Oral Answers to Questions

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work following the incidents of violence that she has mentioned. Once again, I thank the Prison Officers Association for its constructive engagement, and our thoughts are with the welfare of the injured staff. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of sport as one of the positive ways we can divert young people away from violence and offending behaviour.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Too many young people who get involved in crime have been failed by the education system or have special educational needs, which often go undiagnosed or are not coped with well by schools. What more can be done to ensure that young people do not fall foul of the system and end up with very few qualifications and very little hope for the future?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Central to tackling the problem is partnership working, not only with youth offending teams but with colleagues in the educational sphere. We are fully engaged with Edward Timpson’s review of exclusions, and we are working very closely with the Department for Education on matters such as speech and language therapy, learning disabilities and other factors that can play a part.

Legal Aid for Inquests

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Inquests once opened are sub judice, and even when adjourned they are under a strict interpretation of the resolution. Reference should not be made to legal inquests at all, but if something is linked to a specific case, as the hon. Lady just did, we must ask for details of that case not to be mentioned as they may well compromise the case currently under consideration. I urge all Members who wish to refer to that case to try to refrain from making specific references.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh).

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government seem to rely on this point about the inquisitorial process, so one must ask why, if the family does not need representation, the various state bodies always need to be lawyered up. Indeed, there is something deeply cynical about the Government saying that in their final report—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has applied to speak, but he cannot make his speech now. He has made his point and hopefully the hon. Lady will tackle it.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend makes an important point: the system is completely unfair. The Government and their agencies are given a blank cheque, whereas victims are not. It is not just the families of those lost and charities such as Inquest telling them that. Reports have proposed the necessity for changes for years, yet over the last few years the weight of evidence has mounted. Dame Angiolini in her report on deaths and serious incidents in police custody; the Right Rev. James Jones in his report on Hillsborough and the experiences of families; Lord Bach; two chief coroners; Baroness Corston; Lord Harris; the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act; and agencies, including the Independent Office for Police Conduct, have all outlined the need for change. Central to the reports of Dame Angiolini and the Right Rev. James Jones were the voices of families speaking about the impact of the inquest process on their wellbeing, much like the testimonies we have heard today.

In response, the Government launched a call for evidence in July as part of their review of legal aid for inquests. What followed was a Government submission document that was riddled with errors, strewn with inaccuracies and in no way befitting the seriousness of the subject. The short turnaround time for submissions left those whom the Government should have been doing their utmost to hear from unable to sufficiently offer their thoughts.

Furthermore, the document made no explicit mention of, and no adequate attempt to hear from, bereaved families. After its so-called consultation, it was therefore of little surprise that the, in February Ministry of Justice decided to ignore the weight of evidence to the contrary and refused the call for non-means-tested legal aid for inquests where the state has representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis]

I partially agree with the hon. Lady, for whom I have great respect. I am trying to make a speech that is possibly slightly less political than the one that opened the debate, and to say that there are many reasons for inquests. As a Government lawyer I was useful in protecting the secrecy of what had happened. Often, in a war context, for example, important national security secrets had to be protected. It was not awfully much something that we were protecting from families—often families had been talked through the secret issue in the privacy of their home at an earlier date; it was just something that we did not want to have aired in open court. I am not anti-family at all, and I will come on to say why not, but I am trying to explain why, if the Government are lawyered up, it is, I hope, not often in an adversarial way. In my working life, I tried hard to make sure that it was not that way. I completely accept that it does not always look like that.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Others are waiting to speak. Can I drag the hon. Lady on to the legal aid for inquests side of the debate? I think that is what many of those who have put in to speak want to cover.

[Victoria Prentis]

Yes, Mrs Main. I should also say that I am the parent of a child who died, so I know how ghastly it is for people to think of the death of someone who matters so much to them being legalised. I am fully aware of the impact and full horror of the inquest process for families, which is why we are talking about whether they need legal aid.

The inquest usually comes at a particularly bad time for families. Is it often around the anniversary mark—sadly, in Mr Litvinenko’s case, it was seven years later—and it is often at a difficult time in the grieving process. Inquests themselves are horrible. Legal language is used about someone’s worst nightmares. In the inquest, the family will meet the other people who were there at the time of death, and hear evidence directly from people who might have been the last to talk to their loved one or, indeed, whom they might blame for causing the death. It is often the first time that that happens. It is really horrible.

