Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on bringing forward this debate and on the passion with which he is advancing the case. The attendance in the Chamber today demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. My contribution will draw attention to an area of Government where the duty of candour already exists, at least supposedly—the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope that the Government will learn lessons from the way in which that is conducted within the Department.

I relate the case of one of my constituents, Joe Poynton, whose daughter Sally was murdered by his undiagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic grandson Jacob in June 2021. For three years prior to her death, Sally battled unsuccessfully to get diagnosis and treatment for Jacob. He is now receiving that in hospital, but the family are devastated at the price that she had to pay—and they are paying—to achieve it.

There is a long tragic history of innocent people being killed by young people with schizophrenia, sometimes undiagnosed and sometimes diagnosed, but usually on the radar of mental health services. Sally Poynton had made repeated attempts to get her son diagnosed, but the service never got on top of the issues. I have already furnished the Minister with my questions, because the attempts to get reports out of the NHS have simply failed—reports have been heavily redacted.

What legislative changes can be brought in to correct the failings of the service in this case? What legislative changes are proposed to ensure that an adult discharged from hospital following a mental health admission has a GP assigned to them? Can the Minister ensure that measures are proposed to reverse the disappointing lack of professional curiosity within the service? Finally, can the Minister ensure that there is legal representation at all inquests? The NHS has professionals, barristers and lawyers supporting it, and individuals and families do not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this debate. On behalf of my party, I too pay tribute to the Hillsborough families in this landmark debate.

After years of delay by the last Conservative Government —the Conservatives are, shamefully, barely represented here today—Liberal Democrats in Parliament and Liberal Democrat councillors such as Carl Cashman welcomed this Government’s commitment in the King’s Speech to create a statutory duty of candour on public authorities to force them to tell the truth. However, given the urgent need for such a duty, it is unacceptable that the Hillsborough law was not introduced in time for the 36th anniversary of the disaster, as the Prime Minister himself had promised.

Ninety-seven men, women and children lost their lives as a result of the shameful events on that terrible day in 1989, yet the families of the victims were forced to wait decades for the truth, in the wake of institutional silence and deceit from state institutions. For years they were told that Liverpool fans were to blame, but they were not. It was police incompetence, a failure of safety and then a cover-up—a deliberate attempt by public officials to shift blame, rewrite the narrative and protect institutions instead of people. It was not only public institutions that were responsible for warping narratives. I will not name the title, but we all know a particular newspaper that still lives a legacy of shame for the way it demonised fans on that day.

A legal duty of candour would not erase that tragedy, but it might have spared the families years of gaslighting, indignity and conflict. Similar is true of the Grenfell disaster, as the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has powerfully said. Seventy-two lives were lost in that shocking disaster, including that of emerging photographer and artist Khadija Saye, who I knew. It was a tragedy that should never have happened, and a scandal that revealed deep systemic failures in not only fire safety but the way public authorities treat working-class communities, especially when they are black or brown.

Even after the fire, we saw the same pattern again: a slow trickle of information, shifting stories and an instinct—a culture—of institutional self-preservation. We must ask ourselves, how many times will we allow this cycle to repeat? How many lives must be lost before we accept that the public deserve honesty from those in power?

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is right about the need for the state to be open and honest in all these cases. As I mentioned earlier, the duty of candour already exists in the NHS. Nevertheless, in inquests where the duty of candour should be to the fore, the state comes along with barristers, lawyers and their supporters, and the victims of actions in the past are not represented at all. If the same resource that went into protecting the reputations of NHS staff went into supporting patients, these issues would not happen.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that there are very many doubts on each side, and I fully respect the arguments that have been made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Of course this is a finely balanced debate, but the point about process is that this Bill is too flawed; there is too much to do to it to address in Committee. By all means, let us have this debate, but let us have that before a Bill of this magnitude is brought forward, The consideration of the Bill should be much more comprehensive.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Contrary to what the media are saying, today’s decision is not about bringing this Bill into law; it is about allowing it to go to the next stage. People may have misgivings, but the hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that the Bill cannot be corrected or amended in order to make it palatable to people who have doubts. We all have doubts, but surely today’s vote is simply to let it go to the next stage. The final decision on Third Reading is the critical one in deciding whether the Bill goes into law.

[Danny Kruger]

I think I have made the point that this Bill is too comprehensive and there is too much in it to address through the process of a private Member’s Bill. If the hon. Gentleman has serious concerns about aspects of the Bill that he would not be prepared to see come into law, he should not be supporting it today.

Let me explain the concerns about the Bill that I think are too comprehensive to be dealt with in Committee. I recognise how hard the hon. Member for Spen Valley has worked to try to ensure that it is safe, but I do not believe it is, for the following reasons. Let us start at the beginning. The process starts with a conversation between a patient and a medical practitioner—not necessarily a doctor; just a medic of some sort, unspecified at this stage. If the patient tells their ordinary family doctor that they want an assisted death, the doctor is obliged to either explain how it works or pass them on to someone who will do it—which is probably what will happen, by the way. The likelihood is that we would see a new branch of medicine spring up, like the medics I met in Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I can confirm that all MPs who have had their calls listened to have indeed been informed. I can also inform the hon. Gentleman that I have now received an interim report from the chief inspector, which is being made available to Members of Parliament through the Library. The chief inspector’s interim findings are that there is no systemic problem and that the situation has improved substantially since 2012, but he recommends a number of other things we can do to improve the situation still further.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T4. What progress are the Government making on the introduction of a women’s justice board? The important question asked earlier by hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) emphasised the need to address such issues.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

The coalition Government are clearly committed to making sure that we reduce the reoffending and imprisonment of women. As my hon. Friend knows, at the moment I chair an advisory board on female offenders, which is very helpful and successful—indeed, it is meeting this afternoon—in making sure we have a good policy. The introduction of a women’s justice board has been put forward. As it happens, our party, the Liberal Democrats, supports the policy. It is not yet an agreed policy across government, but I am determined that we will do as much as we can with the present structure in the rest of this Parliament, even though we might be able to change it in the next Parliament.

Fatal Domestic Violence

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to secure a debate on this sensitive and important issue. I am grateful that the Minister is in is place to hear the case for peer support and advocacy services for the families of domestic homicide victims.

