Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We recognise and share public concern over abuses of new technology to harm victims, and we are taking action. Today, new provisions on threatening to share private sexual images come into force, and we are going further. We have asked the Law Commission to review the law on image abuse to ensure that victims are properly protected. The commission will publish recommendations in spring next year, and we will consider them very carefully.
Paul Blomfield [V]
My constituent Helen Mort had the appalling experience of finding out that someone unknown to her had taken ordinary images from her social media and superimposed them on violent and extreme pornography. These were not intimate images, but they were used to create deepfakes. When she went to the police, she was told that there was no crime to investigate as the original images were not private. The Law Commission’s review, to which the Minister refers, proposes extending the criminalisation of sharing intimate images to include deepfakes. Will the Minister ensure that the Government respond positively and quickly to those proposals so that people like Helen are protected in the future?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that harrowing case. He is absolutely right to do so. We recognise that the law needs to keep pace with those who would use technology to perpetrate dreadful abuse. We have asked the Law Commission to act, as he indicated. It is doing so at pace, and we will be looking very carefully with a view to extending the law where it is appropriate to do so.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We must rehabilitate offenders by focusing relentlessly on the factors that we know drive reoffending. That is why we are working across Government to support people into a job, stable accommodation and treatment for substance misuse. We have recently announced a £200 million investment in third-sector providers that deliver specialist rehabilitation services to address those core priorities.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer thus far. What further measures does he intend to introduce to ensure that prison governors enable those people leaving prison to be properly trained and briefed on how they can get not only housing, but job opportunities and benefits if they qualify for them, so that when they leave prison they are not tempted to go back to their old haunts and, indeed, to reoffend.
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter. This House will recall well the excellent work that he did in respect of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. He is absolutely right. We are investing more than £20 million in a landmark new accommodation service, providing up to 12 weeks of accommodation for prison leavers who would otherwise be homeless. That will start later this summer in five of our probation regions in England, but we want to go further. We want to introduce housing specialists in 20 prisons to strengthen partnerships with key stakeholders such as those of local councils and housing providers and to improve the expertise in prisons. We also want prison work coaches, so that not only is the accommodation sorted, but getting into a job is as well. Why is that important? It is because those who leave with a job reduce their chances of reoffending by 9%, changing lives in the process.
Sarah Atherton [V]
HMP Berwyn is one of the largest and newest prisons in Britain and has been chosen as a pilot site for the Ministry of Justice’s employment advisory board scheme. This scheme will bring together business leaders, prison coaches, statutory services and the MP in order to secure employment for offenders on release. I thank the Minister for backing Berwyn and invite him to Wrexham to see the businesses that are putting their faith in the justice system and to sample one of Berwyn’s award-winning custodial pies.
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, but I am even more grateful to her for being such a champion of HMP Berwyn and, indeed, of this important initiative. She is absolutely right: getting more prison leavers into jobs is key to cutting crime. As I have indicated before, it reduces the chance of reoffending by 9%. Of course, I would be delighted to visit her in Wrexham to see the great work of the employment advisory board. I congratulate her and all those she is working with on their fantastic work at Berwyn in the Custodial Pie Corporation, upskilling men in the hospitality industry.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We are committed to ensuring that civil legal aid remains accessible to those who need it, including, in particular, victims of domestic abuse. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under review to ensure adequate provision across England and Wales. We are reviewing the legal aid means test, including in relation to victims of domestic abuse. On 3 March, the Chancellor announced a further £19 million package to tackle domestic abuse, and we have made changes to the evidence requirements to make it easier to access legal aid.
Stephanie Peacock
Too many victims of domestic abuse still end up in the family court with no representation, as litigants in person. Does the Minister agree that we should make legal aid available for all victims of domestic abuse?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that legal aid is a vital pillar of support to many people, which is why we have taken steps to ensure that the evidence requirements for those who want access to legal aid have been relaxed. We have also gone further; we have supported organisations such as RCJ Advice through its Finding Legal Options for Women Survivors service, which is a fantastic digital portal to assist people in the agony of that moment—as they may be in their home circumstances—to receive the kind of support that they require so that they are best placed to get a non-molestation order or an occupation order. We are determined to stand up for victims of domestic abuse.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I have every sympathy for the survivors and victims of Medomsley detention centre, who suffered abhorrent abuse. The Ministry of Justice has been working for several years to compensate properly survivors and victims. Where necessary, claimants are able to submit medical evidence to support allegations of abuse so that damages can be appropriately assessed. That includes both physical and psychological injury. The majority of claims for compensation have now been settled under a settlement protocol.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful for that answer. The compensation scheme covers physical, not sexual abuse. My constituent suffered terrible, much more serious abuse. He was drugged and raped, which has had a profound effect on his health for over 40 years—both his physical and his mental health—and that of his family. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me, my constituent and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Medomsley detention centre to discuss a proper compensation settlement for my constituent?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and he paints a truly harrowing picture. For the avoidance of doubt, cases involving serious sexual harm and psychological injury can be dealt with by the Government Legal Department, albeit outside the standard compensation scheme. Because of their seriousness and complexity, they are considered on a case-by-case basis and awards made have been significant. We take great care to ensure the level of compensation properly reflects the seriousness of the abuse. It is of course always open to claimants to issue proceedings in the courts outwith the scheme, should they see fit. I would be happy to meet to discuss the protocols, but I just say this: it is important that Ministers do not interfere in specific cases when litigation is ongoing.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Government’s response to the economic crime threat is set out in our economic crime plan, which lists seven strategic priorities for combating crime through a specially convened public-private partnership. That includes a number of specific actions, including focusing on high-harm fraud types through online activity such as courier fraud, romance fraud and investment fraud. We are considering whether further legislative changes need to be brought in to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to combat these emerging threats.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have apologised for the Government’s failure of rape victims resulting in record low prosecution and conviction rates. In attempting to atone for these mistakes it is vital that the Government are honest with victims. Last week, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed he was investing another £1 billion in clearing the court backlogs, but in the spending review the figure announced to address the backlogs is £275 million. I am sure that the Prime Minister was not deliberately misleading the House. Will the Secretary of State correct the record?
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that matter. It is an extraordinary fact that 10 years ago stalking was not even an offence, but it was made an offence in 2012. I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), had a campaign to double the maximum sentence so there is a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. But it is not enough to have the punishment; we have to make sure that these matters get before the courts as well, and that is why I am grateful to the police and the courts for prioritising them. Those who stalk should know that they will be punished properly.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for paying tribute to law centres; she is absolutely right to do that. They do an important job of ensuring that individuals—sometimes vulnerable individuals—can get that vital legal advice and access to justice that they need. That is why, at the beginning of the pandemic, when the message came out that they might face real threats to their viability, we stepped in. The Law Centres Network asked for £3 million and we provided that. It was distributed through the network to ensure that law centres have the funds they need to continue their excellent work.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Draft Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, which I think added significantly to the proceedings. I thank him very much indeed.
The draft regulations do not create new policy or change the nature of the related offences. Instead, they are a technical measure to fix deficiencies in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. This statutory instrument addresses reciprocal jurisdictional rules linked to the internal market contained in article 3 of the e-commerce directive. Although the directive was largely retained in UK law, the rules—more commonly referred to as the country of origin principle—rely on reciprocal application and therefore no longer operate as intended. The removal of the provisions from Ministry of Justice legislation is therefore the object of the proposed instrument.
Similar statutory instruments have already been brought forward to remove the country of origin principle from other legislation and, if time had allowed, the Government would have brought forward the regulations before the end of the transition period. However, as we are not aware that the rules in question have ever been relevant to a prosecution for the offences to which the draft instrument relates, we prioritised other more urgent legislation to be laid before the end of last year. Now that such other more important legislation is in force, it is necessary that we address any remaining deficiencies in retained EU law.
Turning now to the detail, the rules apply to organisations operating online that meet the definition of an information society service or ISS, which can be summarised as a service that is normally provided for payment at a distance by electronic means and at the request of the recipient of the service. That covers, among other things, online retailers, video-sharing sites, search tools, social media platforms and internet service providers.
The country of origin principle aims to make it easier for organisations to operate online across borders by making them subject only to the law of the country in which they were established when operating across the European economic area. For relevant offences, therefore, ISSs would need to comply only with one set of laws, rather than deal separately with each state in which they operate.
For example, a British bookshop selling online in various EEA states may have unknowingly sold a book that was banned in one of those countries. If the rules were applied to the offence of selling the prohibited book, the shop would be liable only under UK law, not under the local laws banning the book, except in exceptional circumstances. Although entirely hypothetical, I hope that example serves to highlight how the system was intended to make online operations across many jurisdictions and across the single market simpler for a business.
The system, however, worked between jurisdictions, so ISSs established in the EEA, but operating in the UK, were not fully liable under UK law. As I said, those provisions, which limited the liability of EEA-based ISSs operating in this country under UK law, no longer function as intended. This is because the EU no longer has reciprocal rules of this nature in place with regard to the United Kingdom, and could even put British businesses at a disadvantage, as I will set out further in a moment.
Implementation of the country of origin principle rules for the offences for which the MOJ is responsible has two strands. First, it made ISSs based in any EEA state subject to the law of that state for their conduct across the EEA. Secondly, it created a procedural bar restricting prosecutions of ISSs based in the EEA for their conduct in another country, on the basis that they would have been prosecuted by the state in which they are established.