Even in the most no-blame type of car accident the inquest may be the first time the family hears truly about the time of death. They will have been told at the time, “Oh, yes, he died instantly,” but at the inquest they might find out that he died two or three hours later. They may find out about the place of death: “Oh, yes, he died instantly at the scene.” Oh no, he did not; he died two or three hours later in hospital. Those are horrible, difficult issues for a family to deal with and very difficult to grapple with, but they are not legal issues, and that is the point I am politely trying to make. This does not have to be adversarial.

In my experience, coroners are very sensitive and well trained these days. Coroners’ officers should be lauded to the skies. They do a great deal of loving and supportive work with families.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend speaks about a more inquisitorial system. Does she agree that if we are looking at a genuinely inquisitorial system of the kind that would be recognised on the continent, it might help if coroners were able to question and probe rather than being expected purely to be the independent arbiter and judge, which lends itself to cases being more adversarial?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady continues her speech, can I say that it is far broader than the debate we are having. Given the shortness of the debate, I would appreciate it if we could stick to the legal aid aspect that has been explored by the Member who moved the motion. I do not wish to interrupt, and I know that the hon. Lady has personal experience, but I would like her to get on to the debate.

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend’s intervention was helpful, and the point I am trying to make is that I am not sure legal aid is the answer in all cases. I am quite sure that more support is needed for families. I am not sure that that support can be provided only by lawyers. I do support the idea of airline-style investigations—for example, in the health service. We are teasing this out at the moment; it is quite a new concept in the health world, and we have talked about bringing it into the prison world as well. That style of inquisitorial investigation is possibly more useful for families than legal aid. That is the point I am trying to make, Mrs Main—I am sorry if it does not entirely fit with the terms of your debate, but that is why I am not sure that legal aid for inquests—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

It is not my debate; it is the debate of the hon. Lady who introduced it, and it is important that it is on legal aid.

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is here. He is a great man, and he recently managed to steer a private Member’s Bill on stillbirth inquests through the extraordinary system that we have set up for such Bills—I was involved tangentially in framing that Bill. I am not sure whether we need legal aid for the parents of stillborn babies who have inquests—I think the pass is still out on that. We do not want to over-legalise some of these very tragic events.

I welcome the review the Government had, although I slightly take issue with what the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) said about the timing of the review. I suspect, although the Minister may correct me, that the timing was meant to fit in with the legal aid review generally. I counsel hon. Members present not to over-politicise this issue. It is a difficult one. I, for one, am convinced that families need more support, but there might be better people than lawyers to provide it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Wind-up speeches will begin at 3.37. I have three speakers left; the maths are fairly self-evident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I hope that my constituent’s experience can help to illuminate some of the learned arguments that have been made today. Families can provide important inputs to help a coroner reach correct findings and make recommendations to help state bodies to improve their systems and avoid more tragic cases.

My constituent, Angela, is a senior manager in social care. She has huge experience of local care systems. Her son, Adrian, suffered from mental health issues all his adult life. In 2016, he was taken into the care of a mental health hospital but discharged a few weeks later into the care of the community mental health team. He was told by that team that he would be discharged from any support just two weeks after his discharge from the hospital. He was distraught about that. His mother, Angela, was frantically seeking some support for her son on the Friday before he took his life. She had obviously been involved with him throughout his life. Having not found support on the Friday—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. This is not an ongoing case, is it?

[Ruth George]

It is not an ongoing case, Mrs Main. I took your advice.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

We have to be very careful.

[Ruth George]

Absolutely. I have full permission from the constituent to raise the details.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Thank you.

[Ruth George]

Adrian took some drugs and alcohol on 10 December. He was found by police at 2.30 in the morning and taken to the local A&E. However, the police left, and he was allowed to walk out without being triaged. He later lost consciousness at a friend’s home and passed away.

The inquest with the coroner involved the mental health trust, the hospital trust and the police. It was to take place over an eight-day period—although that was reduced to four days—with barristers representing the three bodies, all with their legal representation funded by the state. When I first met Angela, before the inquest took place, she had been told she would not qualify for legal aid. Although she was desperate to use her personal and professional experience to make changes to the systems to make sure no other parent had to go through this, she was not sure she would be able to participate fully in the inquest, due to a lack of representation.

