Prisons and Secure Training Centres: Safety

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on safety in prisons and secure training centres.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

The safety and welfare of all those in custody is vital, so we take seriously all reports of the mistreatment of those in our care.

On 8 January, the BBC and other media outlets reported allegations of verbal and physical abuse directed towards young people detained at Medway secure training centre, an establishment managed by G4S.  The allegations arise from an undercover investigation for a “Panorama” programme which will be broadcast this evening. It must be stressed that investigative reporting is vital to keeping government honest, and I am grateful to the BBC for the work it has undertaken.

We must treat these allegations with the utmost seriousness. Kent police and the Medway child protection team are now investigating matters on the basis of information shared with them by the BBC, and the police will decide in due course whether criminal charges should be brought.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the specific allegations while these investigations are under way, but I can assure the House that my Department and the Youth Justice Board—under the determined leadership of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord McNally —will do everything we can to assist the police and the local council. Our immediate priority has been to make sure that the young people in custody at Medway are safe, which is why Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and Ofsted visited the secure training centre this morning. They are meeting representatives of G4S, Medway council and the Youth Justice Board to ensure that all necessary action is being taken to ensure the wellbeing of young people at the centre. Inspectors will speak directly to the young people detained at Medway to satisfy themselves that everything is being done to ensure that people are safe. I will also be meeting G4S this week to discuss the allegations and to review its response.

I am under no illusions about the fact that our system of youth justice needs reform. Although youth offending is down, recidivism rates are high, and the care and supervision of young offenders in custody is not good enough. That is why I asked Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, to conduct a review of youth justice. He will report back later this year with recommendations on how to improve the treatment of young people in our care. But it is not just youth justice that needs reform. We need to bring change to our whole prison estate. There is much more to do to ensure that our prisons are places of decency, hope and rehabilitation.

Violence in prisons has increased in recent years. The nature of offenders currently in custody and the widespread availability of new psychoactive substances have both contributed to making prisons less safe. There is no single, simple solution to the problems we face, but we are determined to make progress. We are trialling the use of body-worn cameras and training sniffer dogs to detect new psychoactive substances. We have made it an offence to smuggle so-called legal highs into prison, but ultimately the only way to reduce violence in our prisons is to give governors and all those who work in prisons the tools necessary more effectively to reform and rehabilitate offenders. That is the Government’s mission and one I am determined to see through.

[Andy Slaughter]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question on a most serious and troubling topic involving the mistreatment of children in custody. I am sure the Secretary of State and the whole Government take their responsibilities seriously, not least their duty of care under the Children Act 2004. I am grateful for the steps that have already been taken, which the Secretary of State mentioned, but perhaps he could have met G4S sooner, as I am sure the Government have had some notice. Perhaps he will tell us when he first had notice of these allegations.

As the Secretary of State said, these are serious allegations involving seven members of staff at Medway secure training centre. I also put on record my thanks to the BBC “Panorama” programme for bringing these matters to light.

The allegations involve matters such as slapping a teenager several times in the head; using restraint techniques; squeezing a teenager’s windpipe so as to cause problems in breathing; boasting of mistreating young people, including using a fork to stab one in the leg; equally seriously, the concealing of behaviour by deliberately doing it outside the sight of CCTV cameras; and covering up violent incidents to avoid investigation and the possibility of sanctions against G4S.

Deborah Coles, director of the charity INQUEST, has said that in any other setting the treatment “would be child abuse” and that

“this points to a lack of accountability and culture of impunity.”

Adding to the seriousness of this situation, it is clear that these allegations have come to light only following the investigative journalism the Secretary of State mentioned, rather than following any monitoring or oversight from the Youth Justice Board or Ministry of Justice. Perhaps he would say what the Youth Justice Board monitors have been doing, as they are supposed to be an essential protection in these circumstances.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that a full independent investigation of the circumstances of the abuse will take place and that this will not be swept under the carpet or blamed on a few rogue officers? Any culpability or negligence by G4S management must be exposed. We must also be told whether the Ministry of Justice knew about the alleged abuse before the story was broken by journalists. If it didn’t know, why didn’t it know?

Sadly, this is only the latest in a long line of failures and mismanagement from G4S. In addition to inspection reports at Oakwood prison and the removal of the contract for Rainsbrook STC last September, there have been investigations into a number of deaths in custody or detention, including those of Gareth Myatt and Jimmy Mubenga. There was a debate in the House last week on the appalling healthcare at G4S-run Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre. The Secretary of State may wish to confirm that the Serious Fraud Office is still investigating G4S over fraud in the prisoners tagging contract.

Given the concerns raised over many years and in many areas about G4S, we urge the MOJ to review all its contracts with that company to see whether it is fit and proper to manage major public contracts. In the meantime it is our belief that G4S should not be considered for bidding for other Government contracts. Can the Secretary of State give me those assurances today?

There are serious questions—I think the Secretary of State acknowledged this—that go beyond G4S. We have to see this in the wider context of a rise in violence in prisons. Figures show that 186 prisoners took their own lives over the 23-month period to September 2015, which means that, over the last two years, on average, a prisoner has taken their own life every four days. Last Friday, the outgoing chief inspector of prisons told “Newsnight” that there were more murders and suicides than there had been in 10 years. We need a cultural shift across the entire secure estate.

To begin that process, we ask that today the Government take immediate action to put all G4S-run prisons, STCs and detention centres into special measures to assess the safety and competence of their operation. The Secretary of State has powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to intervene in contracted-out STCs. We urge him to do so and to put in management teams alongside existing staff, particularly those with experience of working with vulnerable children. It is clear that the measures currently in place are not working. It remains for the Secretary of State, who has said that he wishes to reform our prisons, to take action now.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising these questions in a serious and sombre way. He is absolutely right to say that the allegations involve children and that we have a duty of care towards them. We must ensure that those who are in our care are treated appropriately and responsibly. “Panorama” informed the local authority on 30 December and appropriate steps were taken by the local authority to ensure that an investigation could be initiated. Of course, Kent police were also informed at the same time, and because a police investigation is necessarily taking place, we have to respect due process.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the allegations that he has listed are very serious, but they are allegations, and it is important that we give G4S and those involved the appropriate time and space to respond in a way that is congruent with the seriousness of the allegations. It is because I take the allegations seriously that I do not want to rush to judgment or do anything that could be used to enable those who might be guilty of serious offences to wriggle off the hook.

I had the opportunity to meet the editor of “Panorama”, as well as the programme’s producer and the director who was responsible for this investigation, on the eve of the publication of the allegations in The Times and elsewhere on 8 January. It was as a result of that conversation that I had discussions with members of the Youth Justice Board and that we took the steps that I outlined earlier in my statement. It was also as result of that conversation that the roles of the YJB monitor and of Barnardo’s, which also visits the establishment, were enhanced to ensure that the safety of the children at that centre could be guaranteed to the best of our ability.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that G4S has, in a number of other ways, at times in the past, let the Ministry of Justice and those in our care down. It is also important to stress, however, that there are other institutions run by G4S that continue to do a good job, and it would be quite wrong to make a blanket allegation against the organisation of the kind that I know the hon. Gentleman did not make but that others might be tempted to.

The hon. Gentleman was also right to make reference to the remarks of the outgoing chief inspector, Nick Hardwick. I thank Nick Hardwick for the superb work he has done. His candour and honesty in that role serve only to underline the scale of what we have to do to ensure that children and young people in custody and everyone else in prison are in a safe and decent environment, and nothing will stop us making sure that safety and decency are at the forefront of the changes that we bring to our prison and secure training centre estate.