The instrument removes both aspects of this implementation in the UK, removing an inconsistency where UK ISSs operating in the EEA were liable under UK law in a way that is not the case when operating in other foreign countries. It also means there will no longer be a procedural bar restricting prosecutions of EEA-based ISSs operating in the UK, meaning proceedings against them would operate in the same way as for domestic or other foreign ISSs. To put all that in plain English, what it means is that at the moment we have a lopsided arrangement whereby a UK-based ISS is liable for action in EEA countries, but the EEA ISS is effectively shielded from prosecution in the UK—and that is a lopsided arrangement that we need to put right.
This instrument was first considered by the European Statutory Instruments Committee back in March, and the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation to put it under the affirmative procedure, ensuring that it receives the scrutiny of Parliament. However, I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee and address its concerns about the effect of this instrument. These rules—the country of origin principle—were never intended to contribute to the wider regulation of publication of illicit materials internationally. They apply only to organisations meeting the definition of information society service, to just a small range of offences and to activity in the EEA. They were part of heart of the wider e-commerce directive that aimed to remove obstacles to organisations offering cross-border online services.
Although there are some situations in which it is advantageous to be able to prosecute UK offenders for their conduct abroad or online, the Government’s view is that generally criminal offending is best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the state in which the offence took place. If UK-established ISSs need to be held accountable for any conduct abroad, that should be done in a way which produces the same effect in every country, not limited to the EEA. In other words, treat all countries the same.
Finally, the Government believe that these regulations are necessary irrespective of whether parallel offences exist. Where parallel offences do exist, failing to make the amendments means UK ISSs could be dually liable; in other words, facing prosecutions in the EEA state in which any offending took place as well as in the UK. As I indicated before, that is a lopsided arrangement. It would be unfair, and would place an unreasonable burden on British companies. It could also potentially put them at a competitive disadvantage when operating abroad. Where parallel offences do not exist, failing to make these amendments could result in proceedings being brought against conduct that was legal in one state, but not in the other. Again, that could put British companies operating abroad at a competitive disadvantage.
Overall, removal of the country of origin principle will mean that UK ISSs operating in the EEA are treated in the same way under our law as when operating in other foreign countries. In light of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the end of the reciprocal arrangements, it is necessary in the interests of fairness and clarity that these laws are revoked, and I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and his support for the provisions. As he indicates, the SI is necessary to address a lopsided arrangement and I am delighted to have the support of the Opposition in that regard.
On the issue of timing, I have been very clear that, if time had allowed, the Government would have brought forward the regulations before the end of the transition period, but, as I have indicated already, we are not aware that the rules in question have ever been relevant to a prosecution. In other words, there is no sense in which this has impeded justice in any way. It was important to prioritise the most urgent legislation, but now that the other more important legislation has been passed, we recognise it is right that we attend to this and do so in short order. That is precisely what we have done.
As I indicated earlier, the instrument is necessary to remove rules based on reciprocity that no longer exist. It is a function of our departure from the European Union and it is important that our statute book should function correctly. On that basis, I commend the draft instrument to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
What a genuine pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I think I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how pleased we are to see you there.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) for securing a debate on this important topic, and for the force, candour and articulacy that he has brought to this important area—not just today, but for many years. I pay warm tribute to him, particularly for the way that he raised the case of his constituent Gemma Robinson, who was brutally attacked by Joseph Falconer. My hon. Friend read out the sentencing remarks by the judge, who referred to this gratuitous attack and to “jealous and controlling” behaviour. I hope Gemma’s family will know that the shame of those remarks will haunt, and should haunt, Joseph Falconer for the rest of his days. That cowardly and appalling attack is one that we condemn in this House, and that my hon. Friend has drawn to the attention of the House with admirable clarity and eloquence. I thank other hon. Members, too, for raising with great force and conviction their constituents’ concerns about victims who have suffered so grievously,
Let me turn to the specific matter that we are considering today—the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As all hon. Members have said, it is a valuable part of our criminal justice system. It was introduced in 1989, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford rightly stated. It has allowed prosecutors, victims of crime and, indeed, members of the public to ask Law Officers to consider referring a sentence imposed by the Crown court to the Court of Appeal for review, and to do so where the sentence is felt to be unduly lenient. If a sentence is referred by Law Officers under the scheme, the Court of Appeal will then review the sentence and may decide that it should be increased. I realise that we all well understand that.
It is important to note—this is a point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) underscored—that in the vast majority of cases, sentencing judges get it right. Day in, day out they deal with a range of cases that vary in complexity and severity, and I take the opportunity to commend them for their work. Thousands and thousands of cases are dealt with by the Crown court, and a similar number of sentences imposed. Overwhelmingly, the judges get it right.
I pay tribute to the Sentencing Council—I will refer to it in a moment in a little more detail—for its excellent work in developing sentencing guidelines that have provided judges with valuable guidance on deciding appropriate and proportionate sentences. The guidelines are also of assistance to Crown prosecutors who might be speaking to victims who may be interested to know how a case might end up, in terms of the sentence, and to advocates speaking to their clients, because certainty and clarity are an important part of a criminal justice system that does justice to victims.
It is important that the sentencing process is made more consistent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, who has a distinguished career and practice in this area, well understands. The introduction of the sentencing code last year has helped to enhance the transparency of the sentencing process by bringing together the procedural provisions that courts need to rely on when sentencing offenders and structuring them in an order that follows the chronology of a sentencing hearing. Frankly, the previous system was extremely complicated, and there were an awful lot of opportunities for sentencing judges with the best of intelligence to fall into error. The sentencing code has helped to improve that. However, on the rare occasion when there may have been a gross error in a sentencing decision, the scheme ensures that justice is served, helping to boost confidence in the sentencing process.
Turning now to a few more specifics, the scheme applies to a wide range of the more serious offences dealt with by the Crown court. This includes all indictable-only offences, in other words, those cases that must be tried before judge and jury, and it covers offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery. I pause to mention that because where hon. Members have referred to specific cases involving murder, those cases are, of course, within the scheme. I will turn in a moment to issues about time limits, and so on, but it is important to note that murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery are all within the scheme. It goes beyond that to certain offences that are triable either way, mainly related to terrorism, violent physical or sexual assaults and drug-related crime. In preparing for this, I wrote down a number of offences that it covers—it is a very long list, and I will not read them all out.
To pick up on the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford made, I do want to set out in a little detail the extent to which the scheme was expanded over recent years. The Government have taken the opportunity to extend the scope of the scheme so that it covers more offences. In August 2017, additional offences included: failing to disclose information about an act of terrorism; fundraising contrary to the Terrorism Act 2000; use of funds in connection with terrorism; money laundering; and weapons training. We extended the scheme to 19 terror-related offences, and to a further nine terror-related offences in January 2018, such as tipping off a terrorist and not complying with a restriction after returning to the UK.
In November 2019, we extended the scheme to 14 more offences, including stalking; harassment involving violence; the possession of indecent images of children; controlling and coercive behaviour; abuse of position of trust in sexual offences; and possession of indecent images. Including these offences in the scheme has helped to ensure that perpetrators of these horrific crimes receive sentences that match the seriousness of their offending behaviour.
The Government continue to keep the scope of the scheme under review and will carefully consider any proposals to extend the scheme to cover more offences. However, as the hon. Member for Strangford correctly indicated, the number of cases that have been referred under the scheme has gone up quite considerably over recent years.
I must stress that the decision to extend the scheme is not a straightforward one, because it is very important—not just to defendants, but also to victims and everyone else—that there is finality in sentencing. The general rule is that a person should expect to serve the sentence a judge has imposed upon them. It should also be recognised that Parliament, in creating the scheme, intended for it to be an exceptional power.
In addition, this scheme has to be set within the wider context in which it sits. The Government have brought forward a wider package of legislative measures in recent years to ensure that the punishment that offenders receive reflects the severity of their crime. To pick up the points that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) quite rightly made when she was talking about violence against women, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on what is now criminal which was not 10 years ago.
Forget the ULS scheme; first of all we must ensure that it is an offence. More than 10 years ago, it was not an offence to carry out upskirting. It was not an offence to exert coercive control. It was not an offence to stalk. It was not an offence to send revenge porn or threaten to do so. It was not a specific offence to take part in non-fatal strangulation. It was not a specific offence to assault an emergency worker. There is an enormous amount that has changed over recent years to ensure that people who do commit crime can be punished for it. I could add plenty of others, such as causing death by careless driving. That is the first point.
The second point is that over the past 10 years, there has been a significant increase in sentencing to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. There are longer sentences for stalking, desecrating war memorials, and animal welfare crimes. It used to be the case, as recently as 15 years ago, that although someone would get a life sentence, the minimum period that they would serve before being eligible for parole was normally 15 years. Now, if a knife is used in the crime, it is a starting point of 25 years, and if a firearm is used, the starting point is 30 years. It is important to stress that there is not automatic release at the end of that period; that is the earliest point at which they are eligible for parole. So we have more offences and longer sentences.
Defendants are also required to spend longer in custody. We enacted the sentences for offenders of particular concern provision, ending automatic release for terrorism and child sex offenders, and ensuring that convicted terrorists spend a minimum of two thirds of their term behind bars before being considered for release by the Parole Board. We have taken action to ensure that offenders sentenced for serious sexual and violent offences spend longer in custody. Last year, we delivered the Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2020, which ended automatic release from custody at the halfway point for offenders given a standard determinate sentence of seven years or more for a serious violence or sexual offence that carries a maximum penalty of life.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge raised the issue of rape. It is important to note that under these provisions, if the individual is sentenced to seven years or more, they will now serve much longer. Although I genuinely welcome her points on this—we all want to see robust sentences in respect of those who attack women, and particularly for sex crimes—we have had to address a situation brought about by section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whereby people who committed that kind of crime would be released at the halfway point. It is a really important step to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring that people are not automatically released at the halfway point. That was the situation that we inherited, and that is the situation we have changed.