The coroner, when considering applying article 2 of the Human Rights Act and using a jury, finally decided that the family should have legal representation, but that was just three days before the inquest. Angela had to go through very detailed financial statements, which was very personally intrusive at the time she was grieving, a year after she had buried her son.

In the end, she was able to participate with the help of her lawyer, and she pays tribute to the lawyer and the barrister. With three organisations all arguing about who was culpable in the circumstances, Angela felt it was very important not only that she was able to be involved and put the facts of the matter straight, but that she could make sure that recommendations were made.

I quote Angela’s comments on the coroner’s report:

“Following Adrian’s death, the burning question we asked ourselves was ‘did we do everything we could to gain support for him? Did we call enough people or shout loud enough to be heard? Was there more we could have done?’. Given the evidence that was heard through Adrian’s inquest, it became clear that as a family we had not failed our son, although this may not be said for some of the professionals involved in his care. We will miss Adrian for the rest of our lives, but hope that changes will be made in the near future to avoid further deaths following the recommendations made by the coroner”.

Families in this situation have just one opportunity to make a difference; that opportunity is at the inquest, where, as some learned Members have said, incredibly difficult facts may be put to them about the death of their loved one. It is not only important that families are able to grieve, have their voices heard and find the truth, but that we as a society and our state agencies can learn from their experience and their support and make recommendations so that no family has to go through this again.

Housing and Access to Legal Aid

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. North-west Wales has only one provider of housing legal aid for a population of more than 300,000 people. Travel has already been mentioned, but we should also note that a single provider might not have the capacity to deal with the needs of all its potential clients, and may well have to put people on lists based on their needs. Some people who need urgent help might not be reached. Secondly, that single provider may also—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech. There should be no first and secondly; there is one intervention.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. The other problem if there is only one legal aid provider is that both parties might go to them. There are then problems, because to whom should it offer help and advice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned early legal advice. Of course, one recommendation from the Bach commission is that early legal advice can help to save money in the long run. The Law Society estimates that the cost of early legal advice on housing benefit claims would be £1.7 million to £2 million each year, but the costs through avoidable evictions are often far greater for individuals, councils and the NHS. Will—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Would the hon. Lady sit down? There is plenty of opportunity to speak. These are not interventions when they are of such length. Please form a question quickly to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).

[Ellie Reeves]

Does my hon. Friend agree that reintroducing early legal advice would help to solve the housing crisis?

Victims of Crime: Rights

Anne Main Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Quite a few right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I will call the Front Benchers at half-past 3. I call Kevin Foster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, Mrs Main. My hon. Friend refers to hate crime and I wondered whether she was aware that some of us Muslim Members of Parliament have been victims of a hate crime on the parliamentary estate today and yesterday. I could not be here at 2.30 pm because I was dealing with the aftermath of a suspicious package intended for me, which was opened by one of my staff.

My hon. Friend talks about crime at home. Does she not agree that thousands of British people abroad who are victims of crime need a better support system? My constituent Susan Sutovic—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady was late. I have allowed the explanation but she is making an extremely long intervention. Perhaps the speaker will reply.

[Emma Hardy]

Yes, I would support that. I am so sorry to hear about the incident that my hon. Friend mentions and I sincerely hope that she and her staff are okay. It is sad to hear about the increasing amount of hate crime.

I am trying to arrange residents meetings with the police on the issues in Hessle, Bean Street and Great Thornton Street. Previously, we had success when there were problems with an awful lot of street drinkers in Spring Bank. We removed the bench where they were sitting and there have been 46 move-ons for people drinking when they should not be and creating antisocial behaviour problems. The police have been fantastic, but my fear is that all we are doing by going in with this intensive support from the police and the community is relocating the problem around the city. We never deal with the root cause of the problem or provide a long-term solution; we just move it to another place. Yes, the work on Spring Bank has been successful, but now we have a problem on Bean Street and Great Thornton Street.

Some people dismiss antisocial behaviour. While it may be a different category of crime from some of the others we are discussing, it has a massive effect on people’s lives. It is sad, because often those most in need of help are those least able to seek it. Crime and antisocial behaviour affect people of all incomes and backgrounds, but it seems that the poorest and most vulnerable are disproportionately affected. Sad to say, I do not see the situation changing; because of the cuts to the police service, dealing with the problem will only get much harder.

