Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

First, the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted for the average time for a RASSO case is simply not true. The Government have continued to invest in ensuring that RASSO cases are brought forward. Listing is a matter for the judiciary, and they take great care to ensure that vulnerable victims are dealt with expeditiously. In addition, we continue to invest in the legal aid system. The Lord Chancellor recently increased the fees to ensure that there are people able to perform RASSO cases and section 28 video recording. On top of that, we continue to engage with the criminal legal aid review to see how we can continue to invest in and incentivise criminal defence barristers in the right parts of the system.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking through the criminal justice system to support victims of crime.

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

Since 2010, we have ramped up support for victims in three main ways. First, we have driven down reoffending from around 31% to 25%, so that fewer people suffer the misery of becoming a victim of crime in the first place. Secondly, we have created new offences such as stalking, coercive and controlling behaviour, revenge pornography, upskirting and non-fatal strangulation, so that those who betray trust and shatter lives can be held to account. Thirdly, we have quadrupled victim funding, enabling massive investment in resources such as independent domestic violence advisers, which are up from barely existing in 2010 to more than 900 today, and we will go further with the groundbreaking Victims and Prisoners Bill as well.

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the sterling work that he has just outlined, which is making such a huge difference to victims everywhere. I wish to talk about a case that was raised with me at an advice surgery. After seeing an advert on the tube, my constituent—a man of very good standing—invested in what turned out to be a fraudulent company to the tune of £93,000. He was clearly a victim of crime and, mercifully, his bank reimbursed his life savings after some challenge. He did get financial restitution, but the whole experience had wider, devastating impacts. Those behind the company were registered in Serbia and, to the best of our knowledge, have never been brought to justice. As my constituent did not go through the full criminal justice system, may I ask how victims such as he can be supported in cases like this?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising her constituent’s case. Fraud is a pernicious, cruel crime and it can have an appalling impact, as I know from my own experience of prosecuting for the Serious Fraud Office. To support victims in recovering lost funds, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gives the Payment Systems Regulator further power to mandate reimbursement where needed, and I am glad that that took place in this case. But to bring wrongdoers to justice, prosecutors, including the CPS, the Financial Conduct Authority and the SFO, regularly co-operate with their international counterparts to make arrests and secure evidence overseas so that, in appropriate cases, defendants can be extradited to face trial in the UK. The other critical point is that the victims code has been expanded, so that people such as her constituent can get the support they need. I would invite him, perhaps through the hon. Lady’s good offices, to look at the support that is available online.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase support for families within the family court system.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

8. What steps he is taking to increase support for families within the family court system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

Drawn-out court proceedings can have a damaging impact on parents and children. We have published a consultation on proposals for a funded mandatory mediation and co-parenting programme before court to enable more families to resolve disputes out of court. We have also invested a further £15 million in the family mediation voucher scheme, which will help about 28,000 more separating families over the next two years. By freeing up stretched court resources, those changes will help families whose cases need to be heard by a court, such as those involved in domestic abuse.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In July 2022, a landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 measure came into force, prohibiting domestic abuse perpetrators and victims from cross-examining each other in person during certain family and civil proceedings. Family and civil courts can now engage a court-funded qualified legal representative to conduct cross-examinations in these cases. That scheme is very popular, and hundreds of qualified legal representatives have registered for it. This will ensure that those people in court are protected from such cross-examination.

[Caroline Ansell]

In one of my last advice surgeries, a parent described to me their toxic experience of family court. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service has highlighted the harm posed to children from drawn-out court proceedings. What further measures is the Minister taking to enhance and promote mediation where appropriate, so that the impact of separation is not exacerbated by legal proceedings?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend raises a very important and sensitive issue. The Government are reviewing all aspects of family law, particularly in terms of how to ensure that families stay out of court. The extra £15 million for mediation vouchers will help to keep people out of that adversarial situation. It is also about the use of language, to ensure that children are not scarred by the adversarial process. A wraparound process that is family-friendly, with mediation, should address the concerns she has raised.