Our understanding of the full effects of domestic homicide is still emerging, but I will give my perspective. I was a criminal barrister for many years, and I dealt with homicide, murder and manslaughter cases. I thought that I had a deeper understanding than most people of the effects on the families of victims, but I realised after discussions with expert advocate services that the family’s journey does not end at the door of the court when the verdict is passed and the sentence is handed down. Often, that is only the first stage of a long, arduous process through which families have to go.

A domestic homicide, whether it is murder, manslaughter or another form of death, profoundly changes a family’s life in an instant. For example, the surviving children may have witnessed abuse or the killing, or they may have lost a sibling. They may have lost both parents if the perpetrator parent either committed suicide or is held securely. The family property immediately becomes a crime scene, the criminal justice system must be navigated and the health and financial costs of that need to be challenged. Information that is vital to the family may have to be held back so they are not compromised as witnesses. At the same time, they must deal with the grief that results from the loss of their loved ones and the private personal details of their lives will be made public. It is a self-evident truth that the aftermath of such a death is traumatic. It raises issues that nobody the family knows has ever had to deal with before, and thrusts the family into contact with agencies with which they never thought they would have to engage. In an instant, they are in a strange, troubling new world.

Specialist advocacy and support is desperately needed for those families. There is a real concern that the Government’s well-intentioned proposal to give a grant to one prime service provider while withdrawing direct grants to smaller specialist and expert providers will reduce the number of families who are provided with specialist expert and independent support after domestic homicide. The Government recognise that that sort of support helps families to cope with and recover from the trauma.

The organisation Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse is directed by somebody whom I regard as a friend, Frank Mullane. It is an award-winning service that is funded from a number of sources, and for a number of years it has received welcome and helpful contributions from the Government. It provides specialist services to some categories of families—in particular, families who were bereaved before April 2010, for whom Victim Support’s homicide service currently has no responsibility and for whom the homicide service provider will not have responsibility from October 2014, and families whose tragedy attracts a section 9 domestic homicide review. The Government brought that important provision into force, and I warmly welcome their decision. However, a number of organisations already refer families to AAFDA for domestic homicide reviews, and Victim Support’s homicide service signposts families to the organisation. The word “signpost” is important, because Victim Support uses the word “refer” only for organisations that it directly commissions using its budget. AAFDA has an excellent relationship with Victim Support’s homicide service, and the two organisations collaborate effectively on behalf of many families.

Victim Support’s homicide service signposts families to AAFDA for help not only with that issue, but also with inquests, serious case reviews, mental health inquiries and other matters. Families also directly approach the organisation, and it has an input into Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiries. It does a range of work, and engages with local employers, service providers and other agencies to provide a full package of support.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I entirely agree about the excellent work of Frank Mullane. As my hon. Friend is aware, the police must appoint a family liaison officer to support the families of victims on every occasion. However, a problem that has not been resolved is that in murder and killing cases, the perpetrator, until convicted, is treated as the next of kin of the deceased and the children.

[Mr Buckland]

That is right, and that relationship often leads to manipulation after the event. The intercession, the support and the advocacy service are vital if we are to prevent families from reliving the trauma, as has happened in many sad examples.

The Minister will be aware of the report that was completed in July 2011 by the former Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Louise Casey. It was the largest survey of bereaved families ever undertaken; more than 400 families revealed the toll of bereavement. Louise Casey concluded that the devastating effects of homicide manifested in many ways. She rightly concluded:

“these effects persist for many years.”

That is why I said that the criminal trial is often only the beginning of the journey for the family.

Louise Casey identified the enduring needs of families after homicide, and she provided several important conclusions. First, many families who were bereaved before April 2010 still need the support of specialist agencies after October 2014. There is a concern that the funding for the homicide services for those families has not been dealt with adequately. Secondly, many families who were bereaved after April 2010 still require ongoing support. They already seek out AAFDA and other small specialist organisations during the time that the current national homicide service provider is engaged and afterwards.

From 1 October, the prime service provider will have to have an exit strategy with families, or its capacity will eventually be insufficient because of the numbers that will come to the service. For many families, the journey through the criminal justice system alone may take several years. For example, some domestic homicide reviews are necessarily suspended until the end of the criminal trial, and some inquests may not take place until several years after the tragedy. I know of an example of a family who are about to face an inquest that will last for several weeks, two and a half years after the homicides.

A further problem arises because families’ emotional and practical needs often do not emerge until years have passed since the homicide. It is then that the smaller specialist organisations such as AAFDA will be approached to help those families cope and recover. In reality, and as history shows, many families need help to cope and recover after the homicide service has exited the process. That is no reflection on the services provided by the homicide service, but it is simply a fact of life that the amount of time that people need to cope and recover often will not match the resources that are available. There is a concern that those families will not get the support that they need.

Although the Government’s aim is that from October this year, the prime homicide services provider will commission other services that families need, there is a worry that the expertise of small organisations such as AAFDA may be overlooked, and if it is not overlooked, that the funding available will be insufficient to make the service sustainable. That will result in fewer families getting the support that they need.

I cannot overemphasise the expertise and skill of AAFDA. It is a registered charity that was formed in 2008 and which has strong connections with Swindon, where my constituency is. It has become expert on domestic homicide, domestic violence and supporting families after these horrors, including support through the criminal justice system. It has been recognised by both the previous Government and this one as a leader in its field.

AAFDA has three specialist caseworkers, two of whom lost family members to homicide, and the other who has 30 years’ operational and strategic experience in the domestic violence sector. In addition, it has a volunteer criminologist and a volunteer barrister who give significant pro bono help. One of AAFDA’s caseworkers is considered to be a national expert on stalking, and the other two caseworkers, including the director, Frank Mullane, are Home Office accredited chairs of section 9 domestic homicide reviews. AAFDA is, of course, a member of the Home Office panel that quality assures those reviews.

Frank is rightly credited with being the driving force behind domestic homicide reviews becoming law in England and Wales and helped draft some parts of the statutory guidance. He has a now-growing academic expertise, being a visiting lecturer and assessor at the university of Gloucestershire, and he works closely with universities both at home and abroad. He is continually learning about developments in the sector. Having attended, for the past four years, the annual conference of AAFDA, held in Swindon, I too, have learnt a lot about this area. I have met some of the families being helped by the organisation and I have listened to speakers from as far afield as Sweden, Ireland and indeed, from many parts of England. AAFDA is also a member of key national forums, advising the College of Policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and those of us—me included—who are looking to develop legislation on domestic abuse.