West London Coroner’s Court

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[James Berry]

Finally on the delays at West London coroner’s court, it would be easy to blame the situation on cuts, but they are not to blame. I wrote to the chief executive of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which is responsible for funding the coroner service in west London. He made it clear that although the council has had to make cuts to various areas, the coroner service has been protected from those cuts. The responsibility for sorting out this shambles lays squarely with the senior coroner for west London. He needs to get his house in order for the sake of bereaved families living across the boroughs represented here.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the comment that the hon. Gentleman just made. I have been copied into the letter that he received from the chief executive of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, dated yesterday, which points that out. I am sure it was done in good faith, but on the hon. Gentleman’s website, he has said that the situation could be the council’s fault. I hope that he will correct that. One of the issues that we will deal with is putting blame for this matter where it lies.

[James Berry]

I do not intend to go into the technicalities of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the local council or the police are responsible for providing administrative staff. However, the council is quite clear that there have been no cuts to the funding that it believes it ought to be providing.

Moving on to the subject of religious burials, Jewish and Muslim families have to bury their dead in a matter of days, and the pressure on those doing so is compounded by the situation at West London coroner’s court. I need not say any more about that, because I can simply welcome the Minister’s recent announcement of a review into the interaction that some faiths have with the coroner service across the whole country. I simply observe that in diverse communities, such as those served by the West London coroner’s court and by MPs here, a reliable out-of-hours process for death certificates that are required over the weekend would seem to be the most sensible way forward.

The third point I would like to make is on the matter of national application—the requirement to hold an inquest when someone dies while subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards. Section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 requires that a coroner holds an inquest in certain defined circumstances such as a death in state detention, or a violent or unnatural death. In other cases, the coroner has discretion as to whether to open an inquest, depending on the facts.

Since the Mental Capacity Act 2005 came into force, the definition of whether someone is detained or deprived of their liberty has been tested in the courts on numerous times. In March 2014, the Court of Appeal considered the cases of P v. Cheshire West and Cheshire Council, and P and Q v. Surrey County Council. In those cases, the Court of Appeal gave a very broad definition of deprivation of liberty. The result of that decision has been that authorisations now have to be sought for deprivation of liberty in many more cases than they used to. That includes most cases where a person suffering from dementia lives in a care home and would be prevented from leaving if they attempted to. An inquest must be held in each of those cases because the individual is deemed to be in state detention. In my constituency, we have a nursing home in which 90% of the residents are subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards. On the current interpretation of the law, there would have to be an inquest into each and every one of those individuals’ death, even if they died entirely predictably in their sleep.

I am not saying that there should be no inquests at all into deaths where the deceased is subject to the deprivation of liberty safeguards—far from it. I am arguing that inquests should be opened at the coroner’s discretion; they should not be mandatory. It was certainly not the intention of this House in passing the Coroners and Justice Act or the Mental Capacity Act to mandate an inquest in every case in which the deprivation of liberty safeguards apply, nor was it the Court of Appeal’s intention in the P and Q cases, so far as I can work out; the issue was not canvassed before the Court at all because the case did not concern inquests.

In support of my point, the Chief Coroner of England and Wales highlighted the problem in his 2014 annual report to the Government, and highlighted the massive increase in the number of deprivation of liberty safeguards from 11,300 in 2013-14 to some 83,000 in the first three quarters of 2014-15, which will inevitably lead to a huge number of additional inquests. I ask the Minister to find legislative time, as a matter of real priority, to exempt people who die while they are subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards from the mandatory requirement to hold an inquest. That change would reduce the pressure that is building on coroners across the country. It would help, but by no means resolve, the problems at the West London coroner’s court, to which I return in closing. It is clear that something must be done to improve the terrible standards of service in that coroner’s court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will be brief, not least because this matter, although it is not sub judice, is potentially subject to an investigation by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which is the appropriate body to deal with it. Indeed, in answer to my parliamentary question on 9 November, the Minister confirmed that that is the case. The chief executive of Hammersmith and Fulham Council sent a letter to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), whom I congratulate on securing this debate on a subject of great concern to all MPs in the six boroughs, stating that the council expects to hear back from the JCIO in the second week of January on whether it will launch a full investigation, but clearly that is already under consideration.

Like everyone here, I have had complaints about the West London coroner’s court, and this week I have corresponded with my constituent Angelita Rodriguez about the sad death of James Rodriguez, her late brother, which exhibits many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman identified. It is not necessarily appropriate to go into the individual details of these cases today, but it is not sufficient to blame others for what is going wrong in the coroner’s office. Whatever is going wrong and causing the problems we have heard about, it ultimately falls at the coroner’s door to resolve. I am not impressed by the fact that, at different times, the local authority, administrative staff, the coroner’s officer, the Metropolitan police and even the previous coroner have been passed the buck. I declare an interest, because I chaired the panel that appointed the previous coroner, Alice Thompson, some 15 years ago—I was then the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council. She had more than a decade of distinguished service and conducted some of the most difficult and complex inquests.

This is a matter that concerns literally millions of people across west London, because the six boroughs have a population in excess of 1.5 million people. The coroner’s court deals with people at a time of great stress and in extremis. It is often considered a bit of a Cinderella service. I am very glad that we managed to persuade the coalition Government not to abolish the post of Chief Coroner before it was introduced, and Peter Thornton is doing a very good job. Coroner services can and do go wrong from time to time, but they are an essential and ancient part of our judicial system. It is vital that those services work well, so I hope we will see a full investigation in the new year. I am pleased to hear that there has been some improvement, and I know that the borough council, which is the providing authority for these purposes, is taking the matter seriously in respect of its responsibilities, and I am sure the Metropolitan police are doing the same. In the end, the buck does have to stop with the West London coroner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

The West London coroner is not here to defend himself, so I will cite the case of James Rodriguez that I mentioned earlier. The post mortem was carried out on 30 April. By the coroner’s own admission, five months later they had not chased up the results, and he says now to the bereaved relatives, who have no death certificate at this stage, nine months later,

“I will not guess at this stage”

when that will happen. That is not in dispute, and that is the level of service we are dealing with.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I am absolutely clear that the needs of bereaved people should be at the very centre of all coroners’ services. That was supposed to be the main aim of the coroner reforms that we implemented in July 2013.

The West London coroner’s office in Fulham is very busy. It covers a large geographical area, as we know. In 2014 the office received 3,437 reports of deaths and 383 inquests were held. However, that is no excuse for poor, inefficient, rude and insensitive services, or, in some cases, a lack of communication, particularly at such a difficult time when people are grieving. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton is not the only Member whose constituents have been unhappy with the level of service they have received from the West London coroner’s office, particularly with regard to the responsiveness of the office. Several Members have written to me detailing individual cases of constituents who have encountered delays, lack of engagement and rudeness from the coroner’s office, and other Members have raised that today.

My officials and the Chief Coroner’s office have also been alerted to problems. These include bereaved families not being able to access death certificates in a timely manner; delays in holding inquests, which is particularly stressful for bereaved families when they are already going through a very upsetting time; and not having staff at the end of the phone to deal with queries and concerns when they are needed. I understand that a number of complaints have also been lodged with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton has written to the council’s chief executive on this matter as well.

Earlier this year, the Chief Coroner went to Fulham to visit the senior coroner and his staff. Along with him were representatives from the local authority, which provides the funding and infrastructure for the local coroner service, and also representatives from the Metropolitan police, which provide the coroner’s officers, who are the front-line staff who deal with bereaved people. The senior coroner, the local authority and the police all have a role to play in improving the service. They discussed the issues together and looked at ways to resolve them, and an action plan was agreed. I am pleased to note that, as a result, we are beginning to see signs of a more positive picture emerging from west London. The office has reached its full complement of administrative and investigative staff, including a coroner’s officer manager and six new coroner’s officers. There is now a new way of managing the telephone system so that administrative officers deal with all phone calls in the first instance to relieve the burden on the coroner’s officers, thereby allowing them to focus on progressing cases. However, I take on board the recent instances that the hon. Member for Ealing North has raised about his own experiences with the telephone service. I have made a note of them and my officials will certainly deal with that, because that is not acceptable.