Stephanie Peacock
Does the Minister agree that there should be a minimum sentence for rape?
Alex Chalk
We would happily look at a minimum sentence for rape. There are minimum sentences for firearms and third-strike burglary. Respectfully, it would sound more credible if we had had support on that issue on Second Reading of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to provide longer sentences for those who commit these appalling crimes. I do not question for a second the commitment across this House to ensuring that those who commit appalling offences serve their time, but there are ways we can do it, and it requires everyone to step up and vote for it.
To deliver on our manifesto commitments to make punishments tougher for the most serious offenders and end automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes, we recently introduced the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to Parliament. Measures in the Bill would ensure that serious sexual and violent offenders who receive a standard determinate sentence of four years or more serve two thirds of their sentence in custody, aligning their release point with serious violent and sexual offenders sentenced to seven years or more.
To recap: more offences, longer sentences, longer in custody. But we have gone further, because we have longer licence periods as well. We have brought in a wider range of terrorism offences within the scope of the extended determinate sentence. No longer is it the case that someone is released on licence until the end of their sentence. In certain cases, that licence period will be extended so that they know that if they transgress again, offend against the public, betray innocents, betray trust or destroy lives, they can expect to be punished again.
The victims code has rightly been referred to. The Government are taking action to ensure that victims are supported at every stage of the criminal justice system. The new victims code came into force on 1 April, and it sets out 12 key rights for all victims of crime. I respectfully urge right hon. and hon. Members to have a look at it if they ever get a moment. It is the culmination of two years of extensive work, including wide stakeholder engagement with victims and victims groups to ensure we have a clear and comprehensive framework for victims’ rights. The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) made an important point about the awareness of this, and she is right to do so. Awareness is critically important, so let me take the opportunity in this place to emphasise that right 9 is the right to be given information about the outcome of the case and any appeals. Right 9.4 says:
“If you think the sentence given to the offender is far too low”—
that’s the heading—
“For some (but not all) cases sentenced in the Crown Court you can ask the Attorney General to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal to reconsider it. This can only be done if the Attorney General thinks that the sentence was not just lenient but ‘unduly lenient’, such that the sentencing judge made a gross error or imposed a sentence outside the range of sentences reasonably available in the circumstances of the case.”
It goes on, but I will not read the whole thing out. We all have a duty to amplify and publicise that, and I take my opportunity to do so today.
Later this year, we will consult on the detail of the victims Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech, which will enshrine those 12 key rights in law and hold agencies accountable for delivering those rights to victims, with a view to their publishing a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill will set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support. Let me say also, because it was an important point, that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge picked up in her powerful remarks what can be the context for appalling crimes such as murder, namely, gateway offences of domestic abuse and so on.
We are investing record amounts in support for victims: more than £300 million this year, including £27 million to recruit 700 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, in an increase of more than 40%. That is important because we want to ensure that women—it is usually women, frankly—who are the victims of domestic abuse have the opportunity and support to go out and support the prosecution that leads to that individual being taken out of circulation, if that is the will of the court and the proportionate and appropriate sentence. That means that the individual does not go on to commit further appalling crimes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford referred to his specific constituent’s case, the dreadful case of Joseph Falconer. He and other hon. and right hon. Members made the point about time limits. It is important to note that in the circumstances that he referred to—where, say, a judge has imposed a contempt of court order and reporting restrictions because to report on the case might lead to a miscarriage of justice elsewhere—the CPS automatically sends to the Attorney General’s office a summary of that case and it is then reviewed. So that takes place as a matter of course to deal with precisely that point. When it comes to deferred sentence, the clock only starts ticking on the date the substantive sentence takes effect. Those are two aspects that I hope provide my hon. Friend with some comfort.
I accept, however, that there is a wider issue about ticking clocks. We have to weigh up the balance of our criminal justice system and recognise, as a matter of conscience, that where an individual has been convicted, punished and disgraced at the hands of the state, they need to know the maximum extent of his punishment, save in truly exceptional circumstances. There are cases, of course, when even if he is given a long sentence—tough—he is going to get a longer one because that is what the Court of Appeal says. None the less, in the majority of cases, it is important that when that person stands up and is told what his sentence is he has a sense that that is the sentence he is going to get.
The other important point is for victims as well. Those people who have built themselves up to this moment, to the sentencing hearing, which can be a moment of great distress, want to know that that is it. A sigh of relief; this is over. We need to weigh that in the balance to ensure that there is a measure of finality.
My hon. Friend made an excellent point about the youth court and he talked in particular about the issue of rape and the extent to which that could somehow be taken outside the unduly lenient scheme. He made a powerful point about that. It is important to note that for those very rare cases that are dealt with in the youth court because, for the sake of argument, the offender is aged 13, for example, if the court decides, having learned about the offending, that it is so serious that the maximum penalty of two years with a detention and training order is insufficient, they do now have power—I have checked—to commit that to the Crown court. It was previously under section 53 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, but that has been superseded by the sentencing code legislation.
Let me close by saying that if people are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, it is critical not only that people are convicted for the wrongs that they have done but that they are required to serve a sentence that reflects the indignation, anger and upset that we feel as a society on their behalf. Sentences are longer, and more offences have been created. People are serving longer in custody, and there is the opportunity for longer licence periods as well. We are extending the unduly lenient system to ensure that justice can be done, and of course we will continue to keep the matter under review. As we do so, we will have the remarks made by right hon. and hon. Members in this House firmly in mind.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Legal advice and legal aid underpin a fair, rules-based society. The Legal Aid Agency keeps market capacity under continual review to ensure provision across England and Wales, and legal advice is always available through the Civil Legal Advice telephone service.
Navendu Mishra [V]
In Greater Manchester, we are lucky that the Greater Manchester Law Centre provides an excellent service for people across the city region, but in my constituency of Stockport there are no community legal aid providers; it joins the 78% of local authorities in England and Wales that do not have that service. Does the Minister agree that these legal aid deserts are denying vital support to millions of people, and will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that there is the necessary funding for every area to have an acceptable number of legal aid providers?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Legal aid is essential, which is why I am delighted that when the law centres sought support from the Government, every penny piece requested was provided—including, by the way, to Greater Manchester Law Centre, which received £140,000. We are standing behind excellent legal aid providers, including those who provide it digitally and remotely, because when it comes to legal advice, what matters most is quality, not necessarily geography.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is spot on, is he not? The Government must address the vast deserts where no legal aid providers exist. The disabled and vulnerable in most of England and Wales have been denied access to justice due to the Government’s inaction. How can the Minister possibly justify a situation where 37 million people in Stockport, Hull and across the rest of England and Wales do not have access to a community care legal aid provider? He talks tough, he promises all sorts; he does nothing. Get on with it!
Alex Chalk
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. What a shame that when there was a Labour Government, he did nothing to stand up to the Labour Prime Minister who decried “fat cat” legal aid lawyers and said that he was going to
“derail the gravy train of legal aid”.
Where was the hon. Gentleman then? Nowhere. This is the Government who are getting behind legal aid and getting behind the civil legal aid service, and who, by the way, funded the community justice fund, which provided support for the Disability Law Service that he wants to see, and so do I.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Reducing crime in prisons is a key priority. We are delivering on our commitment to invest £100 million in bolstering prison security and clamping down on the weapons, drugs and mobile phones that fuel violence and crime behind bars. This investment enhances security at the entry point to prisons, using the latest technology, and strengthens staff resilience to corruption, as well as targeting organised criminals who exploit prisons as a lucrative market.
Andy Carter
As the Minister says, many of the crimes committed in prison are related to illegal contraband that finds its way inside. Constituents who live close to Thorn Cross Prison in Appleton Thorn in my constituency have told me about their increasing worry about daylight drops in gardens that border the open prison. Could the Minister tell me what steps he is taking and what residents can do to address that real concern, particularly where children are playing in gardens and their parents are concerned for their welfare?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point on behalf of his constituents. The Government’s £100 million investment to prevent crime in prison has enabled hundreds of security items to be purchased that will assist his constituents, including 176 search dogs, 300 metal detection archways and wands, mobile phone detection technology and 51 X-ray body scanners. We have also developed clear guidance for prisons on managing trespassers within the open estate, including protocols on reporting evidence to the police and addressing the site-specific security risks. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further if that would be helpful.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to the Chief Coroner, his predecessor and his staff for their work in supporting coroners during the covid-19 pandemic. Covid-19 has had an enormous impact on coroners and their staff; it is therefore to their very great credit that in 2020 the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest remained at 27 weeks, as it was in 2019.
Steve McCabe [V]
I thank the Minister for his answer, but my constituents who are served by the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service often express frustration at delays when they are making burial arrangements. It is a particular issue for Muslim and Jewish families, for whom burials should take place as soon as possible after death. What is being done to ensure that coroners’ courts engage with local religious group to address these problems and make sure that religious beliefs are respected and honoured?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, so they will operate independently. However, I can say that the Government have provided over £4 billion to local authorities to ensure that those coroners who are doing this important work have the resources they need. So far as the Birmingham and Solihull coroner service’s timeliness is concerned, the average time from a death being reported to the conclusion of the inquest in that area was 10 weeks, down from 14 weeks, in 2019. I am pleased to say that that is well below the average in England and Wales.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
As at 31 December 2020, the cumulative length of service by all band 3 to 5 prison officers was more than 243,000 years. From late 2016 to the end of December 2020, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 3,600. Having experienced staff in prisons is vital to ensuring that they remain safe, secure and decent.