In the brief time I have left, I want to give some case examples of the importance of the ability of the organisation to stand in the shoes of those who have been victims of domestic homicide. The fact that we are dealing with immeasurable grief almost goes without saying, but let me give an example of one family. A woman—a mother and sister—was killed by her husband. The family had to summon up the strength to clean the bloodstains from the house where the victim was killed—just imagine that for a moment. As one family member said to the media,

“it's like being told—it's not your mess, but you clean it up.”

That is a graphic, I accept, but important illustration of the ordeal that people have to go through, not only in losing somebody, but in physically dealing with the aftermath of a homicide.

That family are being helped and have been helped for more than three years. They have been given expert advice and guidance on which organisations they needed to go to to get the information that they needed, otherwise they would have been in isolation. That family have channelled their resilience into providing well thought through and skilful challenges to the various bodies in the system, and it is an important example of what can be achieved to the benefit of those who have suffered.

Another example is where uninformed advice had been given to a family about a domestic homicide review, and because of that uninformed advice, they had declined to participate. As a result of signposting to AAFDA, they were given proper, expert advice. The process was explained and the family changed their mind. They participated in the review, and the review itself has benefited hugely from the involvement of the family. It has given them an opportunity to participate and to explain from their point of view the challenges that the system posed to them.

It is all about identifying and achieving the objectives of the family while managing their expectations, because for many families, finding out the facts of the case and what happened can be a huge difficulty, for some of the reasons I outlined earlier. Helping families to acquire that information may serve at least two purposes. First, as the Prime Minister acknowledged when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee in 2013 about the awful case of Jacintha Saldanha—the Bristol nurse who took her own life after the very sad hoax call from broadcasters in Australia—the family absolutely need the truth. They need the facts.

Secondly, and this is important, significant public resources may later be avoided as a result of the resumption of inquiries that have been justifiably sought by the families because the initial inquiry had been wholly inadequate. Many of these families cannot afford solicitors, but they need—this is undeniable—help from those who have considerable experience of the system. As I have said, the work that AAFDA does with regard to inquests is very significant. It is an advocacy service that helps a family to understand the process and how they can participate and prepare for the ordeal itself.

I have given a few family examples, but I want to give one further example of a family who talked with passion about the action plan that was set out by AAFDA. That action plan gave that family a sense of where to go and what to do and allowed them to move forward. AAFDA helped to make sense of the process to the family in a way that just was not happening for them without its input.

As I have said, AAFDA is influencing the practice of domestic homicide reviews to include family and friends. It first influenced the Government to ensure that that was stated clearly in the statutory guidance, and its caseworkers continue to advocate strongly on behalf of families, so that reviewers understand that the family is to be given space and to be integral to the reviews, rather than lip service just being given to their involvement. Without families being able to influence the reviews, frankly, they become meaningless. They become talking shops and they become ineffective.

As I said, there are concerns about the way in which funding will be configured from October this year. Although AAFDA is already working with police and crime commissioners such as Angus Macpherson in Wiltshire, there is a difficulty for them directly to fund the work because the incidence of domestic homicide in many police areas will be low. Therefore, the nature of that specialist work will, by dint of its relative rarity, have to be in a national framework. That is why, we understand, the funding is being administered centrally. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could not only acknowledge the value of the work by organisations such as AAFDA, but look carefully again at the funding mechanism to make sure that this invaluable service and others like it are not lost to those families in real need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I will happily consider that. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. It is for the judge to decide in each individual case, and it is not for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to decide what judges do in each individual case. We are already taking a range of steps to protect people who may be victims of domestic violence, and I am always happy to look at others.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On a similar point, the families of victims of capital crimes, as well as coping with bereavement, will usually be unaware of their rights and the responsibilities of authorities to assist them in protecting the memory, reputation, estate and so on of the deceased. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the support available to victims’ families in such circumstances?

[Damian Green]

I think I know the case to which my hon. Friend is referring, as he and I have discussed it in Westminster Hall. He will be aware that I wrote to him on 4 December on the detailed issue. Victims of all kinds require support and are getting better support. As he knows, the specific issues related to cases such as he describes are being considered at present.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

What the hon. Lady says is very interesting and we will look at the details. She is of course right that it has a huge impact on young people when one of their parents serves time in custody. There is a knock-on effect on the likelihood of those young people going on to commit crimes themselves. Shockingly, something like 60% of young men who have had a parent in custody go on to commit crimes themselves. She is right to make that link and we will look at what she has said.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T5. The forfeiture rule precludes a person who has been convicted of unlawfully killing another person from acquiring benefit in consequence of the killing. However, if the deceased person is a close family friend, a spouse or a close family member, their killer can use and abuse the estate until they are convicted. Will the Government consider addressing that issue? Will the Minister meet me to explore whether the rule can be improved in that respect?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Police Treatment of Alleged Perpetrators and Victims

Andrew George Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am delighted to have secured this opportunity to explore the relative rights, in effect, of alleged perpetrators and perpetrators of crime, in contrast to the rights and treatment of victims and victims’ families. I particularly want to draw attention to a case that I have been pursuing for some time as a Member of Parliament. Not only am I raising this matter because it raises specific points relating to a specific case, but because of wider concerns and the ramifications and consequences for the treatment of other cases and for the rights and treatment of victims in those cases.

Developing this case has been a challenge, because I have, of course, taken my points to the Ministry of Justice, as I should, because parts of the case, and cases relating to how victims are treated in the criminal justice process, are within the curtilage and responsibility of that Department, and to the Home Office, because they also fall within its curtilage and responsibility. Over the years, I have, on behalf my constituents who have raised these questions—I will refer to them in a moment—had to pursue these matters through two Departments. I am delighted that the Policing Minister is here.

The questions are primarily concentrated on competence and on the discretion of the police in their response to capital offences, such as the ones that I will mention. Where are the rights of victims and families, where they potentially conflict with those of killers and alleged killers, or where a killer has already admitted guilt and admitted that they killed a person before their conviction? We are looking at the period in which decisions are taken that have consequences for the victims and the victims’ estate and record, before conviction.

Of course, we assume that killers’ rights are effectively surrendered, or at least subordinate to those of the victims. We believe, and the public would normally expect, that concern for, and consequences for, victims would be uppermost in our minds, and that we would go out of our way to support and protect the interests of victims.