Members will be pleased to hear that west London has now reduced the backlog that it inherited. The senior coroner inherited 400 outstanding inquests when he took up post. That has now been reduced to 70 cases and it is anticipated that these final historic cases will be cleared by the end of February, which will allow staff to focus fully on new cases. The senior coroner has attempted to clear the backlog by making sure there are two courts running in parallel with his assistant coroners hearing cases alongside him.

As the Minister with the coroners portfolio, I share the wish of all Members in the Chamber to resolve matters as quickly as possible. As they have already articulated, the process is not straightforward. The Ministry of Justice has overall responsibility for coroner policy and law, but the responsibility for the delivery and funding of coroner services is a local matter for the appropriate local authority, in this case the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It is for it to decide how to run and fund the coroner services.

The Shrewsbury 24

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Home Office and the case of the Shrewsbury 24.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. As Members will know, this is not the first occasion on which the great injustice of Shrewsbury has been brought before Parliament. I make it clear from the outset that there is no doubt that the jailing of Dessie Warren, Ricky Tomlinson and four others, and the guilty verdicts against a further 18 Shrewsbury pickets, was a great injustice. Indeed, in 2014 there was a full debate in the main Chamber in which an overwhelming majority supported the motion to release Government documents pertaining to the case. Earlier this year, due to the perspicacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), we again debated the call for the release of Government documentation relating to the Shrewsbury 24.

It might be asked why we are here again to raise the matter with the Minister. The answer is quite simple: not only have the Government not kept their promise to release the documents kept secret from the public for 43 years because of a fallacious threat to national security, but there is now compelling evidence, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and I have had access, that undeniably proves that the whole saga is a conspiracy at the very heart of Government. We would like to bring that to the House’s attention.

I will quickly recap the events of the national building workers’ strike of 1972, its immediate aftermath and the new evidence that was recently brought to light. I will then highlight what campaigners are requesting and the process for release. From previous debates, I know that some Tory Members simply believe that workers should not be allowed to strike and that many who do are either agitators or criminals, but I remind the House that taking legitimate strike action was then an inalienable right—and it still is, despite the draconian restrictions of the Trade Union Bill.

In the previous debates on this matter, apart from some limited opposition relating to some of the minor issues surrounding the case, the material substance of the claims raised in Parliament has been largely accepted. As John Platts-Mills QC said:

“The trial of the Shrewsbury Pickets is the only case I know of where the government has ordered a prosecution in defiance of the advice of senior police and prosecution authorities.”

The campaign team’s researcher, the redoubtable Eileen Turnbull, trawled through documentation archived at Kew and uncovered a letter dated 25 January 1973 from the then Attorney General, Peter Rawlinson—the highest legal adviser in the land—to the then Home Secretary, Robert Carr. Rawlinson advised the Home Secretary that, in his view, having discussed the case with Treasury counsel and the Director of Public Prosecutions, no less,

“proceedings should not be instituted.”

There is a litany of major inconsistencies in due legal process but, for expediency, I will outline just a few. Despite the fact that the police never received any report of incidents of criminal behaviour, or even unacceptable behaviour, by pickets at the time of the industrial action, political interference led to a belated investigation of the Shrewsbury pickets. The unions did not receive any complaints from the police about the conduct of the pickets—in fact, there is photographic evidence showing that the police were mingling freely with the strikers.

There was political interference with the judicial process and a very dubious relationship between senior Tories and certain senior police officers. Convictions for conspiracy were the then Government’s ultimate aim, as such convictions were seen as totemic in deterring other workers from taking industrial action. Despite no complaints, cautions or arrests, on 6 September 1972 a team of 24 detectives was deployed to north Wales to carry out a fishing exercise, gathering 800 statements, of which three quarters were discarded. Original statements that did not fit the investigators’ viewpoint were shredded and new statements ordered. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary will examine that issue in further detail.

A practice direction from the then Lord Chancellor followed in which the legal system regarding the swearing in of juries was changed. That denied defence solicitors the right to know jurors’ occupations, to which legal representatives had been privy for generations. The defendants’ legal team expressed major concern about the lack of neutrality in the area in which the trial was held. The trial was presided over by Judge Mais, whose inexperience was matched only by his lack of impartiality; his expertise was mainly in rural and ecclesiastical matters.

Inexplicably, a television programme entitled “Red Under the Bed”, which specifically made references to the ongoing trial, was allowed to be televised in the Shrewsbury area during the trial. In any other circumstance that would have been considered contempt of court and the trial would have been stopped. Scenes from the building workers’ strike, the committal hearing at Shrewsbury and shots of Des Warren and some of the Shrewsbury pickets were screened, which was prejudicial to a fair hearing. Papers already released show that the then Government, right up to the Prime Minister, were involved in assisting the programme’s production. The jury was misled. When the jury initially failed to agree a verdict, it was advised that, should it agree to convict, the accused would only be fined by the court. As we know, that did not happen.

In the Commons debate of January 2014, the motion requested that the Government release all documents relating to the prosecution of the Shrewsbury 24. At the end of the debate, the then Justice Minister, Simon Hughes, replied for the coalition:

“The Government are…committed to transparency.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 515.]

He wanted as “much information as possible” to be put in the public domain, in line with the Freedom of Information Act enacted by the previous Labour Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had the pleasure of replying to that debate for the Opposition; we were somewhat encouraged by what the then Minister, Simon Hughes, said. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured this debate almost two years later, and I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, is here. The Government have since gone backwards, have they not? They are now bringing the shutters down. Is that not a disgrace?

[Steve Rotheram]

Hopefully, between us, we will be able to explain to the people here, and to the wider public watching and listening to this debate, exactly how the Government have backtracked on the promises that were made less than two years ago. If the Government are honest about transparent and open government, which we so often hear about from Government Members, the easy thing for them to do is to release the documents.

Two years ago, I said that I believed the course of natural justice had been denied because of arrests

“on trumped-up charges…a dodgy trial and…unsound convictions. That would not be allowed and would not be acceptable today, and it should not have been allowed and should not have been acceptable then. It was a legal process that would shame a third-world dictatorship.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 492.]

Given the new evidence seen by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and me, I now believe that to be the case even more than I did following the debate 23 months ago.

Frankly, it is bonkers that the documents we requested in that debate—a request that the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported in the vote—should remain under lock and key. The Minister at the time, Simon Hughes, said that just four documents relating to the Shrewsbury trial were being withheld by the Ministry of Justice, but he could not speak for other Departments. He also conceded that the Government were retaining 625 files from 1972. It is our belief that the process that led to the prosecution of the Shrewsbury pickets is germane to many of those files, which are therefore fundamental to the veracity of the campaigners’ case. Only when those files are placed in the National Archives at Kew for public viewing will that become apparent.

The superficial justification for the Government’s position is that an exemption from disclosure was signed by the Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Hailsham, who at the time was a Cabinet member, a Law Lord, Speaker of the House of Lords and a member of the judiciary. By coincidence, he acquired a significant range of new responsibilities through the higher courts in England and Wales when the Courts Act 1971 came into force in 1972, and he used his power to suppress information under section 3(4) of the Public Records Act 1958.

Some might say that this happened a long time ago, and they would be correct. Indeed, other Home Secretaries have had the opportunity to overturn the original decision, but have failed to do so. The most recent instrument, signed in 2011, provides an explanation of the reason for withholding the documents, under section 5, which states:

“The special reason is that transfer of the records after that period to the Public Record Office or a place of deposit appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Act will create a real risk of prejudice to national security.”

