Prisons

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 16 October, be approved.

Last week my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made a statement to the House setting out a number of reforms in which our sharp focus is public safety. We will ensure that the worst offenders stay locked up for longer; further enlarge our prison capacity, building on the recent growth that has been achieved, which is unprecedented since the Victorians; and ensure that that capacity is put to best use for public protection.

The removal of foreign national offenders is a priority for this Government. Between January 2019 and March 2023, we removed 14,700 foreign national offenders from the country, but there are still 10,000 FNOs in our prisons, each of them taking up a prison place at great expense to the British taxpayer. While my Department is working closely with the Home Office to increase removals, there is still more that can be done.

As the Lord Chancellor set out in his statement, it cannot be right that some of these individuals are sitting in prison when they could otherwise be removed from the country. The early removal scheme exists to deport foreign national offenders. This means that any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence—with the exception of those convicted of terrorism or terror-related offences—is considered for deportation. We also remove foreign offenders through prisoner transfer agreements, which enable prisoners to be repatriated during their prison sentence. Those agreements also operate to bring British national offenders back to the UK, and we currently have over 80 such arrangements in place with other countries.

The early removal scheme—the subject of this debate—allows for foreign national offenders to be removed before the end of their sentence, subject to a minimum time being served. Once removed, they are subsequently barred from re-entering the UK, and we are clear that any illegal re-entry will see them returned to prison, where they will serve the rest of their sentence. The draft instrument before us today will ensure that certain foreign national offenders can be removed earlier.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could my right hon. Friend the Minister clarify that last point? Is he saying that someone who is removed at the end of his or her sentence cannot come back once they are free? They have served their time here, and therefore, in principle, they have paid the price for their crime, but if they go back to their country and want to come back, they are not allowed to do so.

[Damian Hinds]

My right hon. Friend is correct that, when someone is deported in this way, they are not allowed to return. Were there time remaining on the sentence, as I outlined, that time would be servable if they did come back illegally.

This instrument will ensure that certain foreign national offenders can be removed earlier. We seek to extend the removal window in the early removal scheme from 12 months to 18 months, meaning that we would be able to deport an eligible foreign national offender up to six months earlier, still subject to the minimum required proportion of time having been served. This builds on changes we introduced last year in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which extended the maximum from nine to 12 months. As I just alluded to, we also added the “stop the clock” provision, so that anyone removed from the UK under the early removal scheme will have their sentence paused following removal and reactivated if they illegally return to the UK at any point, which means returning to prison to complete their sentence.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Some years ago, shortly before I entered Parliament, I was stood in the Crown court at Birmingham, having been instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute five men accused of rape. It was alleged that they had groomed two young girls from Telford aged 15 and 16 and abducted them to Birmingham, where they subjected them to a weekend of degrading and humiliating sexual attacks, offering them up to their friends to do with as they pleased. What made the case even more chilling was that it was clear that the victims had been targeted because of their troubled backgrounds and sometimes challenging behaviour when interacting with authority figures such as the police. The defendants had made a cynical calculation that, if the girls ever did complain, they were unlikely to be believed. Well, they were believed. The jury got the measure of what had really gone on. After a fair trial, presided over by an independent judge, the defendants were all convicted of rape, robust sentences were passed and justice was done.

I mention that at the beginning of this Second Reading debate because it provided me, and I hope now the House, with a powerful example of how supporting victims can make a decisive impact on outcomes. In that case, it was only because all the moving parts of the system came together to support those vulnerable girls to give their best evidence that a just outcome was delivered: conscientious police officers liaised sensitively with the young women to help them record their accounts; compassionate CPS lawyers and caseworkers applied for special measures to assist the victims to give evidence in court; and victim support staff worked hard during the tense days of the trial to assist victims with information and updates.

Here is the central point: all those agencies recognised that, in order to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it. That is the mission of this Government and of this Bill. It will boost victims’ entitlements; make victims’ voices heard, including following a major incident like the tragedy of Grenfell or Hillsborough; and deliver further safeguards to protect the public.

As the House will know, my predecessor met brave victims such as: little Tony Hudgell, who was so badly abused by his birth parents that he almost died; Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, whose two-year-old son James’s murder shocked the nation; and Farah Naz, the aunt of Zara Aleena, who was tragically sexually assaulted and murdered last year. I want to pay tribute to them. Through their personal grief they have, none the less, found the strength to strengthen the system for others. We owe them a profound debt of gratitude. Their pain and their anguish spurs us on to strengthen public protection and to make sure every victim of crime is properly supported.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill. As an MP, I have heard so many complaints from victims that no one is listening to them. Can he assure me that victims really will come first in the Bill?

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the point. If victims are to be not spectators but participants, from the moment of complaint they must be listened to by the officer on the case, the CPS prosecutor and the prosecutor at court. Being listened to is a critical part of victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system.

Murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Allan Dorans]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

Yvonne was conveyed to Westminster Hospital, but sadly she succumbed to her injuries on the operating table about an hour after arriving at the hospital.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have studied the matter at length and must say that the bravery of that lady after she was wounded was astonishing. I understand that all she was concerned about was the safety of other people. What service. How wonderful for the Metropolitan police.

[Allan Dorans]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for holding a previous Adjournment debate on this matter.

The fact that the shots that murdered WPC Fletcher and injured others were fired from the Libyan People’s Bureau is not disputed and is supported by overwhelming eyewitness accounts, videos and forensic evidence. Immediately following the events of 17 April, Saleh Ibrahim Mabrouk, along with other members of the bureau, was deported to Libya. Mr Mabrouk was subsequently allowed to return to this country by the British Government and in 2011 he settled permanently in Reading. As there was evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy, we must ask why he was ever allowed to return.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I understand the House’s focus on family reunion rules, because, as the hon. Lady said, so many already have family here. We have had to apply the rules as fairly and proportionately as we can, recognising the realities of the security situation in Afghanistan. We have no consular presence in Afghanistan, and the British Army withdrew at the end of August, so we are working with third countries and consulates in third countries to try to help people. I cannot pretend that this is an easy process. I have tried to be clear throughout with the House about just how difficult it is to get out people who are already in Afghanistan.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Some 29 years ago, my battalion—my officers particularly—involved itself in getting our interpreters back to the United Kingdom from Bosnia. My battalion did it on its own; we often had to put people up. Eventually, we got accommodation, but we did not get support to help the people we brought in to get an education, medical care and jobs. I ask my hon. Friend to assure me that the system will follow all the way through to ensure that the people we are helping are helped all the way through the integration process.