I have two primary purposes in raising this case today. First, I seek to ensure that the rights of victims are not subordinated by the rights of perpetrators, particularly in cases where alleged perpetrators admit guilt or responsibility before conviction. This is especially the case in circumstances that involve the killing or murder of a family member. If a killer is next of kin, in my view they surrender their rights to have a superior claim over the victim’s other immediate blood relatives. Secondly, I wish to ensure that lessons arising from incompetence or failure—in respect of both the handling of the investigation and the lack of support for the victim’s family in the case of Claire Oldfield-Hampson, under Operation Ramsgate—have been learned, apologies given and systems improved.

I will refer specifically to the case of the killing of Claire Oldfield-Hampson, which I have mentioned in two previous parliamentary debates. First, I need to place this matter in context. The context, most recently, is the Home Secretary’s correct response to recent allegations about the investigation into the Stephen Lawrence case. That response is most welcome and I think that those who are concerned about the treatment of victims and their families will gain a great deal of succour and encouragement from it. After all, Stephen Lawrence was just 18 when he was murdered on 22 April 1993. We are talking about a case that goes back more than 20 years. It is right that, when further evidence has emerged and further allegations have been made, the Home Secretary has raised the prospect of ensuring that those matters are subject to further investigation and review. The killing of Claire Oldfield-Hampson took place in September 1996, but if some matters are still not resolved, I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at that case and, if necessary, instigate further reviews.

Just last month, the Home Secretary announced that the latest allegations of misconduct in the Stephen Lawrence investigation will be investigated by the chief constable of Derbyshire, Mick Creedon, as part of Operation Herne. She also announced the circulation of a new code of integrity for the police. My constituents and I are pleased for and supportive of the Lawrence family and hope that the principle of re-opening cases is not constrained by them achieving a certain level of televisual or media interest.

I repeat myself to an extent today and for that I offer no apology. I still need, and my constituents need, evidence that lessons are being learned and that improvements are being made, following clear failings on the part of the Cambridgeshire constabulary, which was responsible for investigating the killing of Claire Oldfield-Hampson. Even now, some issues of responsibility for her estate remain to be resolved. I believe that the law needs to be reviewed, to rebalance the respective rights of victims and alleged perpetrators, as does how the Home Office and, more specifically, the police conduct themselves in handling cases such as these.

We assume that killers surrender their rights and are given lesser rights than their victims. A victim and their grieving family should be given greater consideration and protection than a killer. That is what most people would assume. They would assume not that killers lose all their rights—they certainly have a right to a fair trial—but that consideration for victims would be superior to consideration for the killer’s sensitivities, particularly if the killer has already admitted that they perpetrated a crime. However, when a husband kills his wife, he continues to enjoy next of kin rights, and vice versa.

Should a child be placed with the killer’s family or with the victim’s blood relatives? Should the victim’s personal effects, diaries, estate and family heirlooms from before marriage go to the killer’s family or to the victim’s blood relatives? Who should have the greatest right of appeal against court rulings and sentences? In the interests of natural justice, people would expect the victim’s family to have the greatest rights and consideration, but they will be shocked to learn—as I was—that if a killer is next of kin, he enjoys greater rights than the victim’s family. The victim’s family even have to ask the killer for permission to give the victim a funeral.

I will provide a bit of background, although I know the Minister has already been given a great deal of material on this case. I have been raising issues on behalf of my constituent from St Ives, Joanne Bryce, for several years. Joanne’s sister, Claire Oldfield-Hampson, was killed by her husband, David Hampson, on 25 September 1996 at their home in the town of March, Cambridgeshire. He buried her body in the garden, and it was exhumed on 16 December 1998.

In what I have previously described as an “horrific injustice,” Hampson was convicted of the diminished charge of manslaughter, a charge that was mentioned to the family only a few days before the hearing. The plea was accepted because the Crown Prosecution Service and the judge, on the basis of the evidence that the police were able to gather and provide, ultimately accepted that Hampson had suffered the psychological effects of his wife’s nagging. My constituent, Joanne Bryce, points out that Claire’s character was completely vilified. Nine out of 11 national newspapers ran with the headline, “Nagging wife killed by husband.” It seemed that nagging was the capital crime and the killing was just a minor incident.

All that went unchallenged. Claire’s personal diaries must have included evidence of the family relationship. There were 15 diaries, but they were not used at all in the investigation. Much of the material in Claire’s diaries was not made available at the time or shown to the court. There was also video evidence of Felicity’s relationship with her mother, and Joanne has told me that 66 exhibits would have been placed in the public domain and subject to investigation, had there been a trial.

I know the Minister is not here to address the court case, but I raised the broader issues in a debate on Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s case on 8 January 2001 and in an Adjournment debate on 8 June 2011, in which the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), described the case as “mishandled,” which lets off Cambridgeshire constabulary and the CPS rather lightly.

There have been many questions and complaints about the competence of Cambridgeshire constabulary, and it would be easy just to brush the case aside and say, “Well, it’s a question of the competence of one particular constabulary, and those issues need to be looked at. They need to hold their hands up and acknowledge that they have failed, and they need to apologise for their failings.” It would be easy to draw a line there and to make that the end of the matter. Following the debate and the complaints raised by my constituent, Cambridgeshire constabulary asked Bedfordshire police to undertake an investigation into the case, and Bedfordshire police found that Cambridgeshire constabulary had seriously failed on a number of counts.

Cambridgeshire constabulary failed to provide a Home Office information pack to the victims of the crime. In fact, the constabulary provided the Home Office information pack to the family of the killer, arguing that they were victims, too, but it failed to give the information pack to the blood relatives of the person who was killed. The constabulary failed to let the family know that they were entitled to a family liaison officer. Apparently one was appointed, but the family were never told. The constabulary failed to identify to the family that there was a senior investigating officer.

We all know that we are not used to dealing with such processes, and we do not know what support the police are expected to provide. People cannot ask the question, “Where is our family liaison officer?” if they do not know that one is supposed to be provided. The last thing that people who are grieving, bereaved, angry, confused and sad about such a tragic event would know is their right to the kind of support that on this occasion the family clearly failed to receive.

There was a failure to provide information about the criminal injuries compensation scheme, particularly in relation to the funeral expenses. There was a failure to obtain evidence of Claire’s character, and, ultimately, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote a letter to me a few years later, in 2003, apologising for allowing her character to be assassinated in court by the case in mitigation as a result of the police investigation’s failure to achieve a balanced inquiry.