One of the easiest ways to help victims of crime is to stop crime and antisocial behaviour happening in the first place. A long-term solution needs investment in education, community support and youth provision. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) talk about the use of restorative justice. Instead of taking a one-size-fits-all approach, it looks at the individuals and the best method to stop them reoffending. More things like that should be happening, especially for younger people committing crimes. I hope that the whole House will therefore join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) as we push to make youth provision statutory, which would force all councils to establish youth provision.

One parent of a child who has been involved in some of the antisocial behaviour contacted me, asking for my help. She said, “Where can my child go? What services are out there? What support can I have?” When family support services have been cut, when youth provision has been cut, and when those families are not getting the support they need when they need it, we cannot be surprised when we see an increase in antisocial behaviour. I am sorry to say that schools are facing the same cuts as well. Perhaps they cannot give as much support as they used to. From the inquiry we are doing in the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) will know about the increased number of children going into alternative provision and being moved on. We need to look at the problem holistically.

Even with more action taken to prevent crime, we still need to protect and promote the rights of victims of crime and ensure that there are minimum standards a victim can expect once they report a crime or antisocial behaviour. Those standards should include a single point of contact and a single complaints system where someone can go if they want to make a complaint. One of my constituents’ main complaints is that they want the phone answered quickly when they ring 101. Too many people hang up because they are waiting 20 minutes to get through. They get so fed up that the crimes are never accurately recorded.

We need to ensure better communication with victims about the outcome of their cases. A lot of people say, “What happened? I reported this and nothing happened.” We look into it, and actually something did happen, but no one thought to tell the victims about it. We need a more powerful Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that victims can make their voices heard. For too long, victims of crime have been left without a voice. By listening to those proposals and acting proactively to prevent crime and promote victims’ rights, the Government have a chance to end the merry-go-round of constantly shifting crime hotspots.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Before I call Bob Neill, I ask that Members are mindful that a lot of Members wish to speak in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for securing this really important debate. We have heard many important contributions. Like the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), I have had to live through the aftermath of child sexual exploitation in my area. She is absolutely right in everything she says. We must never blame the victims. We must stand up and speak out for victims of criminal behaviour. I encourage her to continue to demand that there is proper insight. In the end, all local agencies must demonstrate that they have genuinely, not formulaically, learnt lessons. They must demonstrate a different way of working that makes it more likely that we ask questions when a 14-year-old has a 35-year-old boyfriend.

I will make a few brief points, Mrs Main, because I know you are anxious to bring in the Front-Bench speakers at—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

At 15.29, so you have a while. Ms Huq may or may not wish to speak.

[Tony Lloyd]

I will not take long, in that case. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) are really important. Antisocial behaviour matters. Actually, it kills in the worst situations, and even if we are not talking about those extremes it certainly makes people’s lives miserable. It destroys the quality of people’s lives and we must take that seriously. She is right. Obviously, this can be a political point, but the Government must take it on board that it has become much more difficult now for our police to investigate things that fall off the radar, which they simply ought not. It is an important issue to raise.

Like the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), I am a big supporter of restorative justice. I regret that I was not in the House in 2016 to speak on the Select Committee report, but I was aware of its conclusions. Restorative justice fundamentally delivers to victims the sense that their needs are being taken seriously. That is as important in prosecutions as when there is a decision not to take a case forward, which can sometimes be appropriate.

I think of the case of a woman who was a very strong advocate. Other hon. Members might have heard her speak. Her house was burgled and a new camera was taken. Sadly, her daughter was killed in a car crash weeks later and the last remaining photographs of her daughter were lost with the camera. She never saw the photographs but she was prepared to work with the perpetrator, who went to prison. That was important for at least giving her a sense of easement, although you can never reconcile yourself to the loss of a child. It also meant that that long-term burglar effectively ceased his former habit, so it worked in more than one way, but—there is always a “but”—training is absolutely important. We cannot see the process as something to be delivered on the streets, with no training. There must be supervision to ensure that standards are maintained. Importantly, there must be victim volition. The process cannot be forced on a victim, or denied to a victim who is not aware that they could demand it. I support the call for a statutory framework, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West argued for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Main, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on securing this debate. We have heard the varying experiences of victims of crime discussed from many different angles, but if I had to single out one contribution, I would say that the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) should not go unnoted.