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I stand in awe of some of my right hon. Friend’s military achievements. He is right that we are trying to be ambitious in our integration schemes. We have put forward generous funding packages for housing, education and healthcare and, importantly, to focus on helping people to understand our values, customs and laws so that they can get going and build lives for themselves as quickly as possible. For example, it is great news that all children who were evacuated during Operation Pitting are now in school, and that is very much the tone and the progress that we want to make with everyone we welcome through Operation Warm Welcome.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I love Fridays.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) on bringing forward her Bill. I know that she will have done so because she wants to make a real difference for the most vulnerable in society, just as she did with her Autism Act 2009. This Bill has Labour support. I am looking forward to serving with the right hon. Lady on the Bill Committee, and I hope that the Government will ensure that the Bill has a smooth passage today and through all its parliamentary stages.

As the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) rightly said, substance misuse is an extremely important issue for our criminal justice system, our prisons and our communities. Sadly, this week, drug-related deaths hit an all-time high. Drug dependence and abuse is a massive factor in many people’s offending and, indeed, reoffending. This year, the Black review found that about a third of prisoners are in prison for reasons connected to drug use. Of that third, 40% are actually in prison for drugs offences, so 60% are there for other crimes, such as theft or robbery, which they often commit to pay for the devastating financial cost of an addiction.

As we know, the cost of an addiction is not just financial. Many psychoactive drugs, including novel psychoactive substances—I will call them NPS so that I do not have to say those words throughout my speech—such as Spice, can take a terrible toll on physical and mental health. In prison, as in the outside world, many people take drugs to escape the bewildering, scary or miserable circumstances of their lives. Unfortunately, the substances taken to experience fleeting moments of distraction or numbness make the problems of chaotic lives so much worse.

Drug misuse, just like alcoholism, is a medical problem, and healing it requires well funded, long-term, holistic medical and social intervention. We know that substance abuse treatment works to reduce reoffending. Analysis by the Ministry of Justice suggests that being in treatment cuts reoffending by 44%, and that the number of repeat offences committed is cut by about 33%. It is likely that if treatment were better funded, larger reductions would result.

Over the last 10 years, responsibility for drug treatment has been transferred to councils, and the ring-fenced budget has been removed and reduced. Local government grants and public health funding were both cut. Many of those who are in our prisons today might not have been there if they had got help earlier—if society and the state had had the resources to step in and stop a downward spiral before it started—but to quote the American President, we are where we are. Now, we have to do everything in our power with those who are in prison to ensure that the conditions are there for good health, effective treatment, decent living conditions and a seamless transition to treatment in the community upon release. Without those things, I do not believe that somebody who has done wrong and is in prison will get a second chance to turn their life around.

The interventions made in individual prisons, and the policy for prisons across England and Wales a whole, can be made more effective if prison governors and the Prison Service have knowledge of what is happening with drugs inside. This Bill is intended to help with just that, and Labour Members support that essential purpose, just as we supported by Psychoactive Substances Act 2016—I should know, because I was the shadow Minister on that Bill. During its passage I learned lots. In particular, I learned that Spice and other new and initially unregulated psychoactive substances can have a devastating effect on people, and that their use in prison has had some terrible impacts on prison safety and stability.

Spice use can cause prisoners to behave extremely unpredictably and in ways that are out of character, and it has led to violent attacks on prison staff and on other prisoners. That primarily affects prison officers and workers. Like the hon. Member for North West Durham, I have been told by the POA that its people have been faced with the utter horror of someone they have known for a long time—perhaps a young man who has been in the revolving door and been in and out of prison without ever being a problem—taking Spice and being turned into “an utter lunatic who wants to kill you and who feels no pain.”

When a batch of Spice manages to get into a prison and is distributed widely across the population there can be a wave of problems, with people physically collapsing, having a mental health crisis or becoming violent. It is clearly in the interests of vulnerable prisoners, staff and our communities for the system to be able to respond more quickly to changing recipes, new symptoms, new routes in and new users, which is why this Bill is so welcome.

May I gently point out, however, that there is evidence to suggest that a disproportionate number of Spice users may not be in treatment? The Forward Trust has estimated that between 60% and 90% of the prison population have used an NPS at some point, yet in 2018-19 only 11% of prisoners in treatment had NPS use noted as one of their problems, so there is a huge disparity there. Most prisoners on a treatment programme went into it immediately upon entering prison. I know we will agree that picking up on the substance abuse immediately is an important thing, but it does not account for those who start misusing a drug while in custody. Such people may have had no other history of this. So I would be grateful to hear a little from the Government—or they can write to me—about what they are doing to improve treatment provision, alongside getting the more accurate testing that we need and that this Bill provides for. Public Health England estimates that every £1 spent on drug treatment has a fourfold return, and that has to be worth looking into.

I am told that when somebody uses Spice it is obvious, so there is a bit of a concern that the powers in this Bill will be used for the purposes of punishment, rather than for making an effective order of treatment. It would be a great pity if that is all that happens as a result of this Bill, with prisoners subject to greater punishment rather than getting treatment, because then it will not improve rehabilitation, and it will not make our prisons safer or more stable in the way that we want to see. At the end of the day, Spice is used primarily by very vulnerable populations, particularly rough sleepers and those in prisons. It is used by those whose days are filled with a lethal mixture of boredom and despair. Despite the risk of losing all control and having a terrible time, Spice promises an escape from reality, and the uncomfortable truth is that many of the punishments used in prisons, such as taking away TV privileges or limiting time outside cells, can make that boredom and despair deeper.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am wondering, with Spice, if there is an animal—a dog—that can sniff it, and how the heck do we trace it? There are people in prison who come in with a problem and there are people who are infected, in a way, with drugs in prison, but the key is to try to find where the drug is located. I am sure the hon. Lady knows that much better than I do, not that she has experience.

[Ms Brown]

No, trust me, I have no experience. That is why I found the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 rather an exciting piece of legislation to be responsible for. The hon. Gentleman is right and there are many ways, sadly, that Spice can be taken into a prison. For instance, I was told that Spice can permeate a piece of paper. In a four-page letter, one of those pages might have the substance. It can then be torn into little strips and submerged in water, and the compound can be extracted from that. There are many ways that this can happen, and that is one of the reasons why this is so dangerous and why we really do need to be doing all we can to bring some semblance of control over the substances in our prisons and our prison estates.