Ms Rimmer
I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. We both know that being a prison officer is a difficult job that takes years of experience to perfect, yet a combined 86,000 years of experience has been lost since 2010. Does he accept that this has had a catastrophic effect on safety, and will he commit to giving prison officers the pay rise his experts recommend to tackle the problem?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for rightly paying tribute to our prison officers. Let us just pause to reflect for a moment. At the beginning of this pandemic, Public Health England estimated that, on a reasonable worst-case scenario, more than 2,500 prisoners could die in prison. Because of the excellent work of our prison officers, that figure—although each one is a tragedy—is closer to 119. It was prison officers who delivered that. I am pleased to say that, even in this difficult financial situation, our prison officers received between 2.5% and 7.5% increases last year. We are also investing heavily in the security equipment needed, including PAVA spray, SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—training, and body-worn video cameras, that make prisons a better and more conducive environment not only for prisoners but for prison staff.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
The Minister must surely recognise that there are consequences to 86,000 years of staff experience being lost since 2010, because what happens when there are not enough experienced staff can be summed up in one word: violence. In 2019, violence was 134% higher than in 2010. Even last year, with prisoners locked up alone, violence was 38% higher. Self-harm has doubled, and assaults on staff have tripled. Experience matters. With further cuts coming, thanks to the Minister’s friends in the Treasury, will he recognise this? How is he going to make our prisons safer?
Alex Chalk
I agreed with the first half of that but not the second half. It is absolutely right that we have retention. May I reassure the hon. Lady that there are an additional 3,600 prison officers? In fact, I am sorry to say that what she said about the data on violence is wrong. The violence in terms of assaults on prison officers has gone down by 20%. I hope she will also be reassured to know that the leaving rate is down by nearly 3% as well. We are getting behind our prison officers. We are investing in our prisons. We are providing the security, providing the investment and making sure that their brilliant work can continue long into the future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and letter to the Department on this issue, and we will be providing the response. There is already a mechanism in place to facilitate transfers of sentenced persons to and from the United States. British nationals serving sentences in the US can request to be transferred to a UK prison under the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.
Sir Desmond Swayne
In the particular circumstance, and given the powerful case I have made in correspondence, can the Minister fix it for my constituent to commence his sentence in the UK?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has fought doggedly on behalf of his constituent. The prisoner transfer agreement that exists between the US and the UK has been in place for 31 years. It does not allow for the so-called “takeover” of sentences. The only way this individual can be transferred is for his constituent to return to the US, commence his sentence and apply for transfer to a British prison. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that, once that application is agreed by the US, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service will endeavour to process the transfer as quickly as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021
Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.
Alex Chalk
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The draft statutory instruments before us are key components of the Government’s whiplash reforms. The measures will not only simplify the process of settling whiplash claims, but provide certainty to claimants as to how much their claim is worth. They will also benefit society more generally by enabling an average reduction in insurance premiums for ordinary motorists of an estimated £35 per year.
This House has already undertaken extensive and useful debates on the merits of the Government’s policy during the passage of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Our time today is somewhat limited, so I will focus on the detail of the draft regulations, rather than on the substance of past policy debates.
The measures in part 1 of the 2018 Act alter the process for making whiplash claims. That is done primarily by defining what constitutes a whiplash injury, introducing a fixed tariff of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity—referred to by lawyers as PSLA—providing for an uplift to be applied to the tariff in exceptional circumstances, thereby preserving the discretion of the court, and banning the practice of seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without first seeking appropriate medical evidence.
In addition to the 2018 Act, we are increasing the small claims track limit in respect of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000. The Committee may be aware that the Government have previously committed to increasing the small claims limit for all other types of personal injury, including employers’ and public liability claims, to £2,000.
On Monday, however, my noble Friend Lord Wolfson QC confirmed in a written ministerial statement that the Government have listened to the views of Members of this House and others, and decided to limit this increase to £1,500 and to defer its implementation until April 2022. We believe that to be a sensible and pragmatic decision that will provide additional time for affected stakeholders to prepare.
The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 set out in a tariff the amount of damages payable for PSLA for whiplash injury or injuries of up to two years, and any minor psychological injuries suffered at the same time. The regulations also allow the court to apply an uplift of up to 20% of the tariff amount in exceptional circumstances. With regard to the ban on pre-medical offers to settle, the regulations specify what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and the experts who may provide it. That may differ, depending on whether the injuries include a non-whiplash element.
The purpose of the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021 is to give powers to the Financial Conduct Authority to enable it to monitor effectively and to enforce the ban on pre-medical offers to settle.
I will now provide a little additional detail on each of the sets of draft regulations, having summarised them. The tariff in the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 presents a rising scale of fixed payments determined by injury duration, with the damages reduced less at the top end to recognise more serious injuries. Claims with a prognosis that exceeds two years will fall outside the tariff.
We have reviewed and updated the previously published figures to account for inflation, using the consumer prices index system. We have also added a three-year future-proofing element to ensure that the figures do not move out of alignment with future inflationary pressures before the required statutory review. That leads to an increase of about 11% over the figures previously provided to the House.
The limit by which the court may apply an uplift in exceptional circumstances will be capped at 20%. That is intended to balance the need for an effective and predictable tariff, and to allow for judicial discretion. It takes account of feedback received during consultation and earlier parliamentary debates, and it reflects other similar jurisdictions. For example, Italy also allows for an uplift of up to one fifth.
During the passage of the 2018 Act, we introduced amendments to ensure that the views of the Lord Chief Justice were sought on the tariff and the uplift before regulations were made. Accordingly, we have undertaken that consultation and we are grateful for his consideration of those matters. Following that consultation, we will undertake an analysis of the available data after a year, with a view to considering whether an early review is appropriate. That is a matter that arose from our discussions with him.
The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 also specify exactly what constitutes appropriate medical evidence to be provided before an offer to settle a whiplash claim may be made or indeed sought. They provide that when claimants live or are examined in England and Wales, they must obtain a fixed-cost medical report from an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal.
Alternatively, if claimants suffer more serious injuries on the same occasion as the whiplash injury, they may rely on a report covering all their injuries, if that report is obtained from an expert listed on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. The purpose of that is to ensure that only claims that can be properly substantiated by a medical report are settled, because otherwise that litigation risk could be bought off. That in turn increases the cost of insurance premiums, thereby damaging the wider motoring public.
I would like to speak briefly about the Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021. These regulations give the FCA the power to take effective action in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the ban on seeking or making pre-medical offers to settle—precisely the mischief we want to address. This ban applies to various types of regulated persons as specified by the Act, which also identifies the FCA as the appropriate regulator to take account in respect of persons authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FSMA, as practitioners often refer to it.
The FCA is the regulator for insurers and claims management companies who may be involved in settling whiplash claims. These regulations ensure that the FCA has the powers it needs to regulate section 6 of the Act. In plain English, that means that if individuals were tempted to settle insurance claims without seeking a medical report, the FCA could step in and use its powers as a regulator to prevent them from doing so, or indeed to provide an appropriate sanction, should it feel it necessary to impose one.
I will end by emphasising that the measures contained in these regulations are necessary and important. They provide much-needed certainty to whiplash claimants; they will create savings that will be passed on to consumers; and they enable the FCA to effectively regulate the ban on offering and seeking offers to settle such claims without appropriate medical evidence. The regulations serve the public interest and I commend them to the Committee.
The Chair
I now call the Opposition spokesman, who wins today’s prize for the most attractive face mask.
Alex Chalk
Yes, lots of interesting and fair questions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for expressing himself as he has and for setting some of that initial context, which he did very fairly. I just want to develop that point before turning to his questions. As he rightly pointed out, the context of this is a worrying concern about what can only fairly be described as an explosion in whiplash claims, associated with grave concerns about the authenticity of a significant number of them. Only a brief look at some of the data could make one’s hair stand on end.
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is very diffident on this matter. The latest ABI fraud data report for 2019 found that fraudulent motor claims are the most common insurance fraud, with more than 58,000 in 2019, valued at £605 million, which was up 6% on the previous year. However, City of London Police’s insurance fraud enforcement department achieved 433 convictions in 2019, totalling 239 years in custodial sentences arising out of this matter.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman was making is that this, of course, passes costs on to others, but it is worth taking a moment to dwell on how much we are talking about. The suggestion is that this will lead to savings of around £1.2 billion a year. None the less, his central point is a very fair one, which is to say, “Hang on a second; how can we be sure that these insurance companies will not simply pocket it and then up their profit margins, and the poor old consumer will not be reimbursed?” That is a fair challenge, but there are two limbs to the response to that.
The first part of the response is one that, bluntly, I did not expect to be able to update the House on today, but the impact of the pandemic—so cruel in so many ways—has unexpectedly shone a light on the likely behavioural response in certain regards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the pandemic people have driven their cars quite a lot less. As a result, there has been a lot of pressure from consumers asking their insurers for a refund on their premiums. It may be that there are people in this room who have done exactly that, so when you actually look at the data to see how the power of the market has had an impact upon premiums—nothing the Government can do, but simply the actions of consumers putting pressure on their insurers—it is quite instructive.