There was a failure to investigate fraud and theft by the killer, too, because the police felt that, as they were going for the murder charge, fraud and theft were less important, and therefore they were swept away and ignored. The family were also denied access to their niece and granddaughter. Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s mother, Mary Oldfield, who was living in the area at the time that Claire’s body was exhumed, was unable to go back to live in the area and came to live with Joanne Bryce in my constituency.

The police also gave out to the media the address and phone number of Joanne Bryce without her permission. In reply to the Bryce family’s complaints about abusive phone calls from the killer’s sister, the family were told, “Well, she is a victim, too.” The family received one phone call at 10.45 pm on 16 December 1998 informing them that Claire’s body had been found and that she had been murdered, but no one offered any help. The family saw Cambridgeshire constabulary for the first time three weeks later.

Other matters of complaint and concern arise from the case. Joanne Bryce was told to get Claire’s bones moved from a hospital in Peterborough or the family would get a big bill. Of course, the family needed to get the killer’s permission before they could make contact with an undertaker or make arrangements for a funeral. How would anyone feel if they were told in those terms that they are responsible for resolving the matter but that they do not have the power themselves to ensure that the funeral takes place?

Cambridgeshire constabulary says that it investigated Claire’s bank accounts and that the documents were returned as not used by the CPS. When Joanne Bryce was advised by the bank manager that she must get copies of statements after the trial, she was told that those bank statements had never been asked for.

Victims’ families should not have to beg the killer’s family for family effects. All that my constituents have to remember Claire by is her wedding dress and an out-of-date passport. The war medals of her uncle, who died before Claire met and married her husband, her grandmother’s crockery, photographs and certificates were all denied Claire’s blood family, who were not allowed to enter her home. Meanwhile, the killer’s family, or indeed his girlfriend, could go in at any time and take things away.

If possessions of the victim are found years later in the hands of the police force, under the Senior Courts Act 1981, the family and victims should be advised and allowed to claim them. That was mentioned to me during the debate in 2011, the first time that my constituents were aware of that right. Those possessions should not have been sent to the perpetrator’s family, and the victim’s family should not have been told that the only way to recover them was by raising their own case in court through civil action, but that is effectively what the Bryce family were told about diaries dating back to 1983, long before the couple married.

I have spoken to many agencies about the issue, including Victim Support, which is considering it. Victim Support told me that when the next of kin is the perpetrator of the crime, it causes many issues, including, for example, for children’s carers, who must seek permission from the legal parent for even the simplest tasks, such as taking the children on holiday. However, the issue relates to family law, which is civil, not criminal. Unfortunately, neither the police nor other criminal justice agencies have control over the matter; it must proceed through family courts with the assistance of social services.

I am aware that the issue of next of kin falls into the rather murky territory of what next of kin means, because it is not specifically defined for all purposes. The forfeiture rule, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate during our last debate, is an instance of the wider principle that a person should not be allowed to profit from his or her crime. I do not think anyone is saying that in cases of domestic violence, profit is necessarily in the mind of the killer at the time, but taking advantage of the situation and disallowing the victim’s family access to the effects, estate and memory of their blood relative who has been killed is a matter that needs to be resolved. It is not a question of killing or murder in order to obtain the benefit of the estate for profit.

I have also heard from Refuge, which I am sure the Minister is aware is running a strong campaign at the moment to open a public inquiry into domestic violence in relation to the domestic homicide victim Maria Stubbings and many other cases. Refuge has a public petition that it is urging people to sign, and it is also supported by 38 Degrees.

The Government still need to address more issues than that of competence in this case. In my judgment, almost everything that could go wrong in the handling of an investigation and the relative rights of victims and perpetrators did go wrong in this case; everything that could be mishandled was mishandled. Cambridge constabulary make the calamitous Keystone Cops look like a highly professional and effective law enforcement agency.

Also—this is critical—I urge the Government to review the issue seriously and undertake a great deal of purposeful, although not lengthy, reflective work on considering how the interests of victims and their immediate blood relatives, particularly in cases of the kinds of killing and murder that I am referring to, can be balanced. They clearly have not been in this case. It is not just about mistakes; within the law, police do not have discretion to give victims and their blood relatives the consideration that they deserve. Between the point of arrest and the point of conviction, many serious mistakes are often made that can never be put right. They certainly were made in this case.

That is why I strongly urge the Minister and the Government, across both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, to consider the issue seriously and ensure, without denying alleged perpetrators the right to a fair trial, that victims’ interests are properly protected in such cases. I argue that we as a country should be taking a far more precautionary approach to protecting the interest of victims and their estate, and of blood relatives in killings and murders in cases such as the one that I have referred to. We can learn lessons from this case going forward. I fear that the same thing will happen again and again, that victims and their families will not have the right to redress and that when they do, it will be too late.

Although my constituent Joanne Bryce has not raised the matter with me, I happen to know that she has spent the past 15 years seeking expensive legal advice—on one occasion, she sought the advice of a private investigator—and travelling around the country pursuing these issues. She has had to remortgage her house and seek other assistance in order to continue seeking justice. She has not asked for compensation, but I must say on her behalf that I think she deserves some.

The issues raised by the case are extreme and serious. Although I know that I have raised some of them before, I have raised them again because I do not think that we can move on. I certainly know that Joanne Bryce and her family cannot move on. They fear that the lessons have not been learned. Such injustice in the imbalance of rights between alleged perpetrators and victims needs to be re-examined and put right.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) not only on securing the debate, but on the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, he has mounted a campaign of such length and depth on behalf of his constituents. The case he has outlined is tragic and shocking, and we can only have sympathy for the family in those circumstances. My hon. Friend is right to continue to raise the case and to ask questions about the criminal justice system. He said many of his complaints were about the police, while others were about other parts of the criminal justice system. I am not just the Policing Minister at the Home Office, but the Criminal Justice Minister at the Ministry of Justice, so I hope I can deal with a large number of the important issues he raised across the board.