If we want to tackle Spice in our prisons, as well as shutting down the routes in and ensuring that those who exploit it are stopped, we have to ensure that fewer people actually want to take it. That requires treatment by professionals, a productive and active prisons regime, and the creation of a therapeutic culture in which it is normal to want to be well, to have opportunities and support to be well, and to see oneself leaving prison and leading a productive life.

I am told that the test for psychoactive substances available currently can identify only six elements within the broad category of NPSs, and that updating that test can take as long as a year. I wonder if the Minister can tell us how many more chemical elements the Government think will need to be added in the near future to make that test more effective. I know she might not have that at her fingertips, and I would be grateful for a letter. I would also be grateful for any estimates she might have made as to how these changes will allow testing revisions to be speeded up and new forms of dangerous drugs identified.

Can I also ask the Minister: who will get access to the studies of the prevalence of different substance misuse in prisons in future? She will know that the Prison Officers Association has requested access to these studies so that its members have basic information about which substances are in circulation in their prisons, but it tells me that it does not get a response. Currently, the contract for prison testing is outsourced and held by just one company, Abbott Toxicology. It would be worth while if, during the progress of the Bill, the Government would make available an assessment of the performance of that contract. Is the service this company is providing adequate and is it value for money? Will there be a new contract to reflect the wider range of substances that need to be tested for?

As hon. Members will know, there are occasionally issues with the interpretation of the definition in the Psychoactive Substances Act, which this Bill would copy into the Prison Act 1952. Are the Government confident that the definition in the Bill is robust enough?

What purpose will be left for section 47(3A) of the Prisons Act 1952 after the Bill has amended it? Currently, the section allows the Government to make special rules enabling samples to be required for tests of substances that are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, it now will not be possible, or presumably necessary, to use those powers to enable testing for new psychoactive substances, so what could it be used for? Is there still a point to having that general power in legislation?

The Bill extends the testing regime to cover prescribed and pharmacy medicines, many of which can be misused and cause serious damage in our prisons. They include drugs such as gabapentinoids and prescribed opioids for pain relief, which may be sold or shared with others outside the prescription given by the NHS. This is a welcome change, but close collaboration will be needed to ensure that prisoners who test positive are not mistakenly and unfairly penalised when they have a prescription and a genuine medical need. I note that there are a few points about that in paragraph 40 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, but I ask the Minister to expand on that, either in this debate or when we consider the Bill in Committee, as I hope we will.

It is essential that the testing regime will be the same across each prison and between prisons: from the new entrants in reception, to those in treatment areas, to those in a different prison, to a prison to which the prisoner might be transferred next week or next month. Otherwise, damaging disparities could arise between the results given by a test used in reception and one used by NHS staff in the treatment centre. What reassurances can the Government offer that that will be absolutely guaranteed?

Better testing can do very little when the treatment provision and the healthy rehabilitative regimes and cultures are not there in our prisons. I would be interested to see in the near future an analysis by the Government of how much an expansion of testing would cost. However well intentioned the Bill is—I think it is well intentioned—we need to make a considered assessment of whether additional money might be better spent on more staffing in prison, better access to drug treatment and through-the-gate support, or more rehabilitative prison regimes.

We need to make our prisons free of this poison, which continues to wreck lives. On the face of it, the lockdown in prisons should have made a big difference. There are only a number of possible routes that banned substances can take to get into prisons and two of the main routes have been heavily restricted. Visits to prisons were banned for many months and even now they have restarted they are occurring at a much lower capacity. During that same time, new entrants to the prison system from our courts have slowed to a trickle as a result of court closures and mounting backlogs. I hope the Minister can tell us whether there has, or has not, been a big decrease in access to substances in prisons over the past months, as that should be able to inform us about the routes being used to bring substances in. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us what lessons have been learned.

What impact has the lockdown had on the quality and accessibility of treatment in prisons? We know that access to prescriptions has, thankfully, continued with relatively little disruption through the pandemic, but what has happened to the other elements of treatment? Group-based discussions and therapy are always an important part of treatment. Are the Government considering how a wider range of treatment options could be restarted safely, bearing in mind that the risk from the pandemic may continue for many months to come?

I am happy to say that Labour welcomes and supports the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham again on bringing it to the House. The Bill will create greater consistency across policies and make a change that perhaps should have been made when the Psychoactive Substances Bill went through the House four years ago. I will be delighted to support it today.

Assisted Dying

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for bringing forward this debate, because I am on something of a journey in relation to my approach to this issue. That approach has largely been shaped by speaking to the family of a constituent who, in July 2017, went to Dignitas in Switzerland, where she ended her life. Her mother and sister came to see me, and their experience echoes that of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I pay tribute to him for his bravery in outlining his experience with his father.

Anna, my constituent’s sister, said:

“To get to Dignitas in Switzerland Jemima had to be able to single-handedly plan, pay for and travel across the UK until she was outside its legal jurisdiction, all without any family support. In accompanying Jemima to Dignitas, I knew that my family and I were going to be subjected to a police investigation on our return from Switzerland. At the worst possible time, when we were grieving the loss of our loved one.

Jemima interpreted the UK laws as best she could so that she didn’t implicate us in her death but she was still terrified that we would be prosecuted on our return. Jemima was also really concerned that her degenerative diseases would deteriorate to the point where she would not be able to either plan the journey or to physically get to Switzerland under her own steam.

So Jemima made the decision to have an assisted suicide years before she needed to. The UK Government literally stole years of my sister’s life. I know if she had been able to exercise her ‘right to die’ in the UK, she would have chosen to stay with us for many more years to come.”

I think those are very powerful words.

Those who wish to end their lives now must leave the UK alone, despite their ill health, or leave with relatives who will face suspicion and investigation when they return home. This imposes a legal complexity that requires ordinary people, at a time of great stress, to understand and interpret complex areas of law and how it is enforced by the police, often without professional legal advice, because of the terms of the Suicide Act, as outlined by the hon. Member for Swansea East. I would like to focus on that for a moment. In the case of this constituent, I had to write to Cheshire police to ask what its approach was and how it enforced the law. The lack of clarity from police forces is deeply troubling, and although I was pleased that it said it would enhance constable training and update its website, I am deeply concerned that that guidance is still not online. That means there is a postcode lottery in this country regarding how a local police force will enforce the law, which makes an already complex legal picture even more difficult to navigate. Whether or not we change the law, the police must respond to these cases far more sensitively and be more transparent about how they handle them.