Legal Rights to Access Abortion

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy]

I recognise the debate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me into. I have no problem with our existing legislation, except the fact that it is rooted in a criminal foundation. For me, decriminalisation is of paramount importance and urgency. My point is simply that when we remove the criminal foundation from which all abortion legislation follows, we create a lacuna. I am arguing that entering human rights into that lacuna, as we have done in Northern Ireland, is the right thing to do, because I wish my constituents in Walthamstow to have the same rights as women in Belfast; and right now they do not.

The Bill of Rights—and, I would wager, this petition—is about the 21st century and how those rights are exercised. That does not mean that we would not have controls on how abortion is accessed or that there would not be a right to discussion about time limits; it means that there would not be criminal prosecutions—not just of the women, but of the doctors and medical people involved—and that the legislation would come from a healthcare perspective. We do not have these debates when it comes to vasectomies or ankle injuries, yet somehow when it comes to a woman’s body we have determined, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West has said, that Parliament should be involved.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

Did the hon. Lady really compare a vasectomy with an abortion? Does she see those procedures of equal and like standing, when one involves, as has been described by other Members, a second life, and she herself recognises that there is a point during a pregnancy at which those rights are conferred on the unborn?

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Member should turn the question around. Why does she believe that it is acceptable for men to be able to choose to have a vasectomy, but a woman cannot choose what happens to her own body? Why do we deny women choice over their bodies, but we do not deny men? Forgive me, but I did biology at school, so I know that there are often two people involved in the creation of a baby. Surely we should hold men equally accountable, yet somehow we do not deny men rights to their bodies and bodily autonomy.

I will come to a conclusion, because I know that Members who have different views from mine wish to make their points. My point is simply thus: to argue that the Bill of Rights is the wrong vehicle for the right to abortion is to miss the point, because this right does not yet exist for women across Scotland, Wales and England. It does exist in Northern Ireland, and if we trust women in Northern Ireland, we should trust women in England, Scotland and Wales. If we recognise a human right in one part of the United Kingdom, surely we should recognise it in all.

I do not wish to be called a hijacker; I think that is slightly disrespectful towards parliamentary democracy. I recognise that there are people here who will never agree with a woman’s right to choose, and I believe they should be honest about that, because it would not matter whether it was a Bill of Rights, this Bill of Rights or any piece of legislation—they would not support it. But for those of us who do support women and who do recognise that the case for decriminalisation is long overdue, we have a responsibility to set out what comes next. I believe it is a human rights proposal, and I believe that all our constituents would benefit from that perspective and that approach to a healthcare issue. I hope that the Minister will clarify why this piece of legislation is acceptable for some freedoms and some rights, and whether the Government do not believe that a woman has a right to an abortion. If she does have a right to choose an abortion, they need to legislate for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

Since the last oral questions the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 has entered into force, I published the Bill of Rights and we submitted our victims Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny.

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. For as many years as I have served as Eastbourne’s Member of Parliament, Eastbourne residents have expressed to me their dismay, their outrage even, that foreign national offenders—dangerous criminals—have used the right to family life to frustrate their deportation, a deportation ordered for public safety. How will the Bill of Rights address that?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right. The Bill of Rights is now published and she will see, explicitly and squarely in relation to article 8, clear guidance and prescription on interpretation to prevent the ever-elastic interpretations of the right to family life, the shifting goalposts, that allows those offenders to trump the overwhelming public interest in their deportation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

I firmly believe that the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of dangerous driving, there is a need for the law to be toughened up, which was why we launched a consultation to achieve precisely that last year. Obviously a general election is coming up, but if a Conservative Government are elected, I am sure we will see through these vital reforms.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is landmark legislation that makes revenge porn a specific offence. In Eastbourne, we have just had a high-profile case in which a serial offender walked free with a caution. One of his victims was a minor, and to add further insult to injury, images posted with incitements are still online. What more can the Government do to make sure that this groundbreaking legislation really delivers justice?

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

My hon. Friend is known for the way in which she has highlighted in the House such incidents of criminality and really pressed the case for proper and effective punishment. In relation to this particular incident, the offence is relatively new, and the good news is that many people have come forward to report instances of disclosure during the short period since it came into force. There have been a number of prosecutions, with more than 60 convictions so far. It is early days, but I agree that the Crown Prosecution Service needs to treat these cases very seriously.