I think it is fair to say that the support for victims and their families has improved dramatically since this terrible case, but there is, absolutely, always more that can and should be done, and more will be done in the coming years. As my hon. Friend mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt)—the previous prisons Minister—apologised for the way in which the case was handled in the first place, and Cambridgeshire police have also apologised. I apologise now on behalf of all the public agencies involved. Clearly, mistakes were made, and it is the Government’s job to ensure that such mistakes, which cause so much heartache and misery, cannot happen again.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives talked about the proceedings of the IPCC, which deals with serious and sensitive complaints against the police. One problem my hon. Friend and the family have had is that Ms Bryce made a complaint in 2004 to the Police Complaints Authority—the IPCC’s predecessor body—so the IPCC was unable, under the Police Reform Act 2002, to reopen the case. There are now instances where matters brought to the PCA’s attention can be reconsidered by the IPCC. We now allow for some cases that were previously investigated to be the subject of further investigation. The circumstances have to be exceptional, and the IPCC must be satisfied that the matters that have been complained about are unusually grave and that there is an overwhelming public interest in the matters being reinvestigated.

[Andrew George]

I was interested to hear the Home Secretary’s statement to the House a couple of weeks ago, when she acknowledged that she had spoken to Dame Anne Owers about the Stephen Lawrence case. Dame Anne had indicated that if issues arose from the investigation of the allegations in that case, she saw a role for the IPCC, even though the police had investigated these matters 20 years ago.

[Damian Green]

The legal block put in place in the 2002 Act referred specifically to complaints that had been referred to the PCA. I can see why it was introduced: to prevent every case the PCA had looked at from being investigated by the new body. However, there are, as I say, very large caveats, and there needs to be exceptional public interest. The matters that have been complained about must be unusually grave, and there must be overwhelming public interest in their being reinvestigated. That is the hurdle, but that possibility is there.

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the Criminal Cases Review Commission reviews cases for perpetrators of crime, but not for victims or their families. The CCRC reviews the safety of convictions and sentences on application by, or on behalf of, defendants. Generally, it may do so only when all available avenues of appeal have been exhausted, but, in carrying out its functions, it takes care to ensure that it complies with the spirit of the code of practice for victims, as well as with its obligations under it.

A number of points have been made about how appeal proceedings can, in circumstances such as those we are discussing, appear to favour the perpetrator rather than the families or the victims. Although victims and their families cannot appeal, they can make a personal statement to explain the impact of the crime on them. Any personal statement from a victim or their family that was produced for Crown Court proceedings should have been sent to the Court of Appeal with the other trial papers when the appeal was started. However, a victim or a member of their family can lodge or update a personal statement with the Criminal Appeal Office at any time during appeal proceedings. Obviously, it is better to do such things in good time before the hearing so that judges have time to read the statement, but it is possible to send in the statement at any time up to the day before the hearing. In addition, we intend to include information about victims’ entitlements at the appeal stage of the process in the revised victims’ code.

[Andrew George]

That is extremely helpful; in fact, in the original debate in January 2001, a request was made for victims to have a statement and to have a role in the proceedings—even in the kind of lower-order hearing that was used in this instance to advance the case in mitigation. In Claire Oldfield-Hampson’s case, no one answered the case in mitigation, which resulted in the castigation of her and the appalling way in which her memory was recorded. Is there, therefore, an opportunity to find a means by which the family can, even at this stage, put on the historic record something to counteract the slanderous comments that are now there as a result of the hearing?

[Damian Green]

If I may, I will take that thought away and think about it, because no criminal justice proceedings are continuing, and it is difficult to legislate for something that has already happened. As I say, one thing I hope will come out of these tragic circumstances is that we learn to improve conditions for future victims and their families. I hope I am going some way towards assuring my hon. Friend that lessons have already been learned and continue to be learned. However, I will take his point on board and give it some thought.

My hon. Friend made a powerful point about what can happen to family effects. I can perfectly well appreciate how those are so valuable in such circumstances. It is already the case that the person convicted of murder forfeits his or her right to inherit from the victim. However, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it should remain a fundamental principle of law that a person is innocent until proven guilty, so there are no plans to amend the law to restrict a person’s right to apply for probate before trial or to prevent relatives of a person convicted of murder from inheriting from the victim’s estate.

The current law provides some flexibility, however, so that on application the court can amend or revoke a grant without the consent of the appointed personal representative, in exceptional circumstances; for example, if the personal representative has been convicted of the deceased’s murder. In addition, it is now open to anyone to enter a caveat on the probate register to prevent probate from being granted. For example, a relative of a murder victim could enter a caveat to prevent probate from being granted until the circumstances of the death had been clarified. I hope that is helpful.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful for that advice. Clearly, if it had been available to Joanne Bryce and her family at the time of the events in question, circumstances would be entirely different now. I am sure that had my constituents been aware of such powers they would have sought a caveat on the probate immediately—had they not been grieving and distraught, and unable to act in such a way for themselves.

Can anything be done retrospectively in such cases, and, secondly, can it be made clear that in the twilight world, so to speak, between arrest and conviction, the blood relatives of the victim should be given the best legal advice, to ensure proper protection of their interests and the memory of the person who was killed?

[Damian Green]

The key to the point is the victims’ code. We are about to publish a new version of it, and have been consulting on it for the past few months. It is very important that victims’ rights should be better understood, not least by victims themselves and their families. Members of the public, as well as those who are habitually involved in criminal justice proceedings, need to be more knowledgeable about the code. Victims of crime are entitled to receive information, support and services under the victims’ code. That includes, for example, information about the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the appointment of a family liaison officer. As I have said, awareness of the code is not high enough—not only among victims but among criminal justice practitioners. That is why, as well as revising the code to make it more accessible, we shall use a range of methods, including short leaflet guides, to communicate it more effectively. Awareness will be raised through work with organisations such as Victim Support, whose extensive networks operate locally in every part of the country.

Structural changes made since the late 1990s and early 2000s will serve generally to raise awareness of means of redress, particularly among victims and their families. The most obvious and dramatic have been mentioned: each area will have a police and crime commissioner, whose basic task is to hold the chief constable to account. When there are serious complaints, such as there clearly were in the case that my hon. Friend has raised, the PCC will be the first point to go to; that is where there would be someone whose local responsibility was, in the case in question, to hold to account the Cambridgeshire force. That will be a significant step forward.

[Andrew George]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way once more. One hopes that people will not need to reach the point of making complaints. As I think I have shown, it is often too late when the point of contacting the police and crime commissioner is reached. Given that the case I have raised highlights an appalling contortion of justice, in which permission must be given by a killer for the blood relatives to get access to the death certificate, so a funeral can proceed, can my right hon. Friend at least tell me that we have learned that lesson? Can anything be done to avoid that absurdity in future? Surely families of the victim of a killing should not have to ask the killer for permission to proceed with a funeral.