My constituent and her family were put through months of hell, waiting for an investigation to conclude. To face such scrutiny after a heart-rending loss is difficult, but for the police to then make a family spend month after month reliving their loss does not serve the interests of the family, the public or justice. Despite all that, my constituent had the resources to go to Switzerland and plan her own death.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says that her constituent had the resources to go to Switzerland and end her life. Does she know how much it costs to go to Dignitas? The whole package, plus recovery of the body, must be an eye-watering amount.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Dignity in Dying estimates the average cost of a trip to Dignitas to be around £10,000, which is a substantial amount. Only one third of UK families have that much in savings, so under our current system, with its manifest cruelties, that option is inaccessible to two thirds of the country on financial grounds alone.

This week Jemima’s mother told me:

“I have become increasingly sure that under certain circumstances and with the right safeguards, a person should have the right to choose to end their life in this country. I know Jemima would have been with us for longer if she had been able to take that choice at home.”

Alongside her heartfelt plea for reform, and those of others, there must be two key criteria for any future proposals. First, assisted dying must be made available under certain circumstances, and there must be appropriate safeguards for patients, families, medical professionals and those who need to enforce the law. It is a difficult area, but I hope that Jemima’s story will help build a consensus that will allow us to take this issue forward, and that we will not continue to block future changes to the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Ten years ago, I worked with some excellent doctors, nurses, patients and carers who were trying to improve clinicians’ communication skills to help patients gain a better understanding of long-term conditions and diseases—how to live with their disease and how to die with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, not all clinicians are equipped with the skills necessary to have those conversations. I learned particularly about how lonely it is for people who are dying—it is often nobody’s role to talk about dying—and no one has exemplified that today more than my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is a very lonely place. I learned that people do not have the control and choice that they otherwise have in their lives, and I learned how hard is for clinicians to support people. It really opened my eyes and made me determined to change the law even before I came into this place.

It is a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) as co-chair of the all-party group. In that capacity, it was my absolute pleasure to welcome and host Geoffrey and Ann Whaley when they came to talk to MPs in February. I welcome Ann to the Chamber, as well as all the other families who have come here to listen to this very measured debate.

When the campaigners, who are very passionate on this subject, come to see me, I talk to them about how to talk to their own MPs, and the first thing I say to them is, “Try to look at the MP in front of you as a human being.” We know in this place and in this time in our politics that lots of people do not think we are human beings, and it is difficult, but we are human beings. I say to those campaigners, “You do not know what those human beings you are talking to have experienced in their lives or are currently experiencing in their lives. Please bear that in mind when you start to talk to us.”

We are here as human beings, but we are also here as legislators, and legislation is what we are trying to encourage with this debate. Through the all-party group, we are trying to help all of us human beings, with all our failings, prejudices and experiences, to understand the law as it operates, how it affects people and what we need to do to take our responsibility to change that. I am clear that the law needs to change, but I understand that many people have not got to that place. We want to try to help people. In particular, we want to try to get evidence. The call is not just to trade facts and figures, but to collect evidence. I really hope that we can help to move forward on that today.

The story of Geoffrey and Ann really did horrify me, although it is not the first time I have heard it. We have two committed, loving people being treated as criminals for carrying out what was an act of love and compassion. We should also think about the impact on people like those in our police services. Think about the poor police officers who were sent round as this lovely family were trying to manage a terrible situation. Think about the time taken out of their duties and the trauma for them as individuals. That is not acceptable; it is us abrogating our responsibility.

Geoffrey died comfortably at Dignitas only a week after he came to Parliament. He was clear that he was dying before he was ready, and he was terrified about the police investigation. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, he was a strong man. When he talked to us, the only time his voice faltered was when he talked about that knock on the door, because he was so worried about the impact on his family. He was clear about the hurdles that needed to be jumped to make the decision that he wanted to make, but he was also clear that he did not expect MPs just to change the law. He had high standards for us as MPs. He expected us to collect evidence and to challenge the evidence, and to do so very carefully. He was, as the hon. Gentleman said, cut from some old cloth. He expected us to do a diligent job.

[Bob Stewart]

It seems to me that the law is grossly unfair. If someone has the resources—we have talked about £10,000—they can go to an alien place and die, with a few family around, and their body can be brought back. But they have to have the money to do it. Currently, our law is not fair, because it differentiates between people who have the resources to end their life when they want to, without the pain and the indignity, and those who cannot afford it, who are the vast majority. That is wrong, and that is where the law has to change.

[Karin Smyth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He must have seen the next point in my speech, because it is exactly that. Geoffrey and Ann’s story has been the prompt for this debate, but they are not the only family to go through this process. More than 400 Britons have died at Dignitas, and one Briton is dying in Switzerland every eight days. Every person who dies leaves behind a loved one facing the risk of prosecution. He is absolutely right: they have parted with more than £10,000. The family were very open with us that they could afford that, but most of my constituents in Bristol South absolutely cannot afford anywhere near that sort of money. This is a cross-party debate, and people have their individual views, but for me, as a socialist, it is eminently wrong that people who have resources can have that choice and those who do not cannot. That is one of the many reasons why I think we need to change.

The vast majority of people in this country who are dying of a terminal illness can expect a comfortable, dignified and pain-free life. The palliative care service is amazing, and I have worked with many clinicians over time, but they cannot alleviate all symptoms.

I just want to add that a third of patients in Oregon who request assisted dying do not use it. The autonomy that is granted by the choice is very comforting. Autonomy, choice and dignity are important. We must do better with our laws. Our law is outdated, unpopular and uncompassionate. It is time to look at the undue suffering that the blanket ban on assisted dying is causing people at the end of their life, because compassion is not a crime.

Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I cannot give him a scientific answer, but I can tell him that the evidence the all-party group received from those people who have been through FGM absolutely concurs with what he has just said: there are parts of the establishment and social services, and people within the education system, who are very nervous indeed about pointing the finger on FGM. There is a concern about trampling on cultural sensitivities. The view of the people we talked to, like my view and, I suspect, that of many in the House today, is that those sensitivities should be pushed to one side. This is a very direct form of child abuse; child abuse is child abuse, and it is our responsibility as adults and the authorities to stamp it out at every opportunity. That message has been unambiguous, in all the evidence we have taken from those people who have been through FGM.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I wonder how we can convince people who think this barbaric practice is decent, such as the families involved, that it is not. How do we get to those families? Does the all-party group have any answer as to how we stop mothers and fathers taking their children and allowing this sort of thing to happen?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know, because the evidence shows, that a shift is happening. I mentioned Nimco Ali’s campaign in Somaliland. It is not one where she is having to bash her head against a brick wall. Every member of the newly elected Somaliland Government is on board in a mission to eradicate FGM. In Hargeisa, the capital, huge posters have been put up and paid for by government, although they were designed by the campaign groups at the grassroots, telling people that FGM is not only illegal but unethical and immoral, and without any basis whatsoever in religion—this could not be clearer. I realise I did not answer an earlier intervention on that point.