Parliament has been discussing “national security” at length during the past few weeks, and I would never try to diminish the importance of our domestic resilience. As many Members said during the Syria debate, there is no greater priority than the safety of the nation. But can anybody honestly argue that a strike by building workers who sought better pay and working conditions 43 years ago would in any way threaten our national security?

The Shrewsbury 24 campaign submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on 3 April 2012. The Government have assured them that the CCRC has been given access to all documents relating to the trials, but how do we know this has actually happened? The CCRC is not the advocate for the applicants; it is the adjudicator, and it is there to consider the evidence from the applicants to decide whether or not there is a real possibility that the Court of Appeal would find the convictions unsafe. There are many files at the National Archives in Kew that have just one or two pages in them that relate to the trials. How can the Government expect the CCRC to go through dozens of files looking for individual documents when it simply does not have the staff for such a monumental task? Although the CCRC has statutory powers to obtain documents, it does not have the resources to conduct the detailed research that is necessary to show a conviction to be unsafe.

In the case of the Shrewsbury 24, the convictions were brought about by Government interference. The applicants have to establish that, and the CCRC cannot do that for them. However, the relevant Government Departments know exactly where their particular documents relating to the case lie, and they could provide them to the applicants to ensure that they can make a complete evidential submission to the CCRC, so that their application can be fully considered—if, of course, there was the genuine will within Government to be open and transparent; and that is why we are here today.

After the debate in 2014, the Minister met my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, together with the campaign researcher, Eileen Turnbull, and the most well known of the pickets, Ricky Tomlinson. Afterwards, the Minister arranged for Stephen Jones, head of freedom of information and justice devolution at the Ministry of Justice, to send Eileen the references of files held at Kew that could relate to the Shrewsbury pickets. Mr Jones sent her 2,307 references. Eileen diligently and painstakingly went through the references and selected 51 of the files that she believed to include information about the Government’s involvement in the prosecutions, even though they did not specifically refer to the Shrewsbury trials in their titles.

Eileen’s research concluded that there was important material kept on file relating to the Shrewsbury pickets that was not specifically referenced using either the word “Shrewsbury” or the word “pickets”. That was supported by an open document at Kew that stated that information regarding picketing was held under the reference “Security/Subversion”. Staff at Kew acknowledged that the Cabinet Office uses this reference internally. This information establishes, therefore, that there are many files—at least four volumes—kept on pickets by the Government and referenced “Security/Subversion”. When Eileen followed up her request for files with the words “Subversion in industry” in their titles, she was refused, as everything that fits that description—“Security/Subversion”—is classified.

The Government say that they have withheld only three letters and a security services report. We believe that there is much, much more than that on file and we would ask, in the first instance, for the following documents to be released. First, there is the report of West Mercia police and the report of Gwynedd police, which were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions by Chief Constable John Williams on 18 December 1972. The campaign believes that these documents demonstrate that the police considered that there was no evidence to bring charges against the Shrewsbury pickets.

Second, there is the communication between the Home Secretary and other Departments, and West Mercia and Gwynedd police forces, including Assistant Chief Constable Alex Rennie, after 6 September 1972 about their large-scale investigations into picketing in north Wales and the Shropshire area during the strike. The campaign believes that these documents reveal the process of decision making that occurred at Cabinet and security services level to bring about charges against the building workers. As we all know, there were no complaints by the police or the public on 6 September 1972. No pickets were cautioned or arrested, even though there was a large-scale police presence at sites in Shropshire that day.

Thirdly, there are the communications between the Home Secretary and the Attorney General in December 1972 and January 1973 about the prosecution of the pickets. Campaigners have long believed that these documents will reveal who made the decision to proceed with charges against the building workers five months after the dispute ended.

Fourthly, there is the note of the phone call from a Government Department to Desmond Fennell, the junior prosecution counsel at Shrewsbury Crown court, that according to Maurice Drake QC, chief prosecuting counsel, was a request to inform the judge that they did not want him to pass custodial sentences. The campaign believes that this document further highlights evidence of the Government’s direct interference with the trial.

Fifthly, there are the MI5 files held on Des Warren, Ricky Tomlinson and any of the other pickets. The relevance of this request is obvious, as campaigners believe that these files will reveal the monitoring of the pickets during the 1972 building workers strike by the security services, as well as the security services’ activities in manipulating the Shrewsbury trials.

Sixthly, a full copy of a letter from Robert McAlpine and Sons Ltd dated 26 February 1973 to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis should be released. Campaigners believe that this letter confirms the role of this construction company in intensifying pressure on the police to bring about charges against the pickets. Just for reference, I point out that the Brookside site in Telford was, by coincidence, a McAlpine site, and Sir Robert was, of course, a senior member of the Conservative party. That site was where the evidence was assembled by the police to bring about charges of conspiracy to intimidate, affray and unlawful assembly.

The Cabinet Office maintains that it would not be in the public interest for the files to be released. That is absolute nonsense, which most reasonable people would categorically reject as an argument. For the Government to resist requests to disclose documents actually brings about distrust and suspicion, which is not in the public interest. However, central to my request for the release of these files is the desire for justice for these men while they are still able to see justice being done. Many of the lives of the Shrewsbury 24 were blighted by the events 43 years ago. The youngest of the Shrewsbury 24 is 68 and the oldest is 90. At least five have passed away since the trials in 1973-74, so time is of the essence.

It is inconceivable that a building workers strike in 1972 could throw up issues of national security in 2015.

[Steve Rotheram]

I think the argument is persuasive. To tell the truth, I never speak for the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh; he can speak for himself. Given that he will wind up, he will address the points made by the right hon. Gentleman.

It has taken 43 years to get where we are today, and the argument that we are putting forward overwhelmingly demonstrates, I think, that there is no way that any of the documents that would be released could be a danger to national security. That is the nub of this: it is about the documentation being released, so that the CCRC can have the full picture, not a partial one, in deciding whether to refer to the Court of Appeal. That is what the debate is about; others can speak for themselves.

[Andy Slaughter]

I hesitate ever to disagree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but we now have a Government who are attacking freedom of information and the Human Rights Act, including the right to freedom of assembly. We need to see these things in the round, because there is a sustained attack on individual freedom.

[Steve Rotheram]

It is sustained in as much as it has taken Governments of all persuasions—to tell the truth—more than 43 years to get to the position we are in today. I am no friend of the current Government, but we also had an opportunity. We were in government for 13 years and we should have done a lot more than we did. This is not just about the apportionment of blame; it is about trying to get to where we need to get. Let us get everything out there and give it to the CCRC, so that it can make an informed decision on whether the case should be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in thanking our right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). As shadow Lord Chancellor, he made that change—I was simply his vehicle for announcing it—to say for the first time that a future Labour Government will release all those documents, and that pledge is maintained.

[Steve Rotheram]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more, and in fact—I think the shadow Home Secretary will come to this—we want to go further. We want to look at historic injustices in the round. There are direct links between an awful lot of them. There is a thread that goes from 1971, possibly through what happened with Wilson, through the miners’ strike and possibly ending up with Hillsborough. I have been given a lot of information by Eileen Turnbull and others on this, and there are so many similarities, with the establishment deciding what was right for the country and covering things up.

