UK and Gibraltar Prosecuting Authorities

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Buckland

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Solicitor-General]

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman’s exhortation. I hope to see the Chief Minister at the Foreign Office later today and I will convey the message of this House loud and clear that we support the work of our friends in Gibraltar and the prosecutorial authorities and indeed the Attorney General, Ricky Rhoda.

I can contribute to this debate by outlining the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office, both of which the Attorney-General and I superintend in our role as Law Officers. Indeed, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the working relationship between the UK and Gibraltarian prosecuting authorities is strong and constructive.

As my hon. Friend recognises, the Government have set out to reinvigorate our relationship with the overseas territories, to increase the UK’s engagement with their Governments at all levels and to support them when required. I have just returned from a conference of Attorneys General of 10 of the UK’s overseas territories, including Gibraltar, with representatives from the United States and Canadian Departments of Justice. We met in Miami and discussed a range of topics relating to the rule of law and administration of justice in the overseas territories and sought to enhance our mutual co-operation on a range of matters. After three and a half days of discussion, my firm view is that the Attorneys General of each of our territories play a key role in helping to drive forward legal reform and to meet our wider ambitions.

Ensuring good governance and respect for the rule of law is a fundamental and vital platform for delivering security and prosperity for all our citizens. During the conference we discussed important topics including mutual legal assistance, extradition procedures, tackling bribery, fraud and corruption, improving legislative drafting processes, child safeguarding—a growing and important issue in many territories—and constitutional matters. A series of actions on those subjects was agreed, and I look forward to continuing our close liaison with the Attorney General of Gibraltar and the other overseas territories as we work to deliver them.

I turn to the work of the prosecuting authorities, starting with the Crown Prosecution Service. It is important to note that co-operation between the UK and Gibraltar is not confined to mutual legal assistance through the formal letter of request process. It also takes place, as my hon. Friend suggested, on a police-to-police basis. The appropriate avenue will depend on the nature of the request and the purpose for which the information or evidence is sought. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office work regularly with other judicial authorities using the established MLA channels. That is how countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence that is located in one country for use in criminal investigations and prosecutions in another. It is also used to obtain assistance in the tracing, restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which is particularly germane to the issues that have been raised today.

Letters of request from Gibraltar to the UK typically come via the United Kingdom central authority, which is based in the Home Office. The CPS will be involved in requests to restrain or confiscate assets here in the UK. The CPS and the SFO have worked with the Gibraltarian authorities in the past few years, and that has been of real benefit to both jurisdictions.

[Bob Stewart]

Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that to all intents and purposes, that which is legal in this country is legal in Gibraltar, and that which is illegal in Gibraltar is illegal in this country, too?

[The Solicitor-General]

That is a fair way of putting it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has said, we will be entering into the justice and home affairs measures on 1 December, and Gibraltar has taken swift action to do likewise—to follow in lockstep with the UK. Those extra safeguards and means of mutual co-operation strengthen the ties that bind us.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to give specific examples because of the international expectation that MLA requests remain confidential. However, I can talk about some notable recent successes of the CPS, such as the securing of two convictions against individuals for fraudulently obtaining moneys from a vulnerable elderly relative. Assistance from Gibraltar helped to secure that conviction, and there was lawyer-to-lawyer contact to progress the case. I would like to mention some other examples of ongoing casework, ranging from organised crime—specifically drug trafficking—to fraud and identity theft. CPS lawyers have reported receiving exceptional assistance from Gibraltar, including a response to a request that was issued at very short notice following a change in position from the defence. In another case, a letter of request was sent to obtain banking evidence, and there were no problems with obtaining the material from Gibraltar.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I particularly take on board his last exhortation. He is absolutely right: when it comes to national security, party politics should recede into the background and the common interest of Members of Parliament, whether acting as legislators or residents—or as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us—should guide us in our deliberations.