Nimco is not the only person who has that kind of electrifying impact in individual countries. Another such person is Jaha Dukureh, who was originally from the Gambia, moved to New York and then went back to the Gambia. Like Nimco, she persuaded the Government not only to legislate against FGM, but to put resources into those people at the grassroots who are campaigning to change hearts and minds. By all accounts, she is succeeding on an extraordinary scale. I am going to come to this a little later when I wrap up, but there is such an important role for the Department for International Development to play. We can be proud of what we have done, but we have to make sure the next raft of money, the £50 million that has been pledged, is invested in the right groups and the right campaigns.

Exiting the European Union (Mediation)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is a member of the Justice Committee and has taken part in many debates on this subject. I know he has extensive experience of arbitration as well as mediation. I am very pleased that he is planning to go further on that. He must rest assured that the Government remain committed to mediation. It is a very important tool in the armoury to help people to resolve their disputes. Outwith this statutory instrument and the EU rules that we already have, as I will go on to explain, we have very strong domestic provision for mediation, and that will continue. The reason to bring forward this statutory instrument and the approach we have adopted is that the current arrangement with the EU is reciprocal and that following our leaving the EU we cannot rely on any reciprocity. This statutory instrument will therefore revoke the EU legislation.

In 2018, the European Council agreed a cross-border mediation directive which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member state cross-border disputes. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled or habitually resident in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial proceedings or arbitration are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living. The UK, as a member state, enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say certain aspects, because in many areas, such as ensuring the quality of mediation or information about mediation to the public, our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the directive. However, to implement the directive the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties.

The new rules first specify that if a time limit in a domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expired during the mediation process, the parties could still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules define the rights of a mediator or someone involved in the administration of mediation to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during a mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement the changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the UK’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies will be lost. Even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the UK or judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the UK that were not otherwise in scope.

Accordingly, and in line with the Government’s general approach to civil judicial co-operation in the event of no deal, this instrument will repeal, subject to transitional provisions, the legislation that gives effect to the mediation directive’s rules on confidentiality and extension of limitation periods. It amends the relevant retained EU law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland—in so far as it relates to reserved matters. Separate instruments will amend the related court rules in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is other legislation implementing the directive that is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, and I understand that they have decided to bring forward their own legislation in this area.

Turning to the impacts, this instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and have published an impact assessment. By repealing the domestic legislation that gave effect to the mediation directive, we will ensure clarity in the law applying to mediations between UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in EU member states. We will also avoid a situation where mediations of an EU cross-border dispute conducted in the UK are subject to different rules on confidentiality or limitation from other UK mediations.

As I indicated, the instrument will change only the rules applying to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, be able to make an application to the court and ask it to stay proceedings. Overall, this instrument will ensure that, post EU exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK-domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I read it, fundamentally, for people who are seeking mediation, there will not be much change if the instrument is enacted.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is precisely the position. All that is happening with this SI is that we are going back to the position before the directive was implemented. It was implemented in 2011, so it has been in place for only a number of years, and we will still have all the rules that regulate domestic mediations, which take place across the country in various jurisdictions. This measure will impact only two very small areas—time limits and confidentiality—and as my hon. Friend highlighted, much will remain the same.

As I have set out, without a deal in place on 29 March 2019, certain EU cross-border mediations involving UK-domiciled parties—except for those that had started before exit—would no longer be subject to the mediation directive rules in EU member states. The Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations fix that deficiency and ensure that both the courts and UK citizens have clear and effective rules to follow during a cross-border mediation dispute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

A number of objections have been raised, as I have set out, but the bottom line is that these regulations repeal legislation and mean effectively that the higher European standards will not be followed and that, instead, lower international standards will be.

[Bob Stewart]

But I thought I just heard the Minister say that in the matter of mediation, there will be very little difference, and that is what we are talking about: mediation.

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are talking about mediation. The Minister will know, and rightly pointed out, that there are two issues: time limits and confidentiality. This statutory instrument will repeal legislation that allows for extra time for that mediation, so that is substantially different. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that position in her closing remarks, because my understanding is that there is a substantial difference.

This statutory instrument would revoke and repeal the domestic legislation that enshrined in law the mediation directive. Many Members will be unfamiliar with the purpose of the mediation directive, but it is one of many examples whereby, through co-operation with our European partners, we have raised legal standards and protections across Europe. The European Statutory Instruments Committee—as raised by the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood)—considered whether this instrument could diminish rights. It found that it

“repeals legislation that extends the time limit for bringing certain claims in civil courts and employment tribunals to enable mediation”.

Some people may claim that legislation setting out the time limits for bringing civil claims is a minor issue, but it can have substantial real-world consequences. It could mean the difference between people being able to reach a mediated solution to a child contact case or not. The Government’s explanatory memorandum makes it clear that maintaining the standards of the mediation directive was an option available to the Government, but they have not sought to maintain the highest possible standards in all circumstances.

Why has the Minister not sought to maintain the highest possible standards? Can she guarantee today that if the statutory instrument passes and we move away from the high European mediation standards, people who rely on mediation for a family law matter—for example, a dispute over custody of a child—will be no worse off than they would have been had the mediation been conducted under the current European standards? I wait for her response, but she knows that the answer to that question is no.

For decades now, people from across the UK have travelled, lived and done business across Europe, safe in the knowledge that if something goes wrong they will be protected by legal systems that work, and work together. Many people from elsewhere in Europe have made their lives in the UK—some have started families, some created businesses, others are working in the NHS and other vital services—and they, too, trusted that they could rely on cross-border legal co-operation if something went wrong. That is why the Government’s failure to secure full judicial co-operation after we leave the EU is so damaging—it puts people’s rights at risk by lowering standards—and that is why we will vote against the SI. We in the Opposition know the Tories cannot be trusted to defend people’s rights.