All the speakers focused on one point: too often, victims are still the forgotten voice in the criminal justice system. We are rightly proud of checks and balances in our legal system that prevent innocent people from being convicted, but for the victim it can often feel as if their rights are an afterthought compared with the rights of the perpetrator. No victim of serious crime should ever feel that they are battling to be believed, yet that is still the experience of far too many people who have the courage to come forward. Victims often talk about feeling like an afterthought; they are not kept informed of key decisions about the case, or they are not given a sufficient explanation for why a case is not being taken forward. If they manage to get their case to court, the distress does not stop; instead, victims can face a repeat of the original trauma. They may be forced to face the perpetrator in court, and in some instances they are even cross-examined by them, reliving every detail of the crime. Victims do not want their rights to be put above those of the accused; they simply want fairness. Despite progress, our system is still re-victimising the vulnerable, and deterring victims from coming forward and seeking justice.

Now for the politics. The 2015 Conservative manifesto adopted the recommendations of Labour’s victims’ taskforce, and promised victims that a Conservative Government would deliver

“a new Victims’ Law that will enshrine key rights for victims”

That was three years ago. In the 2015 Queen’s Speech, the Government again promised to introduce legislation,

“putting the key entitlements of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation.”

Victims waited, but no legislation came. Twelve months later, in the next Queen’s Speech, there was no mention of a victims’ law—apparently that was no longer a priority for Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) tabled an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill and sought to put the key elements of the victims code in law. Ministers blocked those amendments, promising instead to produce their own strategy for victims “within 12 months”. Well, it has now been 12 months, so last month I asked the Minister where the strategy was, and I was told that it would come “after Easter”. We now hear that it could be more like summer before any recommendations are published.

Victims have waited long enough. As other hon. Friends have asked, where is the victims’ law that was promised by the Conservative Government in 2015? Why has it taken three years? Victims who have been let down time and again by the system feel that they are being let down again by this delay.

In office, the Labour Government introduced the victims code, setting out for the first time the rights of victims within our criminal justice system. It is now time to provide that code with legal teeth. Labour is fully committed to introducing a stand-alone victims’ law that would put the key elements of the victims code into primary legislation. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s intentions? Are they still committed to introducing a stand-alone piece of legislation—a victims’ law? Without power to enforce the victims code in law, it is left to the police, prosecutors, courts, and parole boards to monitor how well they comply with the code.

The Government do not collect data on the experiences of victims in the criminal justice system, or on how the code is being implemented. Last month I asked the Minister how many breaches of the victims code there had been in the last four years, and I was told that that is not monitored. I asked how long it takes for victims to receive the compensation they have been awarded—Victim Support estimates that some £17.5 million in compensation was not paid within one year of a compensation order being made—and again I was told that the Government do not monitor that. I asked how many victims of domestic violence have been cross-examined in court by the perpetrator, and again the Minister responded that the Government do not hold such information. Ministers say that victims’ rights are a priority for them, but how can that be if the Government do not even know whether the victims code is being enforced?

Victim Support can provide some of the answers. It surveyed almost 400 victims and found that asking the criminal justice system to mark its own homework when upholding the victims code leads to victims being let down at each stage of the process. The research found that six in 10 victims surveyed did not receive their rights under the code. Does the Minister agree that it is time that that was effectively monitored and upheld? We cannot simply rely on victims being aware of their rights under the code. Does the Minister agree with the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, who recently said:

“Why should victims always have to be fighting their corner? That’s why we need a victims’ law.”?

Time and time again victims speak of the importance of having their voice heard in the process, being able to address the court directly and to contribute to parole board decisions, but fewer than half of all eligible victims have opted in to the victim contact scheme that ensures that victims are kept up to date on their case and allows them to make statements before sentencing and parole. Presumably, many victims do not even know that such a scheme exists. More than half of victims surveyed by Victim Support were not offered the chance to make a victim personal statement.

The failure to inform the victims of John Worboys about the decision to release him on parole is the most recent and serious example of the way that victims’ views are neglected and ignored by our criminal justice system. It took a public outcry and the tenacity of the victims themselves to ensure that they were contacted for consultation on the terms of his release.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Lady to be mindful that this is sub judice and any comments she may make must be carefully considered.