Grandparents' Rights: Access to Grandchildren

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[David Mackintosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do recall the event that was held here. I think that it was held in a room not far from this Chamber, and the room was packed to overflowing. Many hon. Members were present to lend their support to the campaign and to receive the advice and information on best practice that was offered on the day.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be dismayed but not surprised to learn that at my last advice surgery I, too, saw grandparents who were suffering in this way. Their plea was for a change in thinking, a change in culture, because they had been advised that their only recourse was through the courts, and they did not want to put their grandchildren through that or to create further tensions within the family.

[David Mackintosh]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have had similar constituency surgeries, at which similar stories have been relayed to me. I am also grateful for the previous intervention, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) talked about the law in France. That point should be considered, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will come to it when he responds to the debate. I understand that the law in England and Wales gives the family court the power to make various orders about children, including about with whom they can spend time. Grandparents would be required to seek the permission of the court before applying, but that would probably be allowed if deemed to be in the child’s best interests. Perhaps—this is an issue for the Minister to address—that could be reconsidered to give grandparents an automatic presumption for the family court.

When grandparents lose access, it can be even more difficult if they do not have any access to information about the children or know their whereabouts. In the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) described, a lady came to my surgery and told me that she did not know where her grandchildren were living or what they looked like any more and she had no access to information about them. She would have loved to have had contact with her grandchildren, but it also kept her very worried that she did not have any information about them and did not even know whether they were safe and being looked after. In that situation, I was able to write to Northamptonshire County Council and say that if any information was able to be passed on, I would be able to do that. It replied simply that the children were safe.

There are sometimes obvious safeguarding reasons why information cannot be shared, but I think that the matter could be looked at again to see how the law can ensure safeguarding while also allowing grandparents to have basic information about their grandchildren just to reassure them that they are safe and well. I hope that, after the election, the issue of grandparents’ access to children can be taken forward by working together to ensure that the voice of grandparents, too, is taken into account when working with families. I will now draw my comments to an end. I look forward to hearing from other hon. Members and from the Minister.

Dangerous Driving: Penalties

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Claire Perry]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. Many of us have seen such cases in our constituencies. On 17 September 2015, almost a year ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) introduced a debate in which very powerful points were made, and the Government promised to act on them. I shall say more on that later.

The hon. Lady is right to point out that the tariffs are often cut. For Majid Malik and Kaiz Mahmood, the automatic tariff discount means that they will serve only four years in prison—a sentence so light that Major and Mrs Gilbey had to witness the family members of those defendants celebrating in court. They could not believe that their boys had got away with it: “They’ll be home in four years. Isn’t that fantastic?” Well, it is not fantastic for my constituents and it is not fantastic for anyone who loses a loved one to dangerous driving. They are facing a life sentence of loss.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. It is agony to hear of the suffering of the family in her constituency and the lack of justice.

The debate is also important to my home town of Eastbourne, where Maria and Richard lost their lives just last month because of dangerous driving. The driver, who was 17 times over the limit, was sentenced to six years for each life, but his sentences will run concurrently, so in all probability he will be back out in three years. The victims’ families do not seek revenge, but their question and mine is whether, if the repercussions for dangerous drivers had been made more serious and far reaching to send a much stronger message about the devastation that can be caused, they would have been spared the agony that my hon. Friend describes on behalf of her constituents.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Lady raises the issue of what dangerous driving tragedies mean to families. When we read the victim statements, which I will address at the end of my speech, it is impossible not to want to do something.

I want to focus specifically on the law. I go back to what the then Secretary of State, Paul Channon, said in 1989, in introducing a series of changes to the Road Traffic Acts designed to make those who commit these crimes more accountable:

“We aim to ensure that the penalty matches the offence and that those who drive very badly are properly punished.”—[Official Report, 7 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 801.]

That has been an aim of many Governments, and very good work has been done on it. In 2004 the Labour Government increased the maximum tariff for death by dangerous driving from 10 to 14 years. In 2011, and again in 2015, the coalition Government introduced various categories of death by dangerous driving, to ensure that deaths caused by texting while driving could be prosecuted as such.

Last year, 188 deaths were caused by dangerous driving and 201 were caused by careless driving. However, although three fifths of people sentenced were jailed, the average sentences were very short—less than four years. Brake, to which I pay tribute for all the work it does, suggests that only a third of people convicted of causing death by dangerous driving are sentenced to more than five years.