Victims Strategy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Crime is significantly lower than it was in the mid-1990s, but there has been a change in the pattern and the nature of it. The increases in crime have been in what many people would regard as the more serious types of crime, particularly violent crimes. Much of our criminal justice system is understandably and rightly focused on the perpetrators of crime: on how we can prevent people from being drawn into a life of crime by tackling some of the root causes that make them more susceptible to it, or, on the penal side of the criminal justice system, in dealing with sentencing, public protection and making sure that those people cannot cause serious damage. We need to make sure that that is not done at the expense of neglecting those who suffer most directly from such crimes: the direct victims of crime.

Many of the changes in the pattern and nature of crime in our communities have consequences for the experience of victims. We need to ensure that how the Government and society treat and support our victims through the process changes to reflect their own changing experiences. In my constituency, over the past year we have seen over 1,500 violent crimes recorded. Worryingly, that is a massive 30% increase on the previous year. Each of those violent crimes clearly has a direct victim, many of whom will need support. All will need consideration of how the criminal justice system proceeds in dealing with the compilation of evidence, prosecution, and, where appropriate, conviction and punishment of those responsible for those crimes.

As my hon. Friend the Minister said, huge progress has been made in recent years. When I was studying law in the mid-1990s, victims were, if anything, an afterthought in the whole system. When I was training for the Bar, the way that barristers and legal representatives were to approach victims was not even covered in the vocational training. The whole system seemed to assume that victims were little more than onlookers, with no more stake in proceedings than any other member of society.

I certainly welcome the enormous progress that has been made, particularly over the past 12 years, starting with the introduction of the victims code. It is right that we pay tribute to the work done by previous Governments to introduce the Victims’ Commissioner, who has done some extremely important work to ensure that victims’ interests are considered within Government and more widely. More recently, police and crime commissioners up and down the country have put the rights and interests of victims at the heart of their work, ensuring that they are a priority in local policing. The best PCCs ensure that is a key part of their focus, beyond what most people probably associate with their core work.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, but I am also concerned that the number of victims applying to civil courts to try to get non-molestation orders against abusive partners or ex-partners seems to be on the increase. I hope that we will be taking action to try to stop that, because sometimes it costs people up to £10,000 to get an ex-partner off their back.

[Mike Wood]

I am sure that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend’s point, which I agree with. Of course, some of the legislation going through the House is relevant to that point, whether the legislation relating to the Government’s domestic violence strategy or private Members’ Bills, such as the Stalking Protection Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). They will allow the criminal justice system to ensure that perpetrators are stopped before their crimes, which are directed largely at women but also at men, escalate to something more serious.

Although much progress has been made in recent years—and we all recognise that the £200 million being spent on supporting victims is a considerable amount of money—I am sure that we all have examples from our constituencies of victims being let down by the system. One of the most upsetting cases that I have dealt with recently involved a young woman in my constituency. The charges for the crimes that she was the victim of covered a range of serious offences, including sexual offences and false imprisonment. Her statement included evidence of very coercive behaviour, domestic violence and assault. Yet her experience of our criminal justice system was simply not good enough.

After an arrest was made, the communication from the police was certainly not good enough, but it got worse as the cases progressed. At the initial bail hearing there was little or no communication from the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. The family understand that the CPS did not contest the bail hearing, despite the very serious offences involved, but they still do not understand how or why that decision was made. The suspect was released on bail and continued to live in the local area. Although bail conditions were of course imposed, the police offered no reassurances on how the victim could be protected pending trial.

The accused was re-arrested after an incident and an application was made to vary the bail conditions, but that hearing was missed because, as far as we can ascertain, they were taken to the wrong court on the day of the hearing after a weekend in a police cell. Having missed the hearing, the accused was re-released on the existing bail conditions. We can only imagine how that affected the victim and her family. It is simply not good enough.

Perhaps more worryingly, the victim and her family have constantly been told that it would be better if she did not have any counselling, therapy or help to deal with these traumatic experiences until the trial concluded, in case it influenced the evidence. A victim may have to wait 15 or 18 months before the case comes to trial, and all that time without proper support is extremely damaging. Even with the best psychiatric support, therapy and counselling, and any other services that the state, the third sector or anyone else can offer, it is difficult to see how that damage could be repaired at a later stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I know that a number of businesses are now training staff and colleagues to recognise the signs of domestic abuse and to support the victim by signposting the issue to the right agency.

I am now going to turn to my pet project. It involves a Government agency that is wilfully traumatising victims and operating a subjective system that often runs in the face of the law. Accompanying the announcement of the new victims strategy, it is most welcome that the Minister has announced a broad review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme and of the agency that administers it, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—CICA. The scheme exists to provide compensation to victims of crime. Money can of course never heal the wounds, physical or mental, suffered by the victims of crime, but victims should at least be able to expect to receive the compensation to which they are entitled without those mental wounds being reopened by the administration body set up to support them. In short, CICA needs a radical overhaul to make it a victim-centred agency.

Victims’ needs, their rights and their wellbeing should be at the core of everything CICA does, but the reality is very different. My constituents’ experiences of CICA have been that it exists not to support them, to honestly assess their claims or to award redress for their suffering, but rather to pursue every possible option to deny their claims. This can include questioning their injury, questioning the rulings of courts, or more appallingly, accusing them of complicity in their abuse. At every turn, CICA ignores the needs of victims in order to maintain its balance sheet. The Minister’s review of the scheme cannot come soon enough for victims. Having supported a number of constituents through the process of making a claim, and through my extensive work with victims charities and organisations, it is abundantly clear to me that what is needed is a complete change in the culture of CICA and in how it treats the victims of crime. To be blunt, CICA’s attitude to victims stinks.

I first became aware of the failings of CICA as I was supporting victims and survivors of the appalling child sexual exploitation that took place in Rotherham. As the victims came forward and the investigations and prosecutions progressed, a number of my constituents pursued compensation through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Those young women had been through the most horrendous abuse. Their childhoods were stolen from them by criminal gangs who groomed them, trafficked them and repeatedly raped them. For many, the psychological damage they suffered as children continues to haunt them years later, yet many of their claims for compensation were denied by CICA. Problematically, the rules of the scheme state that victims and survivors who have convictions, even for completely unrelated issues, must have their compensation awards reduced or withheld. This rule is particularly pertinent in cases of child sexual exploitation.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene on her. She is a friend. In her experience, how long after the crime does it take for someone to get compensation, on average?

[Sarah Champion]

I would love to be able to give an answer to my hon. Friend, but the problem with CICA is that it does not publish—or, indeed, seem to work to—an agreed timetable. So the answer is that it is as long as a piece of string for some victims, and interminably long for others.