[Damian Green]

I quite understand the point. I hope that, partly through the victims’ code, and by other means, we will be able to consider some of the specific serious issues that arise in the terrible case in question. Two more reforms are being brought in to help to prevent repetitions of some of the problems that arose, one of which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson).

Firstly, to take up my hon. Friend’s point, we want to prevent recurrences: redress is important, but prevention is always the priority. The College of Policing has the precise task of raising professional standards throughout the many vital activities of the police. I hope that in relation to the case that my hon. Friend has raised the college could provide extremely useful guidance on sensitivity in interface with families, in addition to working on spreading best practice, making it easier and quicker for that to be spread between forces.

Secondly, we have also embarked on a wider reform of the criminal justice system. Much of the reform is about improving efficiency, but some of it is about making things more transparent. For everyone who becomes involved with the criminal justice system—and I take the point that often it will happen to a person once in their lifetime, perhaps because they are a victim or a victim’s relative, and so they do not want the involvement—things should happen in a clear, timely and efficient way, and be clearly explained. People should not be left waiting around for months or years waiting for a decision. That is another significant reform.

I have already mentioned police and crime commissioners, and they are perfectly placed to represent victims’ voices locally. We are legislating in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is in Committee at the moment, so that from October next year PCCs will have clear powers to provide or commission the widest possible range of services for victims of crime. As has been mentioned, we have appointed a new Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Helen Newlove, who began work in March. She is already meeting many victims and their families, to hear their views on the criminal justice system. Indeed, she sits on the criminal justice board that I have set up, which brings together the judiciary, the police, PCCs and various bodies that represent different parts of the system, precisely to drive through such reforms.

To address a particular point that my hon. Friend raised, in April 2011 we introduced domestic homicide reviews on a statutory basis, so that local areas and agencies will identify lessons learned, to help to prevent future homicides and violence, and make improvements. The reviews specifically encourage agencies to work more closely with friends and family members of victims, to see how they can share information at an earlier stage. I assure my hon. Friend and the family of Claire Oldfield-Hampson that we are considering how to improve means of redress for victims—we have discussed that briefly already—so they can hold the criminal justice agencies to account.

We have made a commitment to look at the case for an independent complaints ombudsman for the criminal justice system in the strategy and action plan I referred to. We have consulted on an improved complaints procedure in the new victims’ code, and we are keen to explore whether police and crime commissioners can play a role in ensuring that the high standards of service that we want and expect to see are maintained in every locality.

I am happy to assure my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Delyn that the Government are already taking forward many of the improvements that need to happen, and the victims’ code is already statutory. It is in secondary legislation, but any non-compliance may result in judicial review. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is responsible for investigating complaints under the code, and there is a high level of compliance. The victim’s personal statement is key. We have consulted on putting victim personal statements in the code for the first time, which would give it a statutory footing. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), already has specific responsibility for victims and this area of policy. I am glad that that change has been welcomed on both sides of the House.

Nothing anyone can say can undo the past, but I hope that it is at least clear that our reforms put the Government and the law on the side of the victim and their family. We want to ensure that throughout the criminal justice process there is support for victims of crime and their families, that consideration of their needs and welfare is embedded in the way in which police and criminal justice agencies work, and that those needs are an absolute priority in their work and everything they do.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

No. The hon. Gentleman rather distorts the implications of the legislation. We are capping success fees, which are currently 100%, at 25%.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On the point about the delay until the review has been undertaken, is that merely a delay or is it a genuine review? If it is a review, what will it consider and will he give an indication of its timetable?

[Mr Djanogly]

Given the timing of this development, we have not thought through the exact procedures of the review, but it will certainly be undertaken before we move to ending the provisions that remain.

We now come to the amendment in lieu passed by the other place in respect of clause 1, and what has been described as a purpose clause. It was suggested variously in the other place yesterday that this amendment would have no effect; that it would have some effect, although that effect was not entirely clear; and that it would have a future effect in guiding successive Lord Chancellors when consideration was being given to what services might be added to the scope of legal aid under clause 8(2).

The difficulty the other place has so far had in establishing the precise effect of the amendment is instructive as this House decides whether it should stand. A duty with an uncertain effect is desirable neither in legislative terms nor for the person attempting to discharge that duty. However, it is the Government’s view that the effects of this duty can be described and are highly undesirable. The amendment would remove the uncontroversial, unambiguous duty the Bill places on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid is made available according to part 1 of the Bill. This made a clear link between the duty and legal aid. In terms of a clear duty, it does not get much clearer than this. However, the amendment would not only remove that but would replace it with a duty that would bring ambiguity and uncertainty. It refers to “legal services” rather than “legal aid”.

The argument was also made in the other place that the amendment had no effect other than to underline the Government’s commitment to the principle of access to justice. We contend that the imposition of any duty on the Lord Chancellor in legislation must create in law a potential course of action through challenges to the discharge of that duty. If it is accepted that the imposition of such a duty must give rise to a potential course of action, the amendment’s effect must be to bring into question the range of services provided under the Bill. The matter would then turn on the question of which legal services meet people’s needs. That contrasts with the clear and unambiguous duty in clause 1(1) requiring the Lord Chancellor to

“secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with”

part 1.

The Government believe that the question of which legal services meet people’s needs is not relevant to the Bill. Schedule 1 lists the services that Parliament, following consideration of first principles and extensive consultation, believes it appropriate to make available under legal aid. To reopen that question via an ongoing duty would frustrate our intention to bring certainty and clarity to the scope of services funded by legal aid. The amendment would result in only one thing: numerous expensive judicial reviews—more than likely at taxpayers’ expense as the boundaries of the new duty are tested and because the question of which services should be provided would be reopened.

It was said yesterday in the other place that such JR applications would almost certainly fail, and that consequently there would be no cost implications to the amendment. However, even rejected applications have an inherent cost: lawyers are paid legal aid fees for their work up to that point and the Government pay their own lawyers to defend such cases.