I have three matters to raise with the Minister today, and I am grateful that the Justice Secretary has agreed to meet us later this morning. First, why are these cases not tried as manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is

“where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.”

I cannot conceive how driving at up to 90 mph through a residential zone, wilfully ignoring vulnerable road users and racing a car, is not both unlawful and an exhibition of gross negligence. Indeed, I have been told by Ministers that manslaughter charges can be applied to driving offences, but that they almost never are. In fact, the Library could find only two instances of such charges having been applied.

I am no lawyer, but I know how difficult it is to change the law. No one would ever want to second-guess the decisions made by the judiciary or the guidance given by judges, but it seems perverse that, even if we cannot try more cases as manslaughter, the maximum penalty for what is clearly manslaughter cannot be increased. These men killed James Gilbey as surely as if they had thrown a knife or fired a gun down a crowded street; their weapon of choice just happened to be driving 2 tonnes of steel at 90 mph. Surely the maximum tariff for causing death by the worst kind of dangerous driving, which these defendants did, should be lifetime imprisonment. That should be the tariff with which judges and juries can start to work.

Secondly, would increasing the tariff make any difference? The sentencing guidelines are clearly not allowing judges and juries to apply the existing penalties—in this case, up to 14 years. Why is it that defendants are given automatic reductions in tariffs—I do not mean only for a guilty plea; I will come to that—for not being found to be drunk or on drugs at the scene? How would anybody know whether the defendants, one of whom had convictions for the possession of class A substances, were drunk or drugged? They fled the scene. They sped off, burned their clothes and destroyed the evidence. Why do we presume that they are innocent of those charges?

I ask for something the Government have been promising for two years: will they set a date for the review of sentencing guidelines for this particular suite of crimes? Will they look at the maximum tariff of 21 years? Of course, the Government should never be entirely swayed by public opinion, but it is hard to ignore the fact that nine out of 10 people think that crimes of this sort should be tried as manslaughter. Will they commit to a robust review of the tariffs and sentencing guidelines, in order to set a direction with which the Sentencing Council can work?

Thirdly, we would like to see an end to automatic reductions in prison tariffs for guilty pleas or, indeed, an end to the automatic 50% reduction of the sentence with the remainder served on licence. As somebody who has long been involved in justice debates, I understand that we do not want to fill up our prisons to the point at which they can provide nothing by way of rehabilitation, and I am always sympathetic to Government attempts to divert people from custody. Nevertheless, in this case, in which a life was taken by people behaving so recklessly and callously, with such disregard for James as he lay dying on the road, it is absolutely right that a prison sentence is given.

Surely an automatic reduction in tariff for a guilty plea should be at the judiciary’s discretion. By the way, in this case, one of the guilty pleas was not offered automatically: as I mentioned, Mahmood denied causing death by racing until the very last possible minute, yet he was given the benefit of a reduction in tariff. In my view, those benefits—serving only half a sentence or getting a reduction in tariff—should be at the discretion of the judge and jury.

I want to leave the Minister with a question. We already have a suite of sentencing guidelines that claim to punish those who cause death by dangerous driving. Bearing this case in mind, though, just how dangerous does the driving have to be for a maximum tariff to be awarded? As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) mentioned, these gentlemen will be out on licence within four years, and towards the end of their sentence they will of course be serving a stepped-down version of it. They will be on day release and in open prisons, and they will be back on the streets very soon. My constituents, Major and Mrs Gilbey, have been given a life sentence, as have the rest of their family. They live every day with the loss of James, a man who was walking across a road, using a pedestrian crossing. A man who stood no chance once he was in the lights of those particular cars.

I can end only by reading what Major Gilbey said:

“I want my son, I want to shake his hand, hug him and chat, laugh and joke with him over a pint but I can’t. All I can do is hold and kiss the urn that holds his ashes, talk to him through that and his pictures and light his candles. That is not enough”.