I want to return to what happens between CICA and children who have suffered sexual exploitation and abuse. As a result of their abuse, they are very likely to carry out some form of crime. Manipulating children to commit offences is a widely documented part of grooming and coercive control. I find it outrageous that what effectively amounts to a symptom of abuse—carrying out a crime—should be held against victims in order to deny them compensation. More outrageous still is the denial of such claims by CICA on the ground that a victim somehow consented to their abuse.

The scheme compensates only those survivors who did not “in fact” consent to a crime. CICA has chosen to interpret this to mean that even the very youngest of children who have been the victims of sexual abuse can be denied compensation if there is any evidence that they complied with their abuser. Minister, maybe they complied because they were terrified of what would happen if they did not, or because they were so controlled and mentally manipulated that not to comply would never have been a consideration. The law is abundantly clear when it comes to consent: where a person is under the age of 16, sexual activity is automatically criminal unless the victim is older than 13 and the defendant reasonably believes that he or she is over 16. That CICA should effectively ignore this and, through a process that is wholly opaque, find that a child provided consent is shocking. In response to concerns raised by me and others, new guidelines on consent have been issued to CICA, but flaws in the scheme itself remain, as does CICA’s attitude towards victims.

I want to pay tribute to a Rotherham survivor of CSE, Sammy Woodhouse, who has used her experience of CICA to campaign on this issue. I will read a section of the letter she received from CICA about her compensation claim:

“I am not satisfied that your consent was falsely given as a result of being groomed by the offender. The evidence does not indicate that you were manipulated or progressively lured into a false relationship.”

Based on that, Sammy’s application was rejected. Imagine the impact that receiving that letter had on her. In her opinion, the state was saying that she was complicit in her own abuse. I am glad to say that Sammy had the strength to appeal and had the decision overturned, but many other victims do not have that strength. For the record, Sammy’s abuser is currently serving 35 years. The judge believed Sammy; CICA did not. A freedom of information request showed that 700 child victims of sexual abuse were similarly refused payments in the past five years. Will the Minister please review those cases to check whether similar injustices have happened?

CICA’s apparent determination to deny claims at all costs is exemplified by the experience of another of my constituents—not a survivor of abuse, but a former police officer injured in the line of duty. My constituent suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. They first made a claim in 2013, and it was finally settled earlier this year following numerous court rulings in the applicant’s favour and only after two interventions from me.

Throughout the claim, CICA presented various arguments as to why it should not be accepted, culminating in a court ruling that settled all outstanding disputes in my constituent’s favour and directed CICA to conclude the case. Yet CICA’s response was to question whether my constituent even suffered from PTSD, something for which extensive medical evidence was provided and had even previously been ruled upon by a court. Having been asked to again prove that they suffered from the condition, my constituent understandably determined that CICA would simply present argument after argument, each of which they would be forced to counter, only to start the whole process again. My constituent concluded, not unreasonably, that CICA sought to draw out the process in the hope that they would simply give up. That kind of seemingly endless process, with no clear timescales nor explanation of what is happening with a claim, is as unprofessional as it is unfair. Yet that seems to be standard practice for CICA.

Of course, it is important that CICA assesses the eligibility of claims under the scheme and that claims are subjected to appropriate checks, but if CICA fails to support victims of crime, fails to include them in the process, fails to explain that process to them and fails to make decisions in a reasonable timeframe, it is not helping victims; it is harming them. The scheme itself often fails to make any accommodation for circumstance, something which CICA proceeds to exacerbate by failing, or being unable, to take account of context in its decision making. By way of example, paragraph 23 of the scheme states:

“An award will be withheld unless the applicant has cooperated as far as reasonably practicable in bringing the assailant to justice.”

The paragraph’s intent is clear, but the real world is rarely so straightforward.

I am aware of several cases in which individuals providing care to vulnerable adults with challenging behaviour have been assaulted in the course of their work. Many such victims understandably choose not to pursue criminal charges against their assailant—although some do. As a consequence, the victims are ineligible for compensation under the scheme and CICA denies their claims. Yet these crimes are no less severe and the harm they suffer is no less acute. The scheme must, so far as is practical, allow for such context to be taken into account. I am delighted that the Minister has already committed to abolish the so-called same-roof rule. That much-needed change overturns a profound injustice that has lingered for far too long. However, I ask the Minister not to take his foot off the pedal. Survivors are already coming to me with concerns about the timescale.

Fundamentally, if the Government are serious about reform, they cannot allow the criminal injuries compensation scheme and CICA to continue as they are. Revised guidelines on consent are a welcome step, but CICA can only interpret the scheme, which is fundamentally flawed when it comes to child abuse. In particular, the scheme fails to acknowledge grooming as a crime of violence. That arguably excludes victims of CSE if their abuse does not include sexual contact. Consequently, serious crimes, such as exploiting children to perform sexual acts online, are not compensated, even for extremely young children. On unspent convictions, a recent High Court ruling found that three women forced into prostitution as teenagers will no longer have to disclose related convictions to potential employers. It is high time that the criminal injuries compensation scheme took a similar sensible approach to the award of compensation to victims of crime who have unrelated criminal convictions

The review must carefully assess how CICA currently operates in order to deliver a victim-focused agency. Small changes, such as the provision of concrete timeframes to claimants and clear explanations of the claims process, would go a long way to improving the journey for victims of crime. It is also important to promote the scheme, because most of the claimants with whom I have dealt discovered the scheme by accident, rather than through a formal process of victim support. Most important, however, is a change of attitude. It must be made clear to CICA that its job is to administer the scheme fairly and transparently. It should be made clear that it is not CICA’s role to deploy every possible delaying tactic and every conceivable legal argument to seek to deny victims of crime the compensation to which they should be entitled. The victims strategy and the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme present a timely opportunity to deliver fundamental cultural change to how we treat victims of crime. I hope that the Government will reflect on the concerns raised in this debate and ensure that this opportunity is not squandered.

First-tier Tribunals and Freeholders

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the advice available to individuals who seek redress in law and where they might seek it. As I will go on to explain, the playing field is not at all level in these tribunals. I hope that the Minister will comment on that later.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was under the impression that first-tier tribunals were meant to be informal. We do not really want lawyers there; we want tribunals to look at the case and to give a decent, sensible, honest judgment.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is quite correct that these tribunals are supposed to be an informal means of dispute resolution, although it is thought appropriate for people to have some legal advice if they need it. However, we now regularly see highly specialist barristers and even QCs appearing for landlords before what are often part-time solicitor judges in what are meant to be our lowest form of court. Cases often go on for days, with landlords’ counsel ponderously reviewing the most basic elements of a lease and the simplest issues of law. In some cases, tribunals seem to allow counsel to pontificate on the rights supposedly provided to leaseholders, which can be either uneconomic or impossible to apply. It may be true to say that the tribunal procedure rules are less formal than the civil procedure rules in the main courts, but this often seems to work to the benefit of well-represented landlords rather than leaseholders. Landlords are often able to ignore tribunal procedure rules with impunity.

