Magistrates' Courts: Salford

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Slaughter]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how the theft of a network server from Salford magistrates' court in January 2012 took place; who stole the server; what the value of the server was; how it was recovered; what action has been taken against the thief; what documents were on the server; whether such documents (a) related to court staff, defendants, victims or witnesses and (b) included personal or confidential matters or matters related to evidence; what steps have been taken to inform those affected; for what reasons he believes that the information has not been accessed; for what reasons the theft was not reported to the police and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) until June 2012; when he expects the ICO to report; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 18 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 829W.]

Letter of correction from Helen Grant:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) on 18 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

The theft of a network server from Salford magistrates court occurred during the IT decommissioning process undertaken by contractors during the closure of the court. Following a police investigation, there was insufficient evidence to identify who stole the server and secure a conviction and no charges were brought. The estimated value of the server was £1,200.

The theft came to light on 3 May 2012 when the server was put up for sale on eBay still bearing the contractor's logo/asset tag. Arrangements were made by the contractor to recover the server on 9 May 2012. Once the facts were established, the incident was reported to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on 14 June 2013.

Files recovered from non user-accessible areas of the server contained personal and sensitive data, including court documents and e mails, but a detailed forensic analysis and audit did not identify any access to the files during the time the server was not under the control of MOJ and therefore no action has been taken to inform those affected.

The matter is still under investigation by the ICO and we await their report.

The correct answer should have been:

Interpreting and Translation Services

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Slaughter]

I was not greatly shocked to be told that recovering the figures that I asked for would involve a disproportionate cost. If the Minister is going to persist with that line, she cannot give a figure for savings, because, if it is accurate, it is clearly a gross figure. The collapse of any of the serious Crown court trials that I mentioned will cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. The Government must be able to make some estimate of the costs. It is not good enough just to say, “We’re not going to collect that information from the courts.” Although it may not be 100% accurate, we need some idea of the cost to the public purse of this contract going ahead.

[Mrs Grant]

I am afraid that I cannot honestly say any more than I have already said; I do not want to be disingenuous. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and if we can do any more—if we can give him any further and better particulars—I will be happy to try to do so.

The system has been operating well in the National Offender Management Service. The senior presiding judge told the NAO that the system had improved since initial roll-out through the Ministry’s actions. I am pleased to confirm that complaints are declining. I have outlined the improvements in our success rate. Just 0.4% of magistrates court listings were delayed because of interpreter problems in the first and second quarters of 2012, which was the difficult period. We will continue to work closely with our partners and to bring about changes that deliver improved performance in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am happy to look at that if my hon. Friend writes to me.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On 11 October 2011, when Louise Casey, the first victims commissioner, resigned, the former Lord Chancellor said that he was urgently considering the future of the role. Thirteen months on—yesterday, in fact—was the closing date for applications to be Ms Casey’s 10-day-a-month replacement. What signal does it send to victims that this Government first doubt the need for a commissioner, then delay appointing one for more than a year, and finally make it a half-hearted, part-time job?

[Mrs Grant]

For a long time, victims have felt completely unsupported by the criminal justice system, and it is my job, as victims Minister, to try and put that right. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We are raising money for victims through the victims surcharge and the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996, and we are giving victims a louder voice through the appointment of a victims’ commissioner. I look forward to making that appointment, and meeting and working with the commissioner.

Claims Management Companies

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Thursday 8th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Grant]

We are working hard with the Information Commissioner, and I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on that point.

At a time when resources are scarce, much has been achieved. Regulatory enforcement action has increased year on year, with 150 audits of CMCs carried out, and 409 CMCs warned, suspended or cancelled over the past year. The CMR unit has also removed the licences of more than 800 CMCs, across sectors, since the start of regulation in 2007, and many others have left the market after the commencement of investigations and enforcement action.

That is where we are at, but where do we go from here? There have been calls over the years to consider transferring the claims management regulation regime to another regulator, but now is not the time for such a fundamental change. We have a big programme of reforms under way, and its central objective is to address CMC bad practices and strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public. Our reform agenda includes four main measures.

Following a review of the CMC conduct rules and an informal consultation with key stakeholders, we recently ran a public consultation on proposals to tighten those rules. We intend to issue a response by the end of this year. Most critically, we propose that, first, contract agreements between CMCs and consumers will have to be made in writing before any up-front fees may be taken. That concern was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.