I will give an example of one provider, Confused. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the premium was £630. In the fourth quarter of 2020, it was £575. Similarly, another insurer, ABI, was at £483 in the fourth quarter of 2019, and £468 in 2020. In other words, the power of individuals going back to their insurers and saying, “You are going to have to reduce my premium on account of the fact that I haven’t been driving my car” has had a market impact. As such, I think we can take increasing confidence that there will be a consumer power to drive down these premiums, effectively telling the insurers, “The Government have taken these steps to ensure that there is less fraud taking place by way of whiplash, and we know that there are savings of around £1.2 billion, so pass them on to me or I will go elsewhere”.
Mr McFadden
The Government cannot just leave it to the consumer to have to take the initiative. The Minister is probably right that some consumers have approached the insurance companies because they have been driving a lot less this past year, but trying to phone any big company like that—I am not referring to any insurance company in particular—and get through the systems is not easy. I suggest that we need more from the Government. Surely there has to be some sort of pressure from the Government, some sort of deal here, so that if the Government are going to pass legislation like this, the very purpose of which is to save the £1.2 billion in payouts, then insurance companies have got to pass it on. Otherwise, what is the point of what we are doing here?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman should have waited for me to make my second point, because he has asked and he shall receive. Let me just finish off the first point. It is not a case of always having to phone the insurer to say, “I paid X, so now you should give me a refund.” The point is simply this: if insurance companies do not offer competitive premiums, people are likely to go elsewhere. The experience of the pandemic is precisely that: unless those insurance companies act in a way that is competitive, they are likely to lose business.
The second point is this. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to be holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire. Having made a firm commitment to pass savings on to consumers, insurers should be held to account. That is precisely why the 2018 Act includes a statutory requirement on insurers to provide information to the Financial Conduct Authority on how they have passed on savings.
Insurers must provide that information to the FCA by April 2024, as stated in the draft regulations, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study. The Government, with the assistance of the FCA, will assess whether the industry has passed on the benefits of the reforms to consumers. A report will be made to Parliament after April 2024. That will be his moment to say, “Do you remember, Minister Chalk, when we were having that conversation in April 2021, you told me that the savings would be passed on?” We have ensured that the mechanism is built into the regulations to hold those companies’ feet to the fire.
With regard to the portal, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether a person’s GP could be considered. It is important to note that under all sorts of legislation, whether on medical negligence or road traffic accidents, we have to have the right medical expert for the particular issue to come before the court—or, in this case, with a bit of luck, not to come before the court. It has to be the right medical expert. Without any discourtesy to GPs, they are not always the right expert. If the GP has ensured accreditation under the system, there is no bar to the GP being that expert, but it is not always automatically the case that a GP would be able to provide the medical report, because that might not be within their realm of expertise. There is nothing unusual about that and certainly nothing unusual in the draft regulations so far as that is concerned.
How will data be handled? Data will be handled in the normal way. There is overarching legislation that covers that.
On the impact of taking lawyers out of the system, we make no bones about the fact that for a small category of case, it is more proportionate and appropriate to do precisely that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice said about this. Characteristically, he put it very clearly and pithily. He noted that the tariff was a
“narrowly defined statutory derogation from the principle of full compensation through an assessment of damages by the courts”.
He was saying that the Government are deliberately carving out an area to do with road traffic accidents to ensure that, where additional costs are created that pass on additional expense to consumers, that is dealt with in a surgical way. I say “surgical” because vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists are not covered. That is an important exclusion.
Mr McFadden
For two reasons, I am grateful to the Minister for stressing that. First, those groups he mentioned—pedestrians, cyclists and so on—are not covered, and that is important. Secondly, the broader importance—I would be grateful if he can reassure us—is that this is a carve-out just for whiplash in road traffic accidents, and it will not affect injuries at work or other kinds of injuries in which the normal system of claiming through a court and having a judgment on the proportionality of the accident will take place. Some people, responding to the draft regulations, have said, “This is unfair, because you are treating one class of injury unlike another.” There is that argument, and I repeat it, but a lot of our constituents want to be reassured that the draft regulations will not have a broader ripple into their circumstances if, for example, they were injured at work.
Alex Chalk
That is critical. The Government believe in access to justice. That means that if people make their way to work and their employer has created an unsafe environment, so they trip over something and need to make a personal injury claim, they should not be crowded out—not shut out from making a claim. The draft regulations preserve precisely that.
I will address the issue of mixed tariff cases and bring my remarks to a close. Section 3(8) of the 2018 Act provides that, where a claimant suffers injuries in addition to a whiplash injury—the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—the court is not prevented from awarding damages to reflect the combined effect of the injuries sustained. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine how mixed injuries are addressed. We are confident, given the excellence of our judiciary, that they are well placed to resolve such cases on a day-by-day basis.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are proportionate, calibrated and targeted measures that serve the public and consumers’ interests, drive down on fraud and act to drive down insurance premiums. They are manifestly good for the public and for road users. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.—(Alex Chalk.)
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 362).
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford. The statutory instrument before us today prevents enforcement agents or, in plain English, bailiffs from attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious of circumstances. The Committee will be familiar with the structure and content of this statutory instrument in light of previous iterations.
The instrument applies to enforcement action in England and amends the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 in only one respect by amending the expiry date from the end of March to the end of May. The Government continue to balance the need for clarity on how long the restrictions will be enforced against the ongoing developments in the pandemic. Retaining the restrictions in this instrument until 31 May, while covid-19 restrictions remain in place, will align with the broader strategy for protecting public health and will continue to help reduce pressure on essential public services as we move out of lockdown.
The extension to 31 May is broadly in line with the road map out of lockdown. Step 3 of the road map will be taken no earlier than 17 May, following a review of the data on the impact of the earlier steps. Step 3 will see a number of restrictions being lifted, including the restrictions on domestic overnight stays. Step 4 is scheduled for no earlier than 21 June. In considering the date of 31 May, in most cases bailiffs are required to give 14 days’ notice of eviction so, in practice, protection from the enforcement of evictions will endure in most cases until mid-June. The choice of this date and, indeed, the regulations overall strike the appropriate balance in the prevailing circumstances.
The SI before us today extends the end date in the one that we debated on 9 March. As I set out then, since the start of the pandemic the Government have put in place support to protect renters directly. That includes measures such as these regulations, extending notice periods to end a tenancy, increasing the local housing allowance to the 30th percentile of local market rents in each area, and making £140 million available to local authorities in discretionary housing payments in 2021-22 to help renters with housing costs. We have also acted indirectly through furlough, support for the self-employed, bounce back loans and so on, all of which contribute to supporting and sustaining the income tenants need to meet their obligations.
We have continued to provide for limited exemptions from the ban in cases where the competing public interest in ensuring access to justice, preventing harm to third parties or taking action against egregious behaviour and upholding the integrity of the rental market must be upheld. Those exemptions are as follows: where there are claims against trespassers who are persons unknown; where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, false statements, domestic abuse and social tenancies or substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent; or where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied.
The SI contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied that an exemption applies on a case-by-case basis. That ensures that a clear, uniform, transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban applies. In cases where a court has decided that an exemption to the ban does indeed apply, bailiffs need to give tenants at least 14 days’ notice of an eviction in most circumstances and have been asked not to enforce evictions where a tenant has symptoms of covid-19 or is self-isolating.
In addition to these regulations, the Government have also introduced a requirement in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that landlords, in all but the most serious circumstances, must provide tenants with six months’ notice before beginning formal possession proceedings in the courts. Prior to the pandemic, in section 21 cases, landlords needed to give two months’ notice, and other grounds required as little as two weeks, so this requirement for longer notice is significant. It has also been extended to 31 May via an SI is laid by the Housing Minister on 10 March, and that requirement to provide six months’ notice in the majority of cases means that most renters served notice now can stay in their homes until October 2021, with time to find alternative support or accommodation. That emergency protection will remain in place until at least 31 May. The Government will consider the best approach after that date, taking into account public health advice and the wider road map.
The Government are continuing to take action to prevent people getting into financial hardship through the furlough scheme, as I have mentioned, and the self-employment income support scheme, both of which will remain in place until September. In addition, the £20 a week universal credit top-up will continue for a further six months, and we will provide a one-off payment of £500 to eligible working tax credit claimants. At the Budget, we also launched a new recovery loan scheme to ensure that businesses, notably the small and medium-sized enterprises that are the backbone of the British economy, will continue to be well supported in their ability to access the finance they need throughout 2021.
Under the existing business loan schemes, over 1.5 million British businesses have benefited from Government-backed support, receiving over £70 billion in total. We have also provided an extra £1 billion to increase local housing allowance rates so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents, as I have indicated, and in 2021-22 local housing allowance rates will be maintained at their increased level, meaning that claimants renting in the private sector will continue to benefit from significant increase in the rates applied in April last year. In 2021-22, the Government will also make £140 million available to provide additional financial support. Local authorities can use this discretionary funding to help renters with their housing costs.
Temporary court arrangements and rules have been put in place by the Master of the Rolls working group, and they remain in place to ensure appropriate support to all parties until the end of July. The arrangements include the introduction of a new review stage at least 28 days before the substantive hearing, so that tenants can access legal advice, a requirement for any cases that were started prior to August 2020 to be reactivated by their landlords until 30 April, and a requirement for landlords to provide the courts and judges with information on how tenants have been affected by the pandemic. In addition, the Government are piloting a new free mediation service as part of the possession action process to support landlords and tenants to resolve disputes before a formal court hearing takes place.