[Gloria De Piero]

Thank you, Mrs Main; I will do that.

Another key pillar of the victims code is the right to review a decision by the police or Crown Prosecution Service, such as a decision not to prosecute. I asked the Government what proportion of qualifying victims go as far as requesting a review of a decision, and I was told it happens in less than 2% of cases. Either 98% of victims are happy with decisions taken by police and prosecutors, or they are simply unaware of or unable to access that right. Last year the Government blocked Labour attempts to enshrine the right to a review in law, and to make it legally enforceable and monitored. Will the Minister confirm whether the long-awaited victims strategy will seek finally to place that right in law?

This issue does not matter only for victims. The experience of reporting a crime and going through the court process is actively deterring many people from coming forward or pursuing their case, and that is particularly serious for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Victims of sexual or domestic violence still lack the confidence to report an attack. They fear the ordeal that they might face in the courtroom, including coming face to face with their abuser and being forced to relive every detail of the ordeal in front of the courts, often cross-examined as if they were the one on trial. We therefore welcome the recent announcement of a consultation on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill and the Government’s consideration of extending to victims of domestic abuse special provisions, such as separate entrances and exits, screens and video links, which are currently available to victims of sexual violence. It is critical, however, that that is not only for the criminal courts; they must also be available in the family courts.

Last year, we uncovered figures showing that, since the Government’s cuts to legal aid, the number of victims of domestic violence representing themselves against their abusers in the family courts has more than doubled. Victims are facing the prospect not only of having to represent themselves, but of being cross-examined by their abuser in court. Women’s Aid has found that more than half of the domestic abuse victims it surveyed had no access to special measures and more than a third were verbally or physically abused by their former partner in the family courts. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s plans to extend special court provisions to victims of domestic abuse will extend to the family courts as well?

I will end with a quote from Claire Waxman, the new London Victims’ Commissioner appointed by London Mayor Sadiq Khan. She summed up her own experience of the criminal justice system, saying:

“I naively believed the system was there to help victims, instead it compounds their trauma. It placed the rights of my stalker above my rights to be protected”.

Such stories are all too familiar. It is time that the Government fulfilled their promise and gave us a victims’ law.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

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

[Chris Bryant]

I am glad that the right hon. aristocrat agrees with me.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest, because I was waiting for the “or”. He has just asserted what would happen if we did not have a good deal, Parliament rejected it and the negotiators were sent back, but then what? If it is felt that the best deal has been offered, what is his fall-back procedure? We would leave with no deal whatsoever.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously, if the Government cannot get their deal through Parliament, they may be in trouble. That is a certain truth. However, if the Government get nearly all their deal but key amendments are carried by the House—for instance, on immigration, the financial deal or the rights of EU citizens in this country or elsewhere—we could help to strengthen the Government’s arm, not weaken it at all. When I was Europe Minister, my experience was that when something was on the table in Brussels that I disagreed with and did not want to see implemented, the strongest argument I had with Brussels was, “I won’t be able to get that through the British Parliament.” If we have a system in which a deal does not have to go through the British Parliament in line-by-line detail, the Government will be weakened in the negotiating process.

Human Rights Framework: Scotland

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the timetabling. It is unlikely that we will see anything this side of the purdah period for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections. It is impossible at this stage to consult with the Administrations in any of the devolved regions before the elections. However, it would be exceptionally unwise thereafter to start a consultation in the middle of the referendum campaign. This discussion is best conducted in a period of relative calm and stability. I fear that the period between 6 May and 23 June is not going to be—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are getting rather long and are not in the form of questions.

[Andy Slaughter]

I apologise on behalf of the legal profession. Once we get going, it is difficult for us to stop.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This will probably be my last or my last but one point, so the Minister has time to respond. If nothing else, we must have some clarity on the timetabling. I remind the Minister, although I am sure he engraved these milestones, that the Conservative manifesto said:

“We will…scrap the Human Rights Act and curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights”.

Last year, the Prime Minister, writing in no less a paper of record than The Sun, said that it is

“one of the first tasks I set the new Justice Secretary”.

In May 2015, the Minister said:

“The Government will consult fully on its proposals for a Bill of Rights during this session.”

From what we read today in the papers, it may well be that the Prime Minister gets round that by simply extending the Session and pushing the Queen’s Speech back. Nevertheless, we need certainty.