Secondly, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, CMCs will have to refer to being regulated by the claims management regulator rather than the Ministry of Justice. The shadow Minister welcomed that proposal.

Thirdly, CMCs will have to inform their contracted client of any variation in or suspension of their authorisation; and, finally, CMCs that operate websites will be required to publish their terms and conditions online as standard, including examples of how their various costs are calculated in a specific format.

On the delay to the rules review consultation, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I can confirm that the consultation was launched as soon as possible after internal clearance of the intention to consult and the release of the initial impact assessment.

Last year, we also ran a public consultation on imposing a ban on CMCs offering financial rewards or similar benefits as an inducement to make a claim. That proposal was made in response to the recommendation contained in Lord Young’s report “Common Sense, Common Safety”. The ban will come into effect along with other amendments to the conduct rules from April 2013.

From next year, we intend to commence powers under the Legal Services Act 2007 to extend the legal ombudsman’s jurisdiction to provide an independent complaints and redress scheme for clients who are dissatisfied with the service provided by CMCs that they have contacted. Consumers will benefit because the legal ombudsman has wider powers of redress, including the ability to award compensation.

Lastly, we are implementing the primary recommendations contained in Lord Justice Jackson’s “Review of Civil Litigation Costs,” including in particular a fundamental reform of no win, no fee conditional-fee agreements and a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases.

[Mr Slaughter]

How will restricting the ability of claimants to obtain proper legal representation restrict the operation of CMCs that either make unmeritorious claims or make meritorious claims incompetently?

[Mrs Grant]

We are not restricting access to justice in any way. That is another argument I have had with the hon. Gentleman in other debates over the past year and a half. Access to justice will still be possible and meritorious claims will continue to be made.

I have sought to cover a lot of ground in a relatively short space of time, and I have talked through improvements in the way the CMR unit does its day-to-day job and its work in preparation for next year’s reforms. We remain focused on delivering a successful and strong regulatory regime. To give consumers and defendants more confidence in the system, it is important that CMCs ensure that they comply with the rules.

I reassure all hon. Members here today that there will be no let up in the CMR unit’s compliance and enforcement work, and it will do what is essential to strengthen the regulatory and complaints regimes to provide better protection for consumers and the public.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The Ministry of Justice acted quickly to put a plan in place when it became obvious that there were performance problems. We are not being complacent and we will continue to monitor performance, but we are seeing some substantial improvements. The framework with ALS is intended to provide better value for money. It also provides an opportunity to reduce a great deal of the administrative burdens that were placed on the justice agencies under the old system. The contract is also expected to save the Ministry of Justice in the region of £15 million a year.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister must be irritated to be spending her first few days in office reading NAO reports detailing her predecessor’s cock-ups. Does she agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the NAO inquiry into the language service contract has uncovered some shocking failings which have had a dreadful impact on clients of the Court Service and people who work in the interpretation service? If she does, will she now suspend the contract with Applied Language Solutions, or is she happy to see interpreters with no experience, qualifications or criminal records checks being used in serious and sensitive criminal cases?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with that. We are seeing significant improvements—

West Bank (Area C)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In deference not only to that, Mrs Brooke, but to the two fine speeches we heard setting out the core of the issue with Area C, I will keep my comments short and limit them principally to one case, which is the village of Susiya.

When debating Palestine, we sometimes lose a little context when we talk about Israel’s problems in its governance of the west bank. Israel is an occupying power of the west bank and has been since 1967. Over that time, it has engaged in an aggressive policy of colonisation, which has also involved the active displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population, whether they be settled or Bedouin communities. That is the context.

The lives of the Palestinians are compromised and disrupted daily, whether physically, by the settlements, barriers and checkpoints, or organisationally, through pass laws and restrictions on movement, trade and so on, which, sadly, bear a resemblance to some activities of the apartheid regime in South Africa—pass laws and such matters. The fact is that Israel has no business under international law being in the west bank. That is why, although I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that we must try to bring people together, blame must be attached where blame falls. It principally lies with the occupying power.

To assist the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), I can tell him the figures that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency gave recently when it came to Parliament to brief Members on the situation in Area C: Area A, which is under full Palestinian control, is about 17% of the west bank; Area B is about 21%; and Area C, where there is full Israeli control, is about 61%. Those figures were given to us within the past two weeks.