In short, this SI provides tenants with protection from eviction up to 31 May in a way that ensures vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes during the current covid-19 restrictions. In doing so, it protects public health and helps to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of introduction. I am slightly less grateful for what followed, but I will take a few moments to respond.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for how he expressed his points, and I certainly agree that any homelessness is a stain on a decent society, but this Government have done more to address it than any Government in recent history. When he talks about what the Opposition would do, I am drawn to recall that, in 13 years of government, did the Labour party introduced a homelessness reduction Act? No. Did the Labour Government do anything to address the housing shortage? No. It has fallen to this Government to build more homes, to introduce the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and, in the course of this pandemic, to roll out what I can fairly be called an unprecedented package of support running to some £400 billion that is there to support people from all parts of society including, of course, renters.
The hon. Gentleman says with great criticism that these measures do not go far enough, but is he seriously suggesting that people who have been found to have perpetrated domestic abuse should somehow be protected from eviction? Surely he cannot be saying that, because if he wants to stand up for victims—I know he believes this—he should not give a free pass to people who perpetrate that kind of crime. This Government are striking a balance between protecting the needs of renters with a package of financial and statutory support, while also ensuring that those who perpetrate egregious behaviour should not be able to hide behind the pandemic to perpetrate their criminality. We take pride in these regulations, we think they strike that right balance, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on securing this important debate on strengthening the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in his opening remarks, miscarriages of justice have terrible consequences for all those involved. He highlighted defendants, and their families and friends, and he was right to do so. He might also have added the impact on victims, because for a victim to go through a criminal justice process, only to find out that the wrong person has been convicted, is a cruel blow indeed. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for fighting this fight, for railing against injustice and for shining a light on the risk of miscarriages of justice. We are proud, as I think he is, of the work of the independent CCRC, which, on its establishment in 1997, was the world’s first statutory publicly funded body set up to review alleged miscarriages of justice.
It is worth pausing to reflect on the international context. Before the debate, I read an excellent paper by Kent Roach from the University of Toronto faculty of law. He noted that
“most common law jurisdictions have yet to create new institutions and procedures to correct miscarriages of justice and still rely on the political executive to order new appeals.”
In other words, they petition the Home Secretary or their equivalent to refer a case to the Court of Appeal. He adds:
“Most Australian and American states continue to rely on unfettered executive discretion on applications for mercy or clemency as their exceptional means to correct miscarriages of justice.”
Some have referred to that as a sort of conservatism of the legal system, which emphasises the finality of the process. In parts of the world where there is an embryonic form of CCRC, often the test for that threshold is much higher. For example, in North Carolina an establishment of factual innocence is required before a referral can be made. I make that point because we should not lose sight of the fact that the CCRC, although now of some antiquity, remains an international pioneer.
In September 2020, the CCRC referred its 750th case for appeal, meaning that it has referred one case every eight working days since it was established. Of those cases, more than 450 appeals have been allowed by the appeal courts, and each one of those represents a conviction or sentence that would have stood if it were not for the diligent efforts of CCRC commissioners and their staff. Given the commission’s vital role, it is absolutely right that we should ask whether we are doing all we can to support the CCRC in its work.
I join the hon. Member for Huddersfield in commending the authors from the Westminster Commission on Miscarriages of Justice, which as he rightly indicates was a distinguished panel headed by Lord Garnier and Baroness Stern. We recognise that they have given their time to shine a light on this matter. They produced an extremely worthwhile report, and I thank them for it. I also pick up on the hon. Gentleman’s point about the spirit in which they produced the report. I was reading the foreword, in which I found the remarks that their conclusions were advanced
“in a spirit of constructive criticism, admiration and goodwill.”
That reflects the points that the hon. Gentleman made. We accept those observations in that spirit. Before I move on to some of those recommendations, let me emphasise that I sincerely thank the members of the commission for their clear analysis and detailed conclusions.
The report makes more than 30 recommendations, covering a broad area. I hope the hon. Gentleman, and indeed you, Sir Charles, will forgive me if I do not reflect on each individually, because time does not allow for that. I can say that the MOJ will consider each recommendation made for the Department in detail. I know that the CCRC will do the same for the recommendations that the report makes for it. He will have seen that it has responded already, albeit in a summary fashion. No doubt there will be a further response in due course.
The report highlights areas where there have been criticisms of the CCRC. One is the rate at which it has referred applications to the appeal courts in recent years, a point touched on by the hon. Gentleman. In fact, in the past 12 months, the CCRC has referred 70 cases to the appeal courts. That is more cases than in any previous year. It is important and fair to note that a significant proportion of those relate to the Post Office Horizon case, but none the less, it is right to emphasise that each case must be considered on its merits, with careful consideration of the evidence that exists in each specific case. We suggest that this is a significant achievement, delivered in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, when staff and commissioners have had to adapt to new ways of working.
While there must rightly be a focus on ensuring that those cases with merit are referred to the Court of Appeal or, indeed, other appellate jurisdictions, I agree with the CCRC that the referral rate cannot be the only measure of its success. There will always be factors outside the CCRC’s control that affect the number of applications and, indeed, referrals it makes in a given year. It is important for public confidence and for applicants that cases referred to the CCRC are reviewed thoroughly and objectively. The CCRC continues to closely monitor its referral rate, and it works with practitioners and academics to make sure that it is aware of any potential new cases of miscarriages of justice. I will return to that point in a moment, if I may.
Specifically on the CCRC’s performance, there have been significant improvements. By way of example, in 2017, it closed just over 70% of cases within 12 months. That figure has now risen to 83%. In the same period, the average duration of a review, from allocation to decision, has decreased from 40 weeks to 36 weeks currently. The hon. Gentleman referred to question marks over whether the budget somehow inhibits its having a proactive role. The CCRC takes a proactive role in reaching out to people who may need its services. Of course, it can only review cases that come through its front door, so to speak, which is why its work to reach those who may want to make an application—whether in prisons or elsewhere—is important. This outreach work is taken seriously. It has continued throughout the pandemic, taking place through planned updates to the website and a marked increase in the use of social media. In normal circumstances, it is done through visits to prisons, a stakeholder forum, working with other leaders in the sector, whether Barnardo’s or the Howard League, and other forms of targeted outreach.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the real possibility test. For those listening who might not be familiar with it, this test must be crossed before a case can be referred. The test is whether there is a real possibility that the appeal will overturn the verdict. That test is unchanged from the CCRC’s inception, and as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, there have been some criticisms of it. In using it, however, the CCRC is applying the express will of Parliament. I am aware that the Westminster commission’s report concludes that the test is problematic. It says, in effect—I hope it will forgive me for the shorthand—that it creates too much deference to the Court of Appeal. In effect, the bar is set too high. Let me make a couple of observations. First, changing the test has wider implications for the work of the CCRC. Indeed, in 2015 the Justice Committee, no less, recommended that any change would have to be undertaken in the light of a change to the Court of Appeal’s grounds for allowing appeals in total.
It is also worth pointing out that the mere possibility that the Court of Appeal will overturn the verdict is likely to be too low a bar, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept. Equally, real possibility is a far lower bar than exists, for example, when the Crown Prosecution Service has to make a decision about whether to charge someone. There has to be a probability that a tribunal of fact, properly directed, would convict. So it is some way short of probability, but of course above mere possibility. I accept that this is an inexact science, but it is not immediately clear to me how amending the test would make a material difference. As I say, we will keep the matter under review.
It is not appropriate for me to comment on how the CCRC, as an independent body, applies the test, but the current chief executive officer told the Westminster commission that she does not feel that it inhibits the ability of the CCRC to make referrals. I am confident that the CCRC will continue to adopt a professional, impartial and objective approach in deciding whether the test has been met in each case.
Let me turn to appeal mechanisms, although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to them in detail. The report recommends changes to the criminal appeal mechanisms. Current legislation already allows the CCRC to refer a case to the Court of Appeal in exceptional circumstances, and it also allows for appeal outside the 28-day limit if the Court considers that there are justifiable reasons for the delay. In simple terms, if a defendant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal outside the 28-day period, but he or she has good reasons for that delay, he or she can put those before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal has shown itself well able to make a fair decision about whether extending time is appropriate in that individual case. To be clear, we do not currently have plans to review or amend legislation on criminal appeals, but we acknowledge the points that have been made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to resources. The Westminster commission considers that the CCRC is under- resourced. Decisions about funding are made by the Ministry of Justice annually in consultation with the CCRC. Funding figures for the MOJ in 2021-22 have not been voted on by Parliament and will be released in spring. In considering the funding settlement, it is important to weigh in the balance the fact that the MOJ has provided the CCRC with substantial capital funding over the past two years so that it can upgrade its IT systems and improve its casework processes. That investment alone totals more than £1.5 million, and it will support the CCRC in delivering high-quality casework.
Of course, it is the case that to make fair decisions, good people are required. I absolutely accept that. No amount of technology is going to address that, but it makes an important contribution to the smooth running of the CCRC. Although the hon. Gentleman deprecates the per diem approach, it can mean that the CCRC can potentially recruit counsel to work as commissioners where they might not necessarily want to be full-time employees. It allows the CCRC to recruit high-calibre people to act as commissioners, and it seems to me that that is something to consider properly.