Nothing could be clearer than what the Minister said in Justice questions on 8 September 2015:

“We will bring forward proposals on a Bill of Rights this autumn. They will be subject to full consultation. The preparation is going well.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 205.]

The Lord Chancellor modified that on 2 December 2015, when he said:

“My original intention was to publish the consultation before Christmas. It has now been put back. I expect it will be produced in the New Year.”

I think we can say that we are quite firmly in the new year now. It would be helpful if the Minister to give some clarity, because I am reliant on another authoritative source—The Mail on Sunday—which told us at the weekend that the Bill has been put off indefinitely to avoid an explosive new row over Europe. Specifically, it said that the work

“has now been completed by Justice Secretary…and is sitting on a desk inside No 10… Downing Street is refusing to publish the legislation, they say. Insiders believe the explanation is Mr Gove’s decision to defect to the Out camp in the referendum.”

We know that there are political difficulties for the Government, which may be why it has been convenient to postpone what seems to be the entire Parliament’s business, including the Queen’s Speech, until after the referendum. It would just be nice to be told that in terms.

Two weeks ago, we were told that there will be a sovereignty Bill, possibly published this week. What has happened to that? How does it relate to reform of the Human Rights Act? It may be that the boat has sailed and that, because the people whom the Prime Minister wished to keep within the tent—including the Minister—are already outside the tent, there is not much point in introducing a sovereignty Bill. It is extraordinary that we talked for so long about the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, but we barely hear them mentioned now. Everything is about the European Court of Justice. I wonder whether it was just the words “human rights” that caused difficulty for some Government Back Benchers, and that in the hothouse atmosphere of the European Union referendum debate the caravan has moved on. That is no way to run a Government. If nothing else, I ask the Minister to give us some clarity on whether we are going to have a proposal, so when we next debate this matter we can have a substantive debate rather than run around the houses.

Let me end on this point. Although the have been some comic—or tragicomic—aspects to how the Government have handled this matter, in essence it is extremely serious. Other speakers talked about the universality of human rights and the importance of giving effect to international law and human rights in our domestic courts. That is not something to trifle with and it should not fall prey to internal disputes within a political party, even if it is the governing party.

I remind the Minister of what the director of Amnesty International said last week when its report was published —it is a shame that Amnesty needs to remind the Government of their duties on this matter—

“The UK is setting a dangerous precedent to the world on human rights. There’s no doubt that the downgrading of human rights by this government is a gift to dictators the world over and fatally undermines our ability to call on other countries to uphold rights and laws. People around the world are still fighting to get basic human rights and we should not let politicians take our hard-won rights away with the stroke of a pen.”

I know that the Minister is a sensible, intelligent man, and I hope he takes those comments on board and is not swayed by the passions of Europe, pro or anti.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. It is usually customary to let the Minister respond to the question being asked.

[Mr Raab]

I am happy to give way, but if we have a Gatling gun salvo of interventions, that rather eats into my time and opportunity to address such matters. I will, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is his debate.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me slightly earlier than I expected.

I speak in support of my amendments. Taken together, they are designed to challenge the Government’s approach to this Bill. I suspect all Members share the same objective in that we are all ultimately concerned about harm and want to reduce for our loved ones and across society the risk that drugs, both legal and illegal, pose.

Speaking as a father, I happen to be rather hostile to drugs. I am hostile to the excessive use of legal drugs because of the damage they do to society, but I challenge the approach taken in this Bill. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke of the risk of making bad law, and I think that, seductive though the Government’s approach may be, we face the risk of legislating for bad law in this instance. As I have said, our objective should be harm reduction, and we should surely base legislation on evidence of what works.

According to the Home Office’s own 2014 report entitled “Drugs: International Comparators”,

“there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use.”

As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, the great risk is that Members on both sides of the House will assume that adopting the Bill’s approach will reduce the use of what are, in some cases, dangerous substances, although the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.

Like others, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who made a fantastic speech and spoke very openly and candidly, made the point that the Bill—in respect of poppers, but, in fact, across the board—would drive users into the hands of criminals. What criminal has people’s interests at heart? None of them, of course. I urge Members to think before they vote for the Bill, because that is precisely what we shall be doing. Moreover, we shall be massively increasing the profits of criminals and criminal networks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that there is a clear link between the profits made from illicit drugs and the funding of terrorism, pointing out that, in Afghanistan, money raised from the sale of cocaine has been fed into the hands of the Taliban.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Norman Lamb]

I will not, because I am conscious that time is very tight, and I do not want to get into trouble with the Chair.