Equally important when considering Area C is the fact that 70% of that 60% is off limits to Palestinians. It is either settlements, land controlled by settlements or other areas—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) mentioned nature reserves and other “scams”, for want of a better word—that restrict Palestinian access. Given that 29% is already built-up land, only 1% of Area C is actually potentially available for development by Palestinians—the people whose land it is. We will get nowhere until that situation is resolved.

I will briefly use the example of the village of Susiya to show exactly what the Palestinians are up against. It is a Bedouin village on an escarpment in the south Hebron hills, and is the agricultural centre of the region. It has been settled by the same families since the 19th century. In that respect, it is similar to other villages around Jerusalem or in the Negev. I visited one of the villages and have seen villages in the Negev that have been demolished five times by Israeli forces and then rebuilt. Just this week, B'Tselem, a well respected human rights organisation, said about Susiya:

“On Tuesday, 12 June 2012, Israel’s Civil Administration distributed demolition orders to…50—

that is essentially all—

“structures in the Palestinian village of Susiya in the South Hebron Hills. The orders stated that they were renewals of demolition orders originally issued in the 1990s. Residents were given three days, until 15 June 2012, to appeal the orders…Residents are planning to submit their opposition”.

With the intervention of human rights groups, the demolition orders were extended to last Sunday, but they have now expired again. We are talking about residential tents, which house over 100 people; kitchens; shops; a clinic; a community centre; museums; the solar panels that provide electricity; and shelters for animals. The entire village—everything—will be demolished. The villagers are on watch every day waiting for the bulldozers to arrive under the protection of the army. That is life for many Palestinians. Will the Minister take up that case, not only because it is important in itself, but because it is the tip of the iceberg of what is happening to villages in that area? If he has not done so already, I ask him to make particular mention of the case to the Government of Israel.

I was alerted to that case by an organisation called the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel, which is a very good Christian organisation through which people live peacefully with Palestinian villagers for months. Its members brought in videos that showed me not only threats from the military, but from another village called Susiya, which is a nearby, well developed Israeli settler village with every modern convenience. Under the protection of the military, the settlers come down to the Palestinian village armed with guns; they throw stones and attack Palestinian villagers. That is something that I have seen myself on video and film.

[Mrs Grant]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the activities of the Israeli defence and security forces in a number of situations have a real effect on normal people—the little people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) referred to—and engender an atmosphere of worrying hate and distrust?

[Mr Slaughter]

Absolutely. Occupation does that in its own right, but this is not a benign occupation. This is violence. It has accelerated with an increase in settler violence of 144% in the past two years. It is an organised campaign to disrupt the lives of Palestinians and to extend the occupation, which continues year-on-year and which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, increasingly makes a two-state solution difficult, if not impossible. That is why we need more from the Government—not only words, but action.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Helen Grant

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I will come to that later in my speech, but it was exactly the point that I tried unsuccessfully, as so often, to raise with the Minister in my intervention. In the amendments, we accept the evidential basis, but we are seeking to broaden it to include exactly the sort of organisations that my hon. Friend mentioned. Last time I checked, at least 21 right hon. and hon. Friends supported amendment 74, some of whom wish to speak in the debate, and we have other important debates this evening, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.

According to the Home Secretary’s November 2010 publication, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, 1 million women a year experience domestic abuse in Britain. When those women make the decision to leave their abusive partners, often quite suddenly, they need care and expert legal help to escape safely and, if they have children, to ensure their safety too. For more than 60 years, family legal aid has provided that expert legal assistance, helping millions of people, mainly women, to escape violent, abusive and sometimes life-threatening relationships.

In November last year, the Government announced consultation on their plans to reform legal aid. As the Minister said, they plan to take family law out of the scope of legal aid, except when domestic abuse has occurred, but reason that making domestic violence the “gateway” to legal aid will also create an incentive for false claims of domestic violence. So they proposed a limited range of objective proof of domestic violence that would need to be presented before legal aid was granted.