I agree that it is not enough, and I think the whole House agrees. I look to the Minister urgently to repair the situation by bringing forward the sentencing guidelines, setting a date, and setting the maximum tariff to fit the crime.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Caroline Ansell Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Blackford]

There should be emotion in this debate. Why? Because women are losing tens of thousands of pounds that they are entitled to. Of course people should be emotional. There are facts that the Government have to address and they should do so in a measured and controlled manner.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said that the point about communications had been noted. Nobody is asking the Government to note the failures in communication; we are asking the Government to act on the basis of the failure of communication and to right the wrong that has been done.

I was grateful to hear the words of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). He spoke honestly about not being aware of the issue. Is that not exactly the point? A Member of Parliament has not been aware of these issues, so how can we expect the women affected by the changes to be aware of them? That is yet another reason why we must act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) spoke about the goalposts being moved. She is exactly right. There is a contract between the state and the women. This is not, as my hon. Friend said, about benefits they should be entitled to. It is about an entitlement based on the fact that these women have paid national insurance in some cases for 30, 40 or even more years. It is a breach of trust, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said. The Government should reflect on what has been said and on the tone of the debate.

The Minister spoke about this matter in the Chamber this afternoon, saying:

“A whole lot of other benefits are available to the women who may be affected—for example, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, carer’s allowance and personal independence payment.”

Does that not explain the problem that the Government do not get this? They want women to go to the jobcentre, rather than to do what they should be doing by collecting a pension to which they are entitled.

What is parliamentary democracy in this country? On 7 January we had an excellent, well informed debate in the Chamber. The House divided and voted 158 to zero that the Government should put in place mitigation efforts. Weeks have passed and nothing has happened. When will the Government respect the will of this House? It is a shame that there is no mechanism by which to put the issue to a vote today, as I am sure that hon. Members want to ensure that it is put to a vote so that the House can express its will.

Speaker after speaker has condemned the Government for not doing the right thing. The way of this place is archaic. It is little wonder that folksy Westminster is out of touch. I contrast the behaviour of this Government in this attack on women born in the 1950s, and in so many other ways, with what our Government in Scotland do. Last week the Government in London were defeated in the courts over the bedroom tax. Was there any recognition that what they were doing was wrong? In Scotland, we have mitigated the effects of the bedroom tax and we want powers to remove it. One thing is crystal clear: if we had powers over pensions in Scotland, we would do the right thing for our pensioners. This Government plough on regardless, ignoring the justified claims of the WASPI women. I state once again, as many of my colleagues have, that we are not against equalisation. We support the move to equalisation, but the pace of the move is unfair.

Look at the reality of what is happening. We can take examples of women born across the early years of the 1950s, whose experiences will be sharply different. A woman born on 10 February 1950 would have retired aged 60 in 2010, whereas a woman born later would have to wait almost two years longer to retire on 6 January 2012. A woman born on 10 February 1952 would have reached state pension age a few weeks ago aged 61 years, 10 months and 27 days. Such a woman will have had to wait almost two additional years more than a woman born in 1950.

As if that were not bad enough, the increase for women born in 1953 and 1954 is worse. A woman born on 10 February in 1953 would have retired in January this year, aged nearly 63. A woman born on 10 February in 1954 will not reach pensionable age until 6 July 2019, when she will be aged 65 years, four months and 26 days. That is shameful—a woman born in 1954 will have to wait two and a half years longer for her pension than a woman born in 1953.

Just dwell on that: someone born on 10 February 1953 has now retired; someone born a year later must wait until July 2019. Where is the fairness in that? If the Minister wants to intervene, I will give him the opportunity to say now that the Government are listening and are going to change. Does any Conservative Back Bencher want to rise to their feet to recognise the unfairness of it? Do they want to punish women in the way they are doing, or will they accept that it is wrong? Here is the opportunity. They can rise to their feet.

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

I am happy to rise. I regret that the hon. Gentleman, in an impassioned speech in which he has done good justice to past inequalities suffered by women, has chosen to drag this issue into a political arena, because—[Hon. Members: “This is Parliament!”] A party political arena, I should say. There are Members from all parties who support the cause of the women fighting for greater equality, and women themselves, of all political persuasions and none, will be disadvantaged by the changes. He spoke just moments ago—

[Mr David Hanson (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be short. Time is very limited, and I have to give the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and the Minister time to finish before 7.30.