We should think before we act. New clause 5 calls for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so that we can determine policy on the basis of evidence rather than prejudice. New clause 6 calls for a decriminalisation of the use of drugs, given that evidence from Portugal has shown a reduction in harm as a result of the adoption of that policy. In new clause 3, I happily join my former colleague in the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), in arguing for the facilitation of research on the potential medicinal value of cannabis. Amendment 24 proposes the legalisation of possession of cannabis for medicinal use. Surely we should not be criminalising people who use cannabis to relieve pain, yet that is what we do in this country. It is madness.

New clause 4 argues that we should ban substances under the Bill only after they have been referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, so that an objective judgment can be made about whether they cause social harm. That, of course, is in line with amendment 5. We are about to commit an act of total madness, banning poppers and then removing the ban just a few months down the track. That makes absolutely no sense, and, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), it brings the law into disrepute.

The Bill’s approach is seductive, and it is understandable, because people are fearful of the effects of these products. Ultimately, however, it is bad law, and it will have precisely the wrong effect.

The Shrewsbury 24

Anne Main Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Gentleman has had two goes and I think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.

The Minister, who is an honourable man, tried to defend his position, but I think he tried to defend the indefensible on this occasion. He tried to muddy the waters around the release of the documents, but this is about a miscarriage of justice. That is what is central to today’s debate: a miscarriage of justice. The current Government have the opportunity—it is in their gift—to put right a wrong of 43 years. That is all that the campaigners have asked for over the decades. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns and to the arguments of Opposition Members. I hope that he will act with honesty and integrity and meet the campaigners and then go back and fight their cause to get the documents released.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

There is a Division in the House. If there is more than one Division, we will resume after 25 minutes or as soon as we all get back.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

“I will make sure your loved one does not suffer.” I think that many of us have had that assurance from doctors, and what they usually mean is that they are going to operate the principle of double effect commended by two Government Members. It means they will give the patient a lethal dose, usually of morphine, that will kill them, but they play a mind game of self-deception, pretending that the lethal dose is to relieve pain. It is not; it is to kill the patient. It was practised on a king some time ago, and it is widely practised and defended throughout the world, including in many Catholic countries. I would suggest that that is far more dangerous than the Bill. People are being killed without their permission and without rules or regulation.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I sat next to my husband as he was dying of cancer and in extreme pain. Yes, he was given a large dose of morphine—because it was impossible to control his pain without it. I absolutely object to the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that every time a doctor helps a patient with extreme pain, they are in fact just shuffling them off a bit quicker. I think he needs to moderate his remarks.

[Paul Flynn]

I will do nothing of the sort. I think it is an act of deception by doctors and the Church. They are allowing one doctor to make the decision and administer the lethal dose without any of the protections in the Bill. I have been to Oregon and discussed their law with them, and I believe we should follow their experience carefully. All the fears expressed in the House were expressed in Oregon in 1994. They had a referendum. We could follow their example and ask the public by attaching another question to the EU referendum question. In Oregon, the result was 51% to 49% in favour, but after experience of the Act—[Interruption.]

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Anne Main Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. Judicial review has become a vehicle that is used as one of the tools to campaign, to delay and to challenge, not necessarily in the interests of the broader society or the broader community, but because it provides a vehicle to make a point or to delay something for financial reasons. It makes no sense to have a system that can be abused in the way it often is.

We listened carefully to the debate in the House of Lords, and as hon. Members will see from the amendment paper, we have suggested some modifications to ensure that we avoid unintended consequences of what we are working to do. I hope that the House will say clearly today that having agreed those safeguards, we want to see this package of reforms pass into law.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On safeguards, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that local authorities will not be able to dumb down their standards, knowing that there is not likely to be a judicial review, and that they will still always go through the correct process, as they need to do, and not think that they are beyond reproach?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to say that the Bill will not stop organisations being judicially reviewed where they are at fault. It does not stop organisations being judicially reviewed for constant or serious underperformance or failure to fulfil their duties. What it stops is judicial review on technicalities. It stops the system being used for purposes for which it should not be used.