Five thousands groups and individuals responded to the Government’s consultation, and almost all were opposed. As a result, on Second Reading, the Secretary of State announced a partial U-turn, adding to his list of evidential criteria. In the revised list, legal aid will be granted when a victim has obtained a civil injunction or criminal conviction against her abuser. We welcome that additional criterion, but fear that it is insufficient. Research has shown that, whereas more than half of women have suffered some form of domestic abuse during their lifetime, only a minority ever apply for injunctive release or report the abuse to the police. Women who, for whatever reason, do not want to go through legal proceedings, whether because of fear or simply because they are unwilling to relive the abuse again and again during the judicial process, will be disfranchised by the Government’s plans.

Legal aid will be granted when a victim has been referred to a multi-agency risk assessment conference—a MARAC—as the Minister confirmed today, or domestic violence must have been established as fact in the family courts. MARACs are a great success, but they are typically used for very serious cases. The final criteria that the Government allow are especially perverse, given that legal aid will not be available to obtain a finding of fact in the family courts. The Minister may say that that is not the case, but that is what the Bill seems to say. As such, the Government’s plans to remove family legal aid, except when a narrow and onerous range of objective proof is present, will place thousands of vulnerable women at considerable risk. That is why women’s groups, practitioners and the Opposition continue to harbour deep concern.

Labour’s amendment seeks to widen the evidential criteria of domestic violence to ensure that as many victims as possible receive help, while retaining the Government’s decision to limit private family legal aid to victims of domestic abuse. In doing so, we have tried to come to a joined-up, comprehensive view of the evidential criteria for domestic abuse that already exist in various Departments. The Government’s statement of intent, “Call to end violence against women and girls”, recognises that violence against women requires a focused and robust cross-government approach, underpinned by a single agreed definition. The Opposition entirely agree, as do the courts.

The recent Supreme Court case, Yemshaw v. London Borough of Hounslow, reinforced the courts’ view that there is but one definition of domestic abuse, and the Association of Chief Police Officers has promulgated that definition. The evidential criteria for domestic abuse are not currently set out in the Bill, but they are set out in the response to consultation. The Government plan to promulgate the evidential criteria by order, which is why I fear that the amendment of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is insufficient by itself. We entirely support her amendment, but mine would go further in placing the evidential criteria into primary legislation.

The criteria in my amendment are an amalgamation of the objective criteria for ascertaining whether domestic violence has occurred from the Government’s response to consultation and the UK Border Agency’s criteria used in immigration cases. The amendment would do nothing more than unify best practice across government by ensuring that we have one singular evidential definition of domestic violence, much as the hon. Lady’s amendment would ensure that we have one singular descriptive definition of domestic violence.

The sort of evidence that my amendment would allow is as follows:

“a relevant court conviction or police caution…a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction…evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence…evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party…a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim”.

I suspect that, so far, the Government are broadly with us, but what I sought from the Minister and did not obtain, is the reason the following evidential criteria are inappropriate:

“a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries…a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant has injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence…an undertaking”—

the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is not in his place, but he raised this point—

“given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse”.

I hope that the Minister has read the Law Society’s comments—he may be familiar with practice in the family courts—that many more matters are dealt with by way of undertaking than by way of trial process. Excluding undertakings from his criteria makes it not only logistically more difficult, but almost certain that the trial process, with all the inherent difficulties of inflaming the situation, will be the norm rather than the exception.

[Mrs Grant]

On a point of clarification concerning the undertaking, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) raised, an undertaking is a legally binding document. It is signed by the parties and usually sealed by the court. It is a solemn promise that is given to the judge. If it is breached, the person who breaches the order can commit on it, so it is specific and clear, and eminently acceptable in my opinion to be part of the criteria. Having been a domestic violence and family lawyer for the past 23 years, I am worried that the exclusion of undertakings from the criteria will create a perverse incentive not to dispose of a matter at the earliest opportunity, but to continue with the litigation from fear that further problems may come out of the woodwork, which, as family lawyers, we believe are coming in the future. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider that.

[Mr Slaughter]

If he wishes, I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene on me, and to reply to the hon. Lady, or he may wish to deal with the matter subsequently. I have nothing like her experience, but I have had the experience many hundreds of times of explaining undertakings and their seriousness to clients. She is absolutely right. In law, there are clear differences, but in practice the effect of an undertaking is the same in relation to perpetrators as the outcome of a trial in terms of the penalties available against them. Excluding undertakings is a huge and glaring omission from the Bill.

The other criteria are

“a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence…a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation…or…other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses.”