This is a conspiracy that happened at the very highest level, so I look forward to a Labour Government, although what we are asking for is for the documents to be released, hopefully before a Labour Government, and we cannot get that until 2020. For some of the Shrewsbury pickets, four years is four years too long. They have waited long enough. The reason we want it is that information requested could prove crucial to the case that the campaigners are putting forward to the CCRC and to having those unsound convictions overturned by the Court of Appeal. It is time for the obfuscation to stop and for the Government to do what is right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

To obey the law of the land. It is my responsibility to uphold the rule of law. We sought to take steps as quickly as possible after a proper review of the criminal courts charge and after the spending review to suspend the operation of the charge. Twenty-one days after the requisite statutory instrument was laid—that is, on 24 December—there will be no further imposition of the charge.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the Lord Chancellor’s fifth U-turn—or is it his sixth? I note that it is somewhat unorthodox to rehabilitate one’s own reputation by trashing one’s predecessor. Will he now clean up the mess his Government have made, rather than walk away from it? When will the charge be repealed by primary legislation? Why is it still being imposed —it does not have to be—up to Christmas? Will the charges already imposed be remitted? Will the magistrates who resigned in protest be reinstated? Will he tell us the cost of the debacle, and how much it adds to the £15 million he has already wasted on the privatisation of fines collection and the secure college?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was something of a multifaceted question, but I think we can rely on the Secretary of State to respond with his customary elegant simplicity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely take account of my hon. Friend’s point. The Government’s position is that, in general, there should be a right to anonymity before the point of charge, but the decision to release the name or details of a suspect in an investigation is an operational one for the police to make. Ministers should not interfere in the operational independence of the police, but I think that the case made by my hon. Friend and others is important. It is vital for us to recognise that the right to be regarded as innocent should be respected by everyone involved in the administration of justice.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Working Links, which runs three community rehabilitation companies in Wales and the west of England, is announcing redundancies of up to 44% of staff—some 600 jobs. If these redundancies go ahead, what will the Secretary of State do to ensure that standards of service and the safety of the public are maintained?

[Michael Gove]

The transforming rehabilitation reforms, which were introduced in the last Parliament by my predecessor, have enhanced the quality of probation support that offenders enjoy, and we needed to make sure the improvements that have been made are built on. Each of the individual community rehabilitation companies will make their own decisions about the mix and qualifications of staff required in order to enhance that service, but these transforming rehabilitation reforms are welcome and are in the interests of offenders and of community safety.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Lord Chancellor will have seen the reports today of the outrageous treatment of Andrew Waters, whose right to a private life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights was breached by East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust, which placed a “do not resuscitate” order on him, listing his Down’s syndrome and learning difficulties among the reasons. Given that these are exactly the rights the Government wish to opt out of, is it not time, in the week we celebrate international Human Rights Day, for the Lord Chancellor to do another of his famed U-turns and keep the Human Rights Act?

[Michael Gove]

The case the hon. Gentleman raises is indeed very serious, and I cannot imagine any human rights legislation, or indeed any legal architecture that any of the parties in this House would subscribe to, which would in any way countenance the sort of behaviour he has described.

Draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria and Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 General Committees

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to be opposite the Minister. I have missed our debates on legal aid regulations a great deal, and I had to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) to give me this opportunity as I was having such withdrawal symptoms—I find the debates so racy.

The Minister is right that the amendments are minor but important to the scheme set out under LASPO. One might also add that they are fairly technical. It is the Opposition’s view, and also the view, I think, of the non-governmental organisations I have spoken with that work in the field, such as Resolution, that the changes are, as the Minister says, necessary and positive. We therefore do not oppose them.

I have nothing to say about the detail of the regulations, but I will make just two points. The first point, as I think the Minister knows of old, is that our objection is not so much to the way in which he is amending the scope for civil legal aid under LASPO, but to the fact that the scheme itself, as set out in the Act, puts us in the position of constantly having to make such amendments. The scheme’s very nature, with the move from matters being within scope and less being excluded to everything being out of scope but included, inevitably leads to a plethora of such amendments arising out of new legislation, changes to the policy or mistakes made in the original drafting or in included provisions.

The Minister might not be able to answer this question today, but I am sure that he will let me know his response: how many pieces of secondary legislation that have necessitated alterations to the scope have had to go through Committee since LASPO was enacted? That is important, and not just to show how the scheme works or does not work, but because every further amendment complicates the legal aid regime, and the more complicated it becomes, the more difficult it becomes—even for experienced practitioners—regarding cost, navigating the scheme and ensuring that people have a proper entitlement. I therefore hope not only that the amendment is made in statute, but that it is properly publicised so that those who can take advantage of the changes are aware of them.

The other point that I would like the Minister to comment on relates to regulation 3, which was brought to the attention of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was originally—and erroneously—made by negative process and subsequently had to be revoked. I am sometimes puzzled by why a particular provision goes through the affirmative or negative process, but that clearly has consequences for how it is debated and what scrutiny it comes under. In this case, can the Minister shed a little more light on what happened? That is clearly an important point, and I do not say that for point scoring, as such things are not always immediately apparent, but, as it is difficult enough for parliamentarians to follow the process, we would hope that the experts who draft and allocate statutory instruments know where they are to go. I am glad that was picked up and dealt with, but any light that can be shed on why it happened in the first place would be helpful.

Transpeople (Prisons)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 20th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

If anyone has given incorrect information to the House and comes to be aware of that fact, it is incumbent upon the Member to correct the record. That is an obligation that applies both to Back Benchers and to those who serve on the Front Bench, whether as Ministers or shadow Ministers. I must congratulate Members on their dexterity in raising their points of order. I have tried to give fair-minded responses. It is not for me to take sides in these matters but the points are on the record.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The day would not be complete without a point of order from Mr Andrew Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nicely linking the previous points of order, may I point out that, in the Minister’s response on junior doctors contracts, he said, as the Secretary of State normally says, that there is an excess of death at the weekend and that that is linked to the current junior doctors contracts? It is a matter of record that there are fewer deaths in hospital at the weekend. It is wrong that that is continually repeated in the House. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how the record can be corrected so that that is not repeated, as it is not assisting the process of negotiation and trust.

[Mr Speaker]

What will assist the process of trust and continued negotiation is work that takes place outside this place. Our contribution must be to show our serious interest in the matters, as reflected in continuing debate—preferably continuing debate within the context of the private Member’s Bill, rather than through the vehicle of further points of order—but the hon. Gentleman, with his customary eloquence and self-confidence, has made his own point in his own way and it is on the record. It may be that he will wish to share the record of his observations with the constituency of Hammersmith, or whatever it is now called.

Personal Injury Fraud

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate. The subject is not totally unfamiliar; indeed, it was debated quite a lot in the last Parliament. I refreshed my memory earlier about a debate we had almost exactly two years ago—on 7 November 2013—entitled “Motor Insurance (Whiplash)”. I spoke for 30 minutes in that debate, and I refer hon. Members to that speech to spare them from having me repeat the whole of it now. Much of it is still relevant, which is sad in a way, and that might be an indictment of the Government for not having done more. Perhaps we can blame that on the coalition, which was a completely different organisation—there are no Liberal Democrats around to protest any more, so we can always blame them.

I dealt with this issue for five years, and I thought I had finally got rid of it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is responsible for dealing with it, is away somewhere, so I am reprising the subject. The last time we debated it, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had just taken over the brief, and now the current Minister is acquainting herself with it. It is an interesting subject, and perhaps I may say without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Lincoln that there was good and bad in what he said. I was with him for much of his speech, until at the end he drew conclusions that did not all perfectly derive from the facts at his disposal. One of the problems is that we do not always have the facts that we need on this issue.

I think we all detest cold calls, because we believe they are parasitical, and they are severely irritating. As far as I am aware, cold calls from law firms are already banned. Many of the cold calls that we receive come from call centres run outside the UK, which have become an industry in themselves. I do not think a single Member of the House, or indeed member of the public, would not want a crackdown on them, and want them to be banned and excluded. The problem is that it is difficult to do that, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government intend to do along those lines.

[Chris Philp]

Even if one cannot ban calls emanating from outside the UK, there could certainly be a ban on any UK organisation, including law firms, using information derived from such extraterritorial calls. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government to institute such a ban?