I would also like to address the argument put forward in the other place about the amendment’s effect in guiding future Lord Chancellors. It seems novel to include in the Bill an overriding duty that activates when the Lord Chancellor considers adding a service or services to the scope of legal aid. I am not convinced this is possible, and I am certain it is unhelpful. Adding services to the Bill requires the affirmative approval of both Houses. Such a process will be more than adequate to ensure that the Lord Chancellor takes account of the relevant factors when considering what, if any, services should be added to the scope of legal aid.

I emphasise, however, as Lord McNally did in the House of Lords yesterday, that the Bill’s present form arises from extensive debate and consideration across both Houses and reflects decisions about the future nature of legal aid. In short, the amendment is incompatible with the Bill. It would muddy both the duty to which the Lord Chancellor is subject and the scope of services that might be funded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

Of course the Minister is right, but if there is to be a review of the impact on those who suffer from this disease, we will expect the impact of the Jackson changes on the level of damages to serve as a benchmark, rather than the changes affecting victims per se. We hope that the pause will lead to a rethink by the Government.

We hope that the review will consider the impact on access to justice—some say that lawyers may be unwilling to take on such cases, and that as a result they may not be heard—and the interaction of the reforms with the new employers liability insurance bureau. We also believe that the data should take real-life experience into account.

[Andrew George]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my intervention on the Minister, when I sought to distinguish between a mere delay in the implementation of the policy and a genuine review. I hoped that the Minister would give me some indication that if the findings of a review required the Government’s policy to be amended in some way, there would be an opportunity for a rethink.

[Sadiq Khan]

Given the calibre of the Ministers involved and that of the Members of both Houses who have engaged in discussions over the last few hours and days, I believe that this will be a genuine review. I am sure that not only sufferers from the disease but colleagues who have been involved would be devastated if it were not.

We welcome the review, but the report needs to be based on proper evidence, and the genuine concerns that exist must be addressed. We support the proposal for a pause, and we are willing to work with the Government to ensure that we get this right.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

Of course there can be borderline cases, but, with great respect to my hon. Friend, in the vast majority of cases it is fairly obvious whether one is arguing a point of fact or a point of law. In an ordinary welfare case, the question will be whether someone is fit for work or not fit for work, or living or not living at a particular address. When a point of law arises whereby it is not a question of the complexity of the regulations but of the actual meaning of the regulations, somebody like a tribunal judge will know that instantly and think, “That is quite an interesting point of law that I’ve not had before; this will go to the upper tribunal and I will certify that it would be rather nice to have some guidance.” In the end, we have to leave it to tribunals themselves to decide on the facts. Some may be blurred, but by and large, in the vast majority of cases, they will be reasonably clear.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

rose—

[Glenda Jackson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I will give way once more and then I must get on; otherwise I will take up all the time available myself.

[Andrew George]

Further to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), does the scope of the Secretary of State’s amendment exclude lower-tier tribunals, or can it be interpreted in such a manner that lower-tier tribunal appeals that are brought forward on the basis of evidence relating to a matter of law and then taken to an upper-tier tribunal might be included without the need for further regulations?

[Mr Clarke]

I have obviously failed to make myself completely clear, so I will try again. As it stands, the Government’s amendment in lieu applies only to upper tribunals. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and others argue that something similar should be available in lower tribunals and in other cases. I have undertaken to explore whether we can find an alternative method of identifying those limited numbers of cases and getting them certified when they involve a legal principle. As the matter has been raised at this stage of the debate, we have to fall back on saying that we would use our regulation-making powers through a statutory instrument, because we could not possibly draft primary legislation to cover it in the few days that we have left.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I went through 13 years of new Labour, so commenting on short-term populism might not be the most appropriate thing. I would not say: “A plague on all your houses!”, but let us all learn a few lessons.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Just so we are clear about the hon. Gentleman’s position, does he agree that it is unacceptable for anyone to be made homeless as a result of the kind of actions that we are talking about? Does he also agree, as a consequence, that passing new clause 26 in its current form would place an additional burden on the legal aid budget?

[John McDonnell]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Let me press on, because others want to speak. Clearly there are a small number of cases, which we have already identified, that have caused genuine concern. The problem appears to be not with the existing law, but with its operation, as the consultation has made clear. Annington Holdings plc, a property holder of considerable size, said:

“In Annington’s experience enforcement is the crux of the problem; our past experiences have shown that delays arise in removing squatters from properties due to limitations on police resources.”

If the current problem is with police resources, the question—which has been raised by the High Court enforcement officers, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—is whether the police would have the resources to enforce the law if a new offence is created, when they appear to be unable to enforce it against the existing offences. The Met has acknowledged that and is seeking to address it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and the Minister have said. The Metropolitan Police Service said in its statement that there was a lack of training and practical knowledge on the law on squatting, particularly section 7 of the 1977 Act, which may be a barrier to effective enforcement, and that it was conducting further training to address the issue.

By criminalising squatting, the new clause certainly does not appear to be needed, but it will have consequences if introduced, some of them unintended. The new law will have consequences for those who will be brought into the criminal justice system for the first time, and it is worth repeating who those people are likely to be. The housing charity Crisis commissioned research into squatting from the centre for regional, economic and social research at Sheffield Hallam university, which was published only a month ago, in September. It found that, by and large, squatters were homeless people. The House of Commons Library note sets out for Members that

“squatting is a common response to homelessness”,

and that

“most homeless people who squat try other avenues to resolve their housing problems before squatting”

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew George Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Sentencing Council is already under a duty to provide information about the effectiveness of sentencing practice and I am sure that it supplements that advice and information in every possible way. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), we will certainly consider the feasibility of doing such a thing, as it would be valuable, but we are talking about a vast number of cases and not every judge will find it possible to find out exactly what happened in later years to everybody who appeared before him.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

4. What steps he plans to take to protect the public from persons convicted of violent offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

We have made it clear that we are committed to retaining the statutory multi-agency public protection arrangements, known as MAPPA. Within MAPPA, the police, prison and probation services are required to work together to manage known violent and other dangerous offenders and so protect the public, including previous victims.

[Andrew George]

I hope that the Minister agrees that the primary purpose of custodial sentencing must be public protection. Does he accept that the greater use of mandatory sentencing runs the risk of judges not being able to use their discretion to ensure that the public are protected in the long run?

[Mr Blunt]

The only element of mandatory sentencing we are contemplating relates to knife crime, so that it is absolutely clear that this House sends a very clear message on that. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will think it appropriate that people spend six months in prison when they threaten people with a knife.