The TPIMs debate is finely balanced. I took part in the Bill Committee on what is now the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which this week will publish its post-legislative report on the Act’s implementation. While it would be wrong of me to pre-empt its findings, personally, I can offer some opinions on where the balance needs to be struck. I am sure that the first principle that needs to be emphasised is accepted by most, if not all, Members. The fundamental basis from which we all start must be the rule that individual freedom should be curtailed only where there are reasonable grounds for arrest or sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, or where custody is the only appropriate sentence after a finding of guilt. Any departure from that rule has to be exercised sparingly and within the narrowest parameters, and cannot involve indefinite or permanent deprivation of liberty. Balanced against that important principle has to be the duty of the state and its agents to safeguard us in our daily lives, which is why the activities of our security and intelligence services deserve our strong support and praise.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have seen people locked up for a long time. When they come out, their resentment and aggression can grow, and what worries me is our assumption that the aggression and resentment of these six people, after two years on TPIMs, will have lessened. I am worried about them just being released.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend’s point allows me to make two observations. First, we have to be careful, in setting the parameters of any orders we impose, not to heighten the sense of grievance; and secondly and most importantly, the Government have to take other measures, in terms of the resources given to the security and intelligence services, the work done by Prevent and the counter-terrorism work done day in, day out to supplement the TPIMs regime. Is there not a danger that in dwelling on the detail of TPIMs, we ignore the bigger picture and the Government’s welcome injection of extra resources into this area of activity?

The constant vigilance of our security services is not only underpinned by statute, but, as the Home Secretary said, exercised by use of the royal prerogative, which is still the residual source of authority for Government activity in this area and which I know is used daily. The motion calls on the Government to share with the Intelligence and Security Committee the full assessment of the threat or otherwise posed by the six individuals who are to exit the TPIMs regime imminently, and then subject it to a cross-party review. However well intentioned that might be, to link such a process with individual cases is misconceived, because it risks bringing a Committee of Parliament into the field of operations. It is the job of parliamentary Committees to consider the strategy and the legal structure; it is not their job to consider operational matters, and I can see any cross-party review falling foul of that problem.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Buckland

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I was coming to that point. Although for the purposes of liability knowledge of the dangers is defined as having started in 1969, we know that the debate had been going on for many years before that. It is a tragedy that the decision was not made for a generation. Thousands of workers, many of whom are no longer with us, were working in dangerous conditions.

I represent Swindon, a railway town which had the Great Western Railway at its heart, and had a railway works until 1986, and I have heard stories from many former railway workers who worked in and around asbestos every day of their working lives. Asbestos was being transported along the railway system, but it was also being used to line the boilers and pipes, and to insulate the heat generators which are an integral part of a locomotive. More than that, however, asbestos was being used to line all the carriages built at the Swindon works, and asbestos was used in sprays that were applied to surfaces within and without those carriages. It was very much part of the essence of working life in Swindon. For very many people whom I know exposure to asbestos has been a reality, and that means that many people are still carrying a latent disease—a latent disease that can manifest itself as late as 40 or even 50 years after exposure.

I am going to single out one person, not because he would have regarded himself as an exceptional man, but because he rose to become the mayor of our town and because he died this year from mesothelioma. Rex Barnett worked for British Rail from 1953 to 1961. It was while he was there that he was exposed to asbestos and went on to develop what was for many years a latent disease. He was diagnosed with pleural plaques back in the mid ’90s and then was one of the unfortunate people who went on to develop mesothelioma right at the end of his mayoral year in 2011. Rex battled on. He was an indefatigable character who in his mayoral year raised over £60,000 for local charities, an exceptional feat in itself. He battled on for another two years, but finally, sadly and tragically, succumbed this year. In his memory and the memory of thousands of other people who worked alongside him, this measure is a welcome one.

I pause now for a moment to think about the memorial garden we have in Queen’s park in Swindon to the victims of mesothelioma, which is marked by a very simple memorial, and which gives members of my community an opportunity to contemplate and consider the sacrifice— the unwitting sacrifice—that was made by those who were exposed for all that time to lethal amounts of asbestos.