[Andy Slaughter]

As I have said, I believe that calls made in that way are banned. I will come on to say a bit more about law firms in a moment, but I think that would be the case for any such form of abuse.

The other area where I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for Lincoln is on referral fees. Again, the previous Government came to the issue late in the day. There were late amendments—on Report, I think—to the Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, banning referral fees. We thought that that did not go far enough and would have liked them to be criminalised. I am afraid that the implementation by the Ministry of Justice was rather cack-handed and amateur for a while. That is getting better, and there has been a crackdown on claims management companies, which I welcome, as well as an extension of the ban on referral fees. Referral fees do not have any place in the British legal system. Those are the key ways of stopping such abuse.

The percentage of personal injury claims being made for whiplash has fallen, but Members are right to ask why the number of personal injury claims is increasing while the number of motor accidents is falling. One reason, undoubtedly, is greater use of advertisement, which encourages more people to claim. That does not necessarily mean that the claims are fraudulent, but it does mean that there is an industry encouraging the making of claims.

Thus far, so good, but the hon. Gentleman suddenly shoehorned into the end of his speech the conclusion that the small claims limit for personal injury should be extended to £5,000, the limitation period should be 12 months, and the quantum in such cases should be rigidly enforceable. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that. It would be to attack a basic principle of English law—the principle of the courts’ discretion.

We already have clear Judicial Studies Board guidelines on quantum. There are reasons for the relatively short limitation period of three years. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) mentioned that injuries are not always immediately evident. As for the old chestnut about raising the small claims limit to £5,000, I am entirely in agreement that after 16 years, if that is how long it has been, it is right to raise the limit proportionally by whatever the inflation rate has been during that time. It might mean taking the limit up to £2,000 or something of that order. Raising it to £5,000, however, would exclude 90% of all personal injury claims. For someone on a low income in particular, £5,000 is a substantial amount of money, and it is wrong for people in that situation not to have the benefit of legal advice. I see an ABI agenda there—that is what it always wants. Insurance companies are particularly keen on effectively taking lawyers out of the personal injury process, so that the relationship is between the victim and the insurer.

[Julian Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just about an ABI agenda but about trying to reduce the cost of insurance to the public? The personal injury claim blight means that hard-working families must pay extra for their insurance.

[Andy Slaughter]

That is an opportune intervention, because that was to be my next point.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that next point, may I stay with the previous point and say that I am no apologist for lawyers and solicitors or their firms, or for the ABI or any insurance company? In fact, I am no friend of any insurance company. I am here, as are many other hon. Members, because our constituents’ premiums rise every year. Unfortunately, no harm comes to insurance companies when premiums go up to pay for fraudulent claims, because they just pass on the costs in their turnover figures to the little people at the bottom of the scale. I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I was trying to say that we need to root out the lawyers, solicitors and claims management firms that use the moneys available in the system to feather their nest.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am perhaps slightly more sceptical about insurance companies’ use of data. There is an idea that whenever premiums fall, as they have recently, that is because firms are cracking down on fraud, and when they rise it is because of an increase in fraud. The reality of finances, insurance companies’ activities and fraud is far more complicated. For many years, the figure for fraud that was often given was 7%. I do not know whether it has changed—I think the figure of 11% was quoted in the debate in relation to one insurer—but 7% is a high figure for fraud. Of course, that still means that insurance companies estimate that 93% of claims are non-fraudulent and come from genuine victims. However, I have heard the figure for the percentage of claims that are partly or wholly fraudulent put as low as 1%; I have also heard it put much higher than 7%.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I need to clarify those statistics, because the percentages relate to identifiable fraud. That is not to say that all claims are fraudulent—far from it. None of us minds people who have really been injured receiving their just compensation. Fraud that is easily identifiable, which the insurance companies chase down, is at the level the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but that is not to say that the 93%, or any other residual percentage, represents bona fide claims. There might well be other fraudulent claims within those percentages.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to argue about statistics endlessly, given that part of my argument is that the statistics are not robust. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looked at the briefing for the debate by the Law Society, which is of course the professional body for solicitors. There are concerns that insurers use figures about levels of fraud as it suits them.

The point that concerns me is that the remedies that insurers resort to are, in some cases, more likely to encourage fraud. The principal one is third-party capture. There is an increasing trend for insurers to contact victims directly, offer a settlement and discourage them from contacting solicitors—and, if they have contacted them, to ask for information about that. They are not entitled to that information, but rather in the manner of claims managers who, as we have heard, use bullying behaviour to try to substantiate fraudulent claims or exaggerate claims, I am afraid insurance companies increasingly approach people in the same way, to try to get a quick, early settlement without medical reporting or professional advice. That may well minimise the value of the claim—I have no doubt that that is the intention—so someone who has a genuine and possibly quite serious injury may settle for a relatively trivial sum of money. However, it may also encourage fraud, because if there is no medical report or lawyer to act as an arbiter of whether a claim is genuine, the insurer, for commercial reasons, might settle a claim that could well be fraudulent. We should be worried about the growth of third-party capture, which would undoubtedly be massively encouraged if small claims were lifted disproportionately.

I am not saying that there is not bad practice by law firms, because there certainly is. I am talking not even about dubious practice, but about sharp practice in marketing skills. However, as one would expect, the overwhelming majority of solicitors act in a proper and professional manner. They have the ability, through the askCUE system, to determine whether someone who comes to them with a claim has claimed previously, and they are encouraged to make such checks to see if that is happening.

I sound a note of caution not because I think that anything raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln is inappropriate. It is just that, as in many things, there is a balance to strike. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East speak about victims. Let us not forget them in this case. Political parties often speak up for victims of crime, but victims of accidents are also victims. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that genuine victims of accidents should not get access to justice or be properly remunerated.

I baulk at the constant refrain about a compensation culture. Time and time again it has been shown, including by the Government’s own experts, that no such culture exists in this country. On the contrary, recent consumer surveys have shown that only 17% of people say that their default position would be to seek compensation after receiving poor treatment. I do not think it is naturally British to think that, as a consequence of poor treatment or customer service or even an injury, the first thing one would do is immediately go to claim compensation.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman may well be correct, but the problem is that ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being harassed and incited by claims management companies to invent claims—I stand here today because I am one such person. That is why the Government need to go beyond the action they have taken already. I hope that he agrees, given that he used to practise personal injury law.

[Andy Slaughter]

I did indeed practise personal injury law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that 90% of my practice was for insurers, so I do not think I can be accused of parti pris. I can see it from both sides of the fence, and if I am talking about claimants and victims, that is just to give a bit of balance to the debate.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will hear what is being done specifically to crack down on those calls. I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot about whether, in his case, he was able to report to either the MOJ or the police that he was being suborned in such a way, but I hope that people do that. If there were a couple of high-profile cases, perhaps instigated by Members of Parliament, in which pestilential claims management companies and cold callers were held to account, that would be a tonic for reducing the practice substantially. If the Minister can shed any light on what the Government can do on enforcement, I will be pleased to hear that.

We must look at both sides of the argument. We have to take action based on evidence, and we have to realise that there are many vested interests. Yes, the claims management companies have interests and we must be on guard against fraud, but we must also be aware of the interests of the insurance industry, which are not always at one with those of the motorist or consumer. It does not always follow that what the industry asks for is beneficial not just to victims or potential victims, but to motorists as a whole. I hope that we can crack down on fraud and relieve the consumer of the burden of calls—I get them myself on many issues—but I also hope that, on this as on other matters, we will bear in mind that the interests of victims and those with meritorious claims for personal injury should be respected.

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

May I say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson? I add my praise to that already heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for securing this important debate on personal injury fraud and its impact on individuals and motor insurance premiums. He has been a dedicated and tenacious campaigner on this important issue.