There is a total costs imbalance at the tribunal. What was meant to be a low-cost forum has now become a costs regime that benefits only one side, and that side is the landlord. It is a one-sided arms race. In almost all cases, the landlord now arrives at the tribunal knowing full well that they will probably have a right to their costs under the terms of the lease. The tribunal has some powers to limit costs, but those powers are often ineffectual and may not be applied, even if the leaseholders win. Conversely, the leaseholder arrives at the tribunal knowing that they have no right to recover their costs under almost all circumstances.

Let us take a hypothetical situation in which a landlord overcharges 1,000 leaseholders £250 each. If the individual leaseholders want to dispute those charges, a single letter from their solicitor will probably cost them more than they could ever recover, but the landlord can afford to invest a substantial amount of the £250,000 that they may have overcharged to defend their position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing today’s debate on a subject that is clearly very important to his constituents, as it is to other Members in the House. I thank the other hon. Members present for their valuable contributions, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was very interested to hear in the last debate that it was his 44th speech in this Session. I am pleased that he has remained for the final debate before the recess.

It might be useful for me to explain a little bit more about the first-tier tribunal and the matters it deals with. The chamber was created in 2013 following the transfer of the functions of three tribunals—the agricultural land tribunal, the adjudicator for the Land Registry, and the residential property tribunal—into the first-tier tribunal. The residential property jurisdiction deals with a number of matters relating to landlord and tenant law, including leasehold enfranchisement and lease extensions, liability to pay service charges, variations of leases, and the acquisition of the right to manage. It is an expert jurisdiction. The tribunal panels include valuers and, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse said, lay people with experience of landlord and tenant matters.

I turn to the specific question of the powers of the first-tier tribunal to appoint a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and how they are enforced. Section 24 allows the first-tier tribunal to appoint a manager to carry out obligations contained within a management order that is issued by the first-tier tribunal. Although the tribunal makes the appointment, it is often the case that leaseholders apply for a manager to be appointed because the landlord has in some way breached the management obligations that it owes to them. In most cases, before the leaseholders make such an application, they must serve a notice on the landlord specifying in broad terms the landlord’s alleged breaches and what the landlord must do to remedy them. If the landlord does not take remedial action within a reasonable period, the leaseholders may then apply to the first-tier tribunal for the appointment of a manager.

Usually, the party applying nominates the individual manager they wish to have appointed, who is then required to prepare a management plan setting out his or her experience and explaining how he or she will manage the property. The first-tier tribunal has wide powers to decide on the matters to be included in a management order under section 24, which will typically deal with initial transfer of information, documentation, money and other items necessary for the manager to be able to perform his duties properly. It will also cover which management matters were transferred to the manager, such as maintenance, repairs, and collection of service and other charges from the leaseholders.

It might be helpful to explain the manager’s status in this type of arrangement. The manager is not a managing agent, nor is he employed or directed by the landlord or the leaseholders, including those who apply for his appointment. The Court of Appeal has stated that the appointed manager carries out the functions required by the tribunal, and he or she carries out those functions in his or her own right as a tribunal-appointed official. He is not appointed as the manager of the landlord or to carry out the landlord’s wider obligations under the lease, unless specified in the management order. In an appeal to the upper tribunal, His Honour Judge Huskinson said that if there is criticism of the conduct of the appointed manager and complaints are brought before the tribunal, those criticisms must and will be examined with care, because they are made against the manager as a tribunal-appointed officer.

To be clear, the manager is appointed by the first-tier tribunal to carry out the duties required by the order appointing him. He is answerable to the tribunal, not to the leaseholders or to the landlord.

[Bob Stewart]

So who do people who have a complaint about the way that the management is functioning—leaseholders, in particular—go to if the manager is not answerable to them? Do they have to go to the tribunal again, or what?

[Lucy Frazer]

As the manager is a court-appointed officer, people can complain directly to the tribunal about his actions. The manager is a court-appointed officer answerable to the court, and any issues in relation to his conduct would be brought before the tribunal.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse asked about the support and protection available to managers who are carrying out their duties in what can be very difficult circumstances. As I said, the obligations are set out in full in the management order. It is for the first-tier tribunal to decide how the order is to operate and how the manager is to fulfil his obligations.

If a landlord is being so obstructive that the terms of the management order cannot be fulfilled, the manager can apply to the first-tier tribunal for further directions, and an order under section 24(4) can be made. Such an application can include a request that a penal notice be attached to the management order, and if a penal notice is attached and the landlord disregards it, the manager can apply to the county court for permission to enforce the management order. Enforcement of any provision of a section 24 management order, monetary or otherwise, is a matter for the county court, not the tribunal. That includes enforcement of penal notices that can attach to such orders.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the inequality in some cases in relation to parties in the property chamber. He was right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was, that certain features of the tribunal are designed to make it less formal and more accessible than the courts. Where one side has retained legal representation, tribunal members are trained not to permit attempts at oppressive behaviour by legal representatives and will help unrepresentative parties to frame questions where necessary.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse made some interesting points about inequality in respect of costs. Parties should meet their own costs of litigating in the tribunal system, even when they are successful in their own claim. There are powers, however, for costs to be awarded where there is unreasonable behaviour. The tribunal has powers under its rules if applications are being brought oppressively by those with a stronger bargaining position and stronger powers. It can strike out proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious or abusive under rule 9(d), or if there is no reasonable prospect of an application succeeding under rule 9(e), but I acknowledge that he made interesting points in relation to costs.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned quite rightly that the MHCLG is looking at a wide variety of matters in the area of leaseholds. We are always looking to improve our processes. On 2 July my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that the Government would issue a call for evidence this autumn, to better understand the experience of people using the courts and tribunals services in property cases, including considering the case for a specialist housing court. My Department is also discussing with MHCLG officials what further work is necessary to speed up the appeals process for housing disputes across the courts and tribunals.

The hon. Gentleman asked to meet, and I would be very happy to meet him, to continue to discuss this important matter. I thank him again for securing the debate. It is right that we look at how we can continue to protect people and their property rights.

Question put and agreed to.