimate ownership of guns, because most incidents relate to illegal ownership, and I believe that that is where we need to focus our enforcement activity.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister knows that a review by the Select Committee is not the same as a Government review of this matter. What are the Government doing?

[Nick Herbert]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have said that we will take on board the Select Committee’s recommendations, which were published only today, and that we are considering the matter very carefully. I will speak in a moment about a measure that has already been introduced, and I will give a broad indication of an early response to the Select Committee report. There has also been a review by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Government have certainly responded to the incidents that have taken place in Cumbria and Northumbria, but I believe that we are doing so in a careful and considered manner.