I will state at the beginning that I am not the Minister with responsibility for this matter in the Ministry of Justice. That honour falls to my colleague, Lord Faulks. I will of course make sure that all the points made today that I am unable to cover are responded to by my noble and learned Friend, and that he is well aware of all the suggestions made by hon. Members from across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln has a number of concerns about personal injury fraud and nuisance calls in particular, which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentioned. Those pernicious calls cause annoyance and distress to many people, particularly the elderly and vulnerable. I will address that in due course. First, I would like to say a few words about some of the measures and initiatives introduced by this and the previous coalition Government.

We have been, and continue to be, committed to tackling the problems in this market. There have been some real challenges for the Government in trying to put right the imbalances that have led to the disproportionate growth in personal injury claims. We know, as many Members have articulated, that reported road traffic accidents fell from approximately 190,000 in 2006 to about 140,000 in 2013, when the previous Government began to introduce their reforms. That is a reduction of more than 20%, yet at the same time the number of road traffic personal injury claims rose from about 520,000 in 2006 to 760,000 last year—an increase of about 50%. That is a clear indication, if one was needed, that there is a problem and that the Government should consider further reforms to combat this distasteful culture, which we believe is in part being driven by the constant barrage of phone calls and texts messages that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South so powerfully described.

The Government accept that many personal injury claims are genuine, but it is also clear that many speculative, exaggerated and fraudulent claims are being made. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, but it is not right that people who try to cheat the system should be allowed to get away with it and, as so many Members have said, thereby force up the price of motor insurance for honest, law-abiding motorists. There are considerable costs in dealing with such claims, which have a significant impact on the cost of premiums. According to the ABI, the annual cost to the industry from whiplash claims is £2 billion, which, as has been said, adds some £90 to the average motor insurance premium.

I will pause there and go back in time to set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln is a long-standing member of the Select Committee on Transport and he will be aware that just over five years have passed since Lord Justice Jackson published his review of the cost of civil litigation. That may seem quite a long time ago now, but the previous Government and this one have been busy ever since with a substantial programme of reform.

The Jackson reforms, introduced through the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, were a key achievement in addressing bad behaviours in the personal injury sector. The reforms introduced a ban on the referral fees that many lawyers, solicitors and claims management companies used to buy and sell claims. We agreed that the system of no win, no fee arrangements was not fit for purpose—that, in fact, it had the perverse effect of encouraging litigation—and so reformed the system to return balance to it, making sure that costs were no longer all heaped on defendants and that claimants had a financial stake in their claim. Our reforms were explicitly aimed at controlling costs and discouraging unmeritorious claims, while enabling genuine cases to be pursued, although of course at lower cost than before, which is why we also put in place measures to encourage earlier settlement.

Speculative and unnecessary whiplash claims are some of the most unmeritorious of all claims, as many Members mentioned. Following a Downing Street summit in February 2012, the Government committed to introducing reforms to tackle the number and cost of whiplash claims. In response to that commitment, the Ministry of Justice has worked with stakeholders to produce a wide-ranging set of reforms to introduce much-needed independence to, and improve the quality of, the medical evidence used in such cases.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has mentioned the notorious insurers’ summit, when the Prime Minister invited the major insurance companies to 10 Downing Street, but no one representing the claimants’ side. Does she think that that might have been a mistake? Does she agree that the Government should listen to both claimants and defendants?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We can dwell on the past, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to listen to all sides in the argument. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, important steps have since been taken on medical reports. The first phase of the reforms included measures to reduce and fix the cost of initial whiplash medical reports at £180, to allow defendants to give their account to the expert for the first time, to discourage insurers from making pre-medical offers to settle, and to ban experts who write the medical reports from also treating the claimant.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she is tempting me. She just mentioned third-party capture, but if the Government really want to stop it, why should it not be banned? I think she is about to mention MedCo. That has been a disaster, which is why we are having a full review only a few months after its introduction.

[Caroline Dinenage]

If the hon. Gentleman will hold his horses for just a moment, I will move on to some of those issues. MedCo has introduced a robust new accreditation scheme for medical experts, who need to attain accreditation by 2016 or they will be removed from the system. We hope that that will begin to take effect, but a further reform to control fraudulent claims at source was implemented on 1 June 2015, as he will know. Claimant lawyers were given access to insurance industry data and must now check the number of claims their potential client has made before accepting the claim.

The Government are particularly pleased that stakeholders put aside their differences to develop a consensus on sharing data and improving medical evidence. Such a consensus can only be positive for all involved and we look forward to continuing to work closely with stakeholders. The Government have also taken firm action to ban both lawyers and claims management companies from offering claimants inducements to bring frivolous claims. Although it is still early days in terms of monitoring the impact of the reforms, Government figures show that the number of whiplash claims has gone down by around 70,000 since 2011-12. That is a good start, but we remain concerned about the number of claims made and their impact on the cost of motor insurance premiums. Too many claims are still being brought inappropriately, often because people are encouraged and pressured to do so by unscrupulous lawyers or CMCs.

On 2 December 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Justice Secretary jointly announced a new insurance fraud taskforce. The taskforce will make recommendations to reduce all types of insurance fraud, to lower costs and to protect the interests of consumers. The Government are committed to tackling the perception that insurance fraud is a victimless crime. It is vital that people understand that making a fraudulent claim is not a legitimate way to make money. The taskforce is currently considering its recommendations, which the Government will consider carefully with a view to taking firm action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln mentioned the practice of “cash for crash”. The insurance fraud enforcement department is a City of London Police unit set up to tackle insurance fraud nationally. The £3 million annual cost of the unit is funded by ABI members through an industry-led compulsory levy. The unit is leading the fight against “cash for crash” gangs, and has caught and prosecuted many perpetrators of that distasteful scam over the past three years. It will continue in that work.

The Government have also been serious in our commitment to driving out bad practices by claims management companies, as is clearly demonstrated by the recent package of reforms to protect consumers who use the services of a CMC or who are subjected to its marketing practices. The reforms will also help organisations that are on the receiving end of high volumes of calls or fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims. The measures are transforming how the MOJ’s claims management regulation unit does its job. Members will be interested to hear that in the last year, 93 CMCs were investigated, 105 CMCs had their licences removed, 296 were issued warnings and 454 audits were conducted. Tackling fraud and unauthorised activity in the claims management industry has been, and will remain, a key priority for this Government.

The CMR unit works closely in partnership with both industry fraud bodies and the police to identify and deal with CMCs engaged in insurance fraud. That work has been instrumental in the successful prosecution of criminal organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln rightly identified nuisance calls as a well known route for spurious claims farming. The CMR unit makes sure that CMCs offering claims services do so legally. That is why we introduced tough new rules in October last year to put in place a stronger requirement to make sure claims are properly substantiated before being pursued.

We also strengthened the CMR unit’s enforcement tools in December last year with a new power to impose fines on CMCs. So far, three companies have been fined more than £800,000 for unlawful unsolicited marketing and coercing clients into signing contracts before taking unauthorised payments. That sends the powerful message to unscrupulous fraudsters that the Government take this issue seriously and will take firm action against them.

The claims industry is a fast-moving market. Practices continue to evolve, and the Government will monitor the market and respond with further reforms, as necessary, to provide better protection for consumers and the public. The Government are also looking to build on the work of the CMR unit by undertaking a fundamental review to consider what powers and resources are required for a tougher CMC regulatory regime. The review is due to be completed in early 2016.

I will now answer the very useful six points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as some of them will be included in that review. He talked about banning of outbound calling and the use of personal injury claims data gathered from those calls. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and ensuring that a direct marketing industry can continue, as—although this was not necessarily the case in his experience—it is a legitimate activity when done properly. We need to focus on the companies that are breaking the rules rather than penalise legitimate businesses, and to make sure that companies comply with the regulations. We have made it easier for the Financial Conduct Authority to take action against some of those companies, but we will continue to look at that, particularly in the light of what he has outlined today.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend is very persuasive, and I will definitely ensure his thoughts are passed on when the review is conducted.