The report also refers to strengthening the CCRC’s leadership and independence. There is no question but that the independence of the CCRC is of vital importance to the public’s confidence in its work. I welcome the High Court’s finding in July 2020 that the CCRC is both operationally and constitutionally independent of the MOJ. The judgment found that changes made as a result of the tailored review undertaken by the Department did not represent a diminution of the CCRC’s independence or integrity. I am confident that the chair, assisted by commissioners and senior management of the CCRC, has the strength and leadership to continue to deliver and improve the work of this vital part of our criminal justice system, and crucially to do so without fear or favour and entirely independently.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned legal aid. We absolutely recognise the importance of legal aid: it is a critical foundation stone of a fair criminal justice system. Significant sums of money are being put into the criminal legal aid system, not least through the first stage of the criminal legal aid review, which has injected up to £51 million into the system. There is an independent review of criminal legal aid taking place at the moment, tasked with securing the sustainability of the criminal legal aid system.
The CCRC remains something of a pioneer by international standards, despite being founded in 1997. It is a highly valued feature of the criminal justice landscape. We will continue to work constructively to strengthen and enhance its vital work. Reports like that of the Westminster commission provide an important challenge and help us to do just that. I will close by thanking the CCRC and paying tribute to its staff for their efforts to investigate miscarriages of justice. Their work strengthens justice and the rule of law, and makes us a fairer nation.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Education helps prisoners to boost their employability, build their self-esteem, and make a law-abiding contribution to society post release. Since April 2019, we have invested more than £20 million in improving technology in prisons, including investing in infrastructure that will support educational delivery.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer. As he says, prison education programmes can be hugely beneficial, in terms of rehabilitation and preventing reoffending; future employability, life skills and literacy; or simply, as he says, boosting self-esteem. However, despite the figures that he mentions, there has been a dire lack of investment over the years. Can he tell us why the Government’s promised prison education service, which was in last year’s sentencing White Paper and, indeed, the Government’s 2019 manifesto, is completely absent from the Bill that we will vote on later today?
Alex Chalk
We do not need to legislate for that. We are absolutely committed to an enhanced prison education service, and I am pleased to be able to say that, in a prison close to the hon. Lady’s constituency, we are rolling out additional curriculum and neurodiversity specialists to drive reform. We absolutely believe in education and we are putting in the resources to ensure that it gets better every day.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Prison safety and security is a key priority. The Government are investing £100 million to introduce robust measures such as x-ray body scanners and phone blocking technology, as well as tools such as body-worn cameras and PAVA spray. On pay, in July 2020 the Government accepted in full six out of seven recommendations made by the Prison Service pay review body, delivering an increase in pay of at least 2.5% for all Prison Service staff, from those working on the gate through to those on the landings.
Mary Kelly Foy [V]
We heard at last month’s Justice questions that rejecting this expert advice will undermine prison safety and is, in fact, a false economy, because once tax receipts and staff retention are taken into consideration this pay rise practically pays for itself, so what is the real reason for denying prison officers pay justice? Is it because the Treasury is worried it will encourage other public sector workers to demand a decent pay rise too?
Alex Chalk
It is important to note that six out of the seven recommendations were accepted in full. The freeze will not apply to those people earning under £24,000. When it comes to safety, which was the central premise of the hon. Lady’s question, we have to consider the conditions that make a difference to those valuable and professional officers on the landings. Do they feel safe? Do they have a body-worn camera? Do they have SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—personal safety training? That is what we want to focus on, so they can get the protection they deserve.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 164).
The statutory instrument before us extends the existing prohibition on enforcement agents—bailiffs—from attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. It applies to enforcement action in England and will be in force until the end of March 2021. The House has debated this restriction on two previous occasions, so I will take the matter in short.
This statutory instrument is a public health rather than an economic measure. It extends the restrictions on enforcement agents carrying out evictions that have been in place since 17 November until 31 March. It prevents enforcement agents from giving tenants notices of eviction or from attending residential premises to enforce a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. That ensures we continue to protect public health during the national lockdown, at a time when the risk of virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burden on the NHS and local authorities.
We have continued to provide for limited exemptions from the ban in cases where the Government feel that the competing public interests in ensuring access to justice, preventing harm to third parties, taking action against egregious behaviour and upholding the integrity of the rental market sufficiently outweigh the public health risks.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I do not oppose the regulations, but I am interested in what will happen after 31 March. Will the Minister indicate whether there will be fresh regulations to renew the constraints, or will 31 March be the end date, after which people will be able to recover their properties under normal common law?
Alex Chalk
May I say that the Government are acutely aware of the point that my hon. Friend properly makes? There is a balance to strike here, not least to consider article 1 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights—in other words, the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. As to when the decision will be made, it will be made shortly.
Let me return to the exemptions. They are as follows: first, where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; and, secondly, where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour or nuisance, false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies, or substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent, or where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of a tenant and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied.
I pause there to make the point—picking up on the representations made a few moments ago—that those cases where the arrears are particularly egregious are capable of leading to an eviction order. It is important to recognise that.
Sir Christopher Chope
The Minister mentioned the arrears being for more than six months but £1,500 a month in rent in arrears for five months is still £7,500. Is that not a big sum?
Alex Chalk
It certainly is a big sum. My hon. Friend, with laser-like focus, highlights the very balance that has to be struck. That is the issue and concern here: at the time of a pandemic, what is the correct balance to strike between the interests of tenants and of landlords? The Government are acutely conscious of the need to strike that delicate balance, and will continue to give active consideration to where it lies.
The statutory instrument contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied that the exemption applies on a case-by-case basis. That will ensure a clear, uniform and transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban applies. In cases in which a court has decided that an exemption to the ban applies, bailiffs need to give tenants at least 14 days’ notice of an eviction and have been asked not to enforce evictions where a tenant is self-isolating.
The instrument permits writs and warrants of restitution to be enforced. Those orders are issued in cases in which a person who has been evicted from premises re-enters those premises illegally. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are excluded from the ban.
These regulations will be in place until 31 March. We continue to keep the need for this measure under review, as I have indicated already, and will make an announcement shortly. In addition to the regulations, the Government have introduced a requirement in the Coronavirus Act 2020 to require landlords, in all but the most serious circumstances, to provide tenants with six months’ notice before beginning formal possession proceedings in the courts. That is an important protection for tenants, because we know that most tenants leave before the end of the landlord’s notice period. That protection will stay in place until at least the end of March 2021 and means that most renters now served notice by the landlord that they want them to leave the property can stay in their homes until September and have time to find alternative support or accommodation. The Government are also considering whether it is necessary to extend that measure.
As I have alluded to, the Government are continuing to take action to prevent people from getting into financial hardship by helping businesses to pay salaries—the most important measure to ensure that people can pay their rent—through the furlough scheme, which has been extended to the end of September, as the Committee is well aware. In addition, the self-employment income support scheme allows eligible individuals to claim a taxable grant worth up to 80% of their average monthly trading profits. That scheme will also remain in place until September.
We have also boosted the welfare safety net by billions of pounds. In the Budget, we announced that the universal credit top-up of £20 a week will continue for a further six months and that we will provide a one-off payment of £500 to eligible working tax credit claimants. We have, in addition, provided an extra £1 billion to increase local housing allowance rates so that they cover the lowest 30% of market rents. In 2021-22, local housing allowance rates will be maintained at their increased level, meaning that claimants renting in the private rented sector will continue to benefit from the significant increase in the rates applied in April 2020.
The Government have also made available for local authorities £180 million for discretionary housing payments to help renters with their housing costs. From 2021-22, the Government will make available an additional £140 million in DHP funding, which takes account of the increased LHA rates.
In addition, temporary court arrangements and rules remain in place to ensure appropriate support for all parties until the end of July. That includes the introduction of a new review stage at least 28 days before the substantive hearing, so that tenants can access legal advice; a requirement for any cases that were started prior to August 2020 to be reactivated by the landlords until 30 April; and a requirement for landlords to provide the courts and judges with information on how tenants have been affected by the pandemic.
In addition, the Government are piloting a new mediation service, as part of the possession action process, to support landlords and tenants to resolve disputes before a formal court hearing takes place. The new service is free for tenants and landlords that agree to use it. The aim is to help more tenants at an early stage of the formal possession process in order to help sustain tenancies where possible, thus reducing the risk of tenants becoming homeless. That pilot will run until August 2021.
The Government continue to think that it is proportionate to provide for an exemption in cases in which a landlord has brought a claim on the ground of rent arrears and where a full six months’ rent is owed. It is important to balance the impact of the ongoing restrictions on landlords, many of whom rely on rental income, with the need to continue to protect tenants. Given the significant level of financial support that has been available to renters through furlough, welfare and the other measures that I have referred to, it is unlikely—indeed, this is borne out by the statistics—that a full six months of arrears would have been accumulated solely due to covid-19.
Let me conclude by referring to some points that the right hon. Member for Tottenham made on the previous occasion we considered the matter. He talked about the level of financial support available to tenants to help them to pay their rent. As I have set out, the Budget has extended much of the support—I hope he will welcome this—that has been made available to help tenants to pay their rent. That includes extension of the furlough scheme, widening of access to grants in order to make a further 600,000 self-employed people eligible for help, and continuation of the universal credit top-up of £20 a week for a further six months.
The instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction up to 31 March, ensuring that vulnerable tenants are not forced from their homes during the current national lockdown restrictions. It is intended to protect public health during the national lockdown, at a time when the virus transmission is high, and to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those powerful representations, and speaking up for those individuals for whom their rental income is often their only source of income. We in this House must avoid falling into the trap of assuming that those in that situation are somehow vastly wealthy and have numerous other sources of income to draw on. I have constituents, as my hon. Friend evidently does as well, for whom nothing could be further than the truth.