In my early legal career I was trained in personal injury work, which included industrial compensation, and therefore have some, albeit limited, experience of dealing with claims relating to conditions such as mesothelioma. I think that perhaps we are in danger of oversimplifying the position when talking, perfectly naturally, about the need for a swift resolution to the claims made by victims of this disease and their families. There is a danger that seeking to resolve claims before death could lead to a significant under-settlement of claims, which would deprive dependants of the victims of a substantial proportion of the damages they could recover in a posthumous claim.

I think it is right to talk very briefly in this Second Reading debate about the wider position and principles, while recognising the fact that this Bill will deal with a relatively small cohort of people for whom traceability of employer or insurer has not been possible. The following important point has been raised with me by claimants’ solicitors, some of whom have years of experience in practice in Swindon. The regime that applies to posthumous claims for damages is still dramatically different in England and Wales from that which applies to those made during the lifetime of the claimant. For example, bereavement damages are not payable during the lifetime of claimants, claimants cannot recover for future funeral expenses during their lifetime, and living claimants cannot recover damages for services provided to dependants after death; that is recoverable only as a services dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is clear that under that Act income dependency claims will usually be significantly more for dependants than a lost years claim made under common law for a living claimant. It is clear that claims that are brought by widows after death will be about 20%—a fifth—more valuable than equivalent claims made during life. So the dilemma for mesothelioma sufferers going through all the pain and struggle they have to endure is: do they resolve their claims during their lifetime for what will be a lesser sum, or do they die with a claim unresolved?

It is interesting to note that the Scots have legislated to bring the rights of relatives before and after death into some alignment. That is one of way of dealing with this, but there are alternatives that could, and do, deliver a practical solution.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I probably am thick, but will my hon. Friend explain why there is a difference between claiming before death and after death, because I have not quite understood that?

[Mr Buckland]

I am certainly not going to insult my hon. Friend, but what I will say is that payments after death are governed by the 1976 Act and payments before death fall under common law, so different rules and regimes apply. As I have said, in Scotland there has been some move to try to align certain aspects—but not by any means all aspects—of the rights of dependants, relating to mesothelioma in particular.

There are practical alternatives, and in her excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a point that deserves re-emphasis. The work of the senior master of the Queen’s bench division, Master Whitaker, should be singled out for particular praise because he and his colleagues have developed specialist lists that, in effect, create a fast-track procedure for the efficient resolution of liability issues. The fast-track procedure allows for summary judgment to be passed where sufficient evidence has been demonstrated by claimants about exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and where defendants then have to show cause—reversing the burden, as it were—on evidence why that liability should not be proved. With the resolution of liability, interim payments can be made to claimants and their families to meet the claimants’ needs during life, but that interim payment does not bring resolution or quantum to a close. That can be achieved by a stay of the claim until after death, to allow the full quantum—the final value—of that claim to be properly assessed.

It is important that we make these points because if we are truly to address the needs of victims and their families, we have to understand what they need, rather than just make glib assumptions about brevity and the need to tie things up before the tragic event of the death of a victim.

We know that over the next 30 years mesothelioma will claim about 60,000 lives, and that means about 2,500 people will be dying every year from this aggressive cancer. This particular scheme deals with last-resort claims where there is no other alternative. Already we have seen welcome changes by the Government in the other place, by conceding the 70% levy and raising it to 75%, on figures that at the time in question still represented under 3% of the gross written premium for employer liability insurance. I know that these figures have been updated, but when this Bill reaches Committee more particularity must be given as to the basis for those updated figures, because it is crucial if we are to have a meaningful continuing negotiation with the insurance industry—which I think we should—that we know precisely what we are dealing with.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit himself and the Government to particular figures today, but I urge him—and I know he will listen—to keep those figures open and to look to see if we can get a greater proportion, and whether we can achieve 80% as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested. The more we get, the more justice we will deliver for the victims and their families.

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

Debate between Bob Stewart and Robert Buckland

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

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

rose—