My hon. Friend talked about criminal pursuit of anyone making fraudulent claims. That measure was introduced earlier this year in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which requires the court to dismiss in its entirety any claim where the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest. That means dishonest claimants can now no longer receive a payout if they have been fundamentally dishonest, even if a small part of their claim is in fact genuine. Insurers then have the option of pursuing a criminal prosecution for fraud.

My hon. Friend said medical advice should be taken within a week of an accident. In 2004, the Government considered including such changes to the civil procedure rules to ensure that medical examinations and reports were completed before a claim was produced. We have introduced the rules I have spoken about to discourage such behaviour, but we will keep the matter under review and continue to work with key stakeholders. We need to look at how we can tackle the issue effectively.

My hon. Friend asked whether there should be an objective evidence base. The Government remain concerned about the number of claims made and have done much in that area, but we accept that more can be done. We are open to any suggestions put forward by interested stakeholders and will consider all the points he has raised.

Finally, my hon. Friend talked about the 12-month claim limit and the no win, no fee limit of £6,000. We understand that both those issues will be considered by the insurance fraud taskforce, which will be reporting shortly. We look forward to seeing its recommendations and will respond accordingly.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister talked about a £6,000 limit. If she is talking about the possible £5,000 limit for small claims in PI cases, the Government have already looked at that two or three times. They have had very strong advice, including from the Transport Committee, that that is not the way to go. Is she saying that that matter is going to be revived?

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I say, the taskforce has been set up to look at all the issues, and I believe it may be considering that limit, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with clarification if that is not correct.

The Chancellor announced proposals in the July Budget to introduce a cap on the charges that CMCs can apply to consumers. We are looking in particular at restricting bulk PPI claims to more proportionate levels and will consult on how that will work in practice later this year. A cap on charges will, we believe, help to reduce incentives for CMCs to collect marketing leads, resulting in a reduction in the number of speculative calls made.

I would like to draw Members’ attention briefly to other measures taken by the Government to tackle the issue of nuisance calls. In March 2014, the Government launched an action plan to tackle the problem, asking the consumer organisation Which? to lead a taskforce on consent and lead generation in the direct marketing industry. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, including giving the Information Commissioner’s Office powers to hold to account senior executives who fail to comply with the rules on marketing. The Government are currently considering those recommendations.

The Government have made it clear that it must be easier for the ICO to take action. The ICO no longer has to prove substantial damage or substantial distress caused by a company before action can be taken. Since 2011, it has had the power to issue penalty notices of up to £500,000, and in September 2015 it issued a penalty of £200,000 against a company that made more than 6 million automated calls to consumers—the highest penalty ever issued for nuisance calls. The ICO has also issued a penalty of £75,000 against an organisation that claimed to offer a nuisance call blocking service but was instead making unsolicited live marketing calls to members of the public—the mind boggles. The ICO continues to take its enforcement responsibilities seriously and has 66 cases currently under investigation.

The Government are also exploring options to provide call-blocking devices to vulnerable customers, and we will consult shortly on legislation to require all direct marketing callers to identify themselves. That will enable consumers to determine who is calling and to report unwanted calls to the regulator. I ought to make it clear that the Government have not ruled out further reform to this market.

Police Funding Formula

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Neither the Minister nor the Government are in control of the facts or the policing budget. Standing at the Dispatch Box, he does not seem to understand how incompetent this is. In the case of the Met, the error is of the sum of £180 million. Can we at least have a full written explanation of how this farce occurred, and can we be told the amount of money wasted by the Home Office and the 43 forces in going through the process thus far?

[Mike Penning]

I find it fascinating that, after listening to all the other questions that right hon. and hon. Members have asked, that was the best the hon. Gentleman could do. At the end of the day, when mistakes are made it is right and proper that Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House what is going on. We will make sure that the new process is as open and honest as possible, especially for London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically pungent point. He is right to say that we have listened to a number of representations from representatives of the magistracy, but we have to balance those concerns against other judgments as well.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I help the Secretary of State on the issue of collection? Earlier this year, the courts Minister told me that the minimum net sum that would be raised by the criminal courts charge in this Parliament would be £265 million. Last night, the Chair of the Justice Committee told the BBC that, as well as distorting the criminal justice system for most defendants and sentences, it may well run at a loss. The Secretary of State does not need to review the charge; it is worthless as well as dangerous. Should he not just scrap it now?

[Michael Gove]

I believe in evidence-led policy and it is important that we should look at not just the evidence from the magistracy, but, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the collection rate. The criminal courts charge is generating revenue, which helps ensure that the taxpayer is not the first port of call for supporting the way in which our courts operate, but it is important that we balance all the criteria in making a judgment on the review of the charge. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

I am well aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents about this issue. The fact is, however, that the rate of reoffending among residents in bail hostels is lower than in other types of accommodation, and of course they do allow us to have a proper risk assessment and supervision. If my hon. Friend’s local authority can identify another site with guaranteed planning permission, however, we will certainly look at it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It looks likely that by the end of today 90 solicitor firms and 70 of the 85 bidding areas across the country will have started proceedings against the Legal Aid Agency over the award of criminal legal aid contracts. Given that we know, thanks to a whistleblower, that the tendering process was run by junior temporary staff with “very limited” legal training, does the Secretary of State agree with the Criminal Law Solicitors Association chair that if the Government

“were trying to handle it badly”,

they

“couldn’t have done a better job”,

and what chance does he think he has of winning those cases?

[Michael Gove]

It is rare that I ever disagree with the CLSA, but on this occasion I have to differ. The individual referred to as a whistleblower is merely one voice. The voices I have heard from many others, including those who have received their contracts, is that this was a well-run process in the tradition that the LAA has upheld for many years now.

[Andy Slaughter]

Turning from the chaos in the courts to the chaos in our prisons, the Secretary of State will agree with me that prison officers are doing an exceptional job in the most difficult of circumstances. Yesterday I met officers here who told me that, as one put it, as a result of the cuts in funding imposed so far,

“prison officer numbers have been cut to levels where prisoners are taking over the prisons.”

When we see that serious assaults on staff have risen by 42% in the last year, is he not right?

[Michael Gove]

I find myself distressingly often these days agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that our prison officers do a fantastic job. I value the meetings I have with them and the feedback they give me. We have recruited 420 new prison officers in the last 12 months. Of course we keep safety and security in our establishments under review, but as I explained earlier we are taking steps on the use of technology and also on the increased powers that governors will have which I hope will make our prison estate safer and more secure for everyone.

Arrests of Chinese Protesters

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I am not aware of whether a formal complaint has been made. It is the normal procedure for the matter to go to the Metropolitan police and then the Met themselves can either refer it or it can be referred later on once it has gone through the due process of the complaints procedure. I will find out whether the Metropolitan police have done this and arrange for the commissioner to write to the hon. Lady.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister may be embarrassed on behalf of the Government’s distinguished foreign guest, but does he understand that many in this House are embarrassed when Mrs Zhang, one of the arrested people, says “It feels like when I was in China”? The police pick up signals from Government, and this Government are in the process of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and our obligations under the European convention on human rights, including the article 11 rights to protest and freedom of association. When the operational decisions are over, will he properly investigate these circumstances to ensure that our feelings on these matters are not unsubstantiated?

[Mike Penning]

Of course, once the investigation is over and decisions are made we will all look very carefully at what went on. It is, however, a stretch of the imagination to insinuate that the police would police a protest because of a feeling they get from a Government’s possible future legislation.