I gently push back on the suggestion of legislation being hand to mouth. It is not that; it is about being agile and responsive to the fact that this is a fluid situation. Notwithstanding the remarkable roll-out of the vaccine and the positive direction of travel in respect of covid infection numbers, the Government properly have to consider matters day by day. Striking that balance, to which my hon. Friend properly referred, must take account of that prevailing epidemiological context.
On the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), respectfully I think he offered an unfair mischaracterisation of the Government’s position. He took no proper account of the fact that in normal circumstances, if someone was two months late with their rent that would trigger eviction proceedings. Under these proposals the trigger is six months—three times more—and again, it is about striking that proper balance.
My bigger concern was the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that the exemptions listed in this statutory instrument are loopholes—his word. That prompts the question, which of the “loopholes” would he close? The first exemption only exists where the claim is against trespassers, who are persons unknown. Is he saying that no eviction proceedings should be taken in those circumstances?
The second exemption applies where the order for the possession is made wholly or partly on the basis of antisocial behaviour or nuisance. Again, should the landlord not be able to evict then, or if false statements have been made or if there is domestic abuse in social tenancies? Where someone is battering the other person in that flat, is it really being suggested by the Labour party that the courts ought not to be able to intervene, or where the possession is made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant? It would be a ridiculous situation if the landlord could not intervene in circumstances where the tenant had sadly died.
For those reasons, we respectfully contend that the regulations strike the right balance and we have considered them with care. They are appropriate measures that ensure that the needs of tenants are properly safeguarded, while recognising that in those exceptional circumstances where it would make a nonsense of the law for courts not to be able to intervene, such circumstances are catered for. In those circumstances, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Sexual Offences Act 2003: Positions of Trust
Alex Chalk Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate on the law about positions of trust and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. She is right—she has a strong interest in this area of law, and she deserves the House’s thanks for her work, including steering the work of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings, which has helped inform our thinking as we consider the protections afforded to children and young people by the criminal law.
I confess I was a little disappointed by the very partisan tone that the hon. Lady took. Lest we forget, in 2003, under a Labour Government, a deliberate decision was made to limit the reach of the criminal law in this way. To emphasise that point, the Lord Chancellor at the time is the current shadow Attorney General. When we consider these matters, it is important to take some of the political sting out of it and recognise that they are difficult issues.
Our shared priority across the House is of course safeguarding young people and I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the abuse of power by those who hold positions of trust in relation to young people and choose to exploit that to engage in sexual activity.
I acknowledge that it has taken a little time for us to share our next steps following our review of the law in this area, but I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that extending of the scope of protection gives rise to the complex issues that have had to be considered in a challenging broader public health context.
The hon. Lady is right; we did have a debate in March last year. As she will be aware, there have since been a number of competing considerations, but I hope that I can reassure her that our work in this important area remains a priority. We are continuing to look at how the law might be strengthened in this area, and I hope to set out our plans very shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—she is Champion by name and champion for the work that she does, which we all appreciate and thank her for very much. We live in a very different world, as the Minister knows, and I believe that we in this House have a duty to protect the vulnerable and also those in positions of trust. What discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations, such as the Northern Ireland Assembly, to ensure that, whatever legislation comes through, we all come under the same rules and law?
Alex Chalk
It is a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I remember him asking this important question when we were in Westminster Hall. We have been sure to consult all the devolved Administrations, as indeed have sports bodies and faith bodies operating in those jurisdictions, because we want to ensure that we received feedback from across the United Kingdom in order to reach the right result.
Let us begin with some first principles, because they really are important. Any sexual activity with a child under 16 is a serious criminal offence regardless of whether consent is given. Equally, any non-consensual sexual activity is a crime whatever the age of the victim and whatever the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. If an adult has sexual intercourse with someone over 16 and they do not consent, that is a crime in all circumstances.
Furthermore, when it comes to consent, the law has developed through our courts to ensure that, in many circumstances, if the perpetrator was in a position of power where they could abuse the trust placed in them by a victim, that may negate—or may vitiate, in the words of the law—any supposed consent given. It is always important to consider the facts of individual cases and recognise that law in any event may be apt to cover the criminality that is engaged.
However, alongside the more general sexual offences that address this behaviour, as hon. Members will be aware, and as the hon. Member for Rotherham has made clear, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 contains a number of offences that specifically target any sexual activity between a 16 or 17-year-old young person and a person who holds a defined responsibility of trust in respect of that young person, even if such activity is consensual. Those offences were designed to build on the general child sex offences in the 2003 Act, but they are defined to target situations in which the young person has considerable dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability.
It is clear from the debates that took place in 2003 that the House was wrestling then, as indeed it is invited by the hon. Lady to wrestle now, with the balance that she struck. How do we broaden the offence to catch those people who are truly abusing their trust without making it so broad that, in effect, we raise by stealth the age of consent? She raises it as if to dismiss it, but it is none the less an extremely important consideration, because I venture to suggest that were the House to frame the offences too widely, in effect criminalising any person over 18 having sex with anyone aged 16 to 17, that would neither be in the public interest, nor would it meet the will of Parliament.
However, for all of that, the Government recognise that the current law may not be sufficient—this is the point I was making last year, and I reiterate it today—in dealing with situations in which an adult abuses their position of trust in order to exploit a 16 or 17-year-old, and that in the past victims have felt that the law was inadequate in this area. It is because the protection of children and young people from the scourge of sexual abuse and exploitation is one of this Government’s top priorities that we have looked at the issue in very great detail—in unapologetic detail. Making certain that the law continues to be effective in providing that protection is not just our priority, but our duty.
As the hon. Lady indicated, in 2019 we began an exhaustive review of the law on such abuses of positions of trust, to ascertain whether it is working effectively and to ensure that young people are fully protected. In essence, we were considering whether the House had got it right in 2003 or not. To ensure that young people are adequately protected, the review has considered a range of situations and settings in which a young person could be considered to be at risk from an adult holding a position of trust, including those that she has referred to in relation to religion and faith. But my goodness, that is not the extent of it, because as soon as we start down that road, plenty of other contexts hove into view, and that is what we need to consider with care.
A wide range of stakeholders were consulted to ensure that we developed a thorough understanding of the issues before establishing the best way forward. For example, across the youth and criminal justice sectors, the review engaged the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, sports bodies, victims’ groups, charities and religious organisations to discuss concerns around how well the law is working to protect young people against those seeking to abuse their power in this way.
In the area of faith and religion, to which the hon. Lady referred, we engaged key groups such as the Anglican dioceses of Chichester and Lincoln, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, academics, Gardens of Peace, Hindu Council UK, Marriage Care, Sikh Council UK and the St Philip’s Centre. I could go on, but I do not want to trespass on the patience of the House. With regard to those involved in the sporting sector, the review team heard from a very broad range of stakeholders.
Since the review, we have continued to engage with those stakeholders, including the hon. Lady and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I was grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is giving a thumbs-up, so Hansard can record that. My hon. Friend has done tremendous work, and the Lord Chancellor and I met her and the hon. Lady last year.
The discussions that we have had have been candid and wide-ranging, and I am very grateful for that. A number of themes emerged during the engagement that go beyond the law in this area and are important for us to address. Let me make this point clear: almost everyone agreed that, whatever we change in the law, we will need a more broad-based spectrum in our approach to dealing with this. We need better provision of education; we need consideration of the effectiveness of the Disclosure and Barring Service system in practice; we need to raise awareness and understanding of what grooming and genuine consent really look like; and we need the measures that need to be put in place to protect young people from this type of abusive behaviour. I make that point because sometimes in this House we can be guilty of assuming that changing legislation fixes everything. It rarely does. It is important, of course, but it is rarely the complete answer.
A key topic raised with us was, of course, whether a change in the existing positions of trust legislation was required in order to best protect young adults from those who sought to use their position of power for sexual purposes. Many of those we heard from agreed that any change or reform of the existing laws raised difficult and complicated issues. There was a clear concern from some stakeholders that any broad or sweeping new definition could raise the age of consent by stealth. The risk is that if we go too far in one direction, the pendulum may swing all the way back in the other direction. Who will be the collateral damage in all this? Young people. That is why we proceed with care.
Conversely—I think that the hon. Lady will find this point more to her liking—there were those who said that drafting the law too narrowly, or perhaps by simply listing roles or jobs to be considered as positions of trust, in effect adding to the list, could create loopholes or definitions that could be easily exploited or circumvented by abusers. That is why we have to take care.
It is fair to say, however, that most stakeholders felt that a change in the law was required, and I can see the merits of change. It was made clear during the review that any legislative changes would need to be bolstered by changes outside the criminal law in order to ensure an effective overall approach to safeguarding young people.
Let me conclude, however, by saying this. The Government are very sympathetic to concerns that have been raised throughout this process—not just sympathetic but, as I indicated in words that the hon. Lady was kind enough to repeat back to me, we agree that it requires a clear, considered and decisive response. We are continuing to look at how the law might be strengthened in this area, and as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I hope to set out our plans very shortly.
Finally, I thank all those hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion of this sensitive topic. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, I am grateful to other colleagues in the House, and I am grateful too for the House’s patience as we consider our next steps and for its understanding of the need for care and sensitivity in approaching this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.