Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

Volumes of possession actions remain significantly low as a result of measures that we took in response to the pandemic. Indeed, although the ban in England on bailiff-enforced evictions will end on 31 May, the requirement for landlords to give extended notice periods to seek possession orders in all but the most egregious cases has really struck the right balance. We intend to taper down these notice periods to pre-covid levels by October, which will help to manage demand in the courts. I pay tribute to senior judiciary for working at pace to develop a case management approach to possession cases.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

  According to the Government’s own research, 60% of people in the north-east have no up-to-date photo ID and 44% say they are unlikely to apply for local authority ID in order to vote. Will the Justice Secretary update the House on the most recent data on investigation and prosecutions for in-person voter fraud, because without evidence of significant abuse, the Government’s sledgehammer to crack a nut risks undermining rather than protecting the integrity of our elections by unjustifiably preventing many people from voting?

[Robert Buckland]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I think that her concerns are wholly misplaced; I would be kind enough to say that. Some of the objection to this is, frankly, synthetic. The last Labour Government introduced it in Northern Ireland in 2003 without any concomitant reduction in turnout. Countries such as France and Canada and other mature democracies have long had this system in place. We will provide free identification for the tiny minority of people who do not have it. Frankly, the people of this country are wondering why on earth this has not been done before and are bewildered by the Opposition’s confected objections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend always speaks with passion on behalf of victims of crime in North Cornwall. He knows that the county of the Duchy sits within the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner area, which has received over £2 million of funding to support victims of crime this financial year. The Ministry of Justice provides £510,000 of funding directly to five sexual violence support providers in the PCC area through the rape support fund. We have allocated another £439,000, which has been distributed to local providers via the PCC, to support victims of domestic and sexual violence. An additional £195,000 of covid-19 extraordinary funding has been distributed to rape support centres in the Devon and Cornwall PCC area through the rape support fund.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Kinship carers ensure that children who cannot live with their parents can stay safely within the family network. They are nothing short of heroes, yet many end up paying thousands in legal fees just to secure the right to look after those vulnerable children. Will the Lord Chancellor pledge urgently to bring forward legal aid reforms for special guardians in private law cases, and go further to ensure that kinship carers are not left out of pocket for doing the right thing?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that specific point. It deserves closer scrutiny, and I would be happy to engage directly with her on the issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

Cornwall is a sparsely populated area and there are difficulties there, but there is always access to the telephone service. It is right that we should look not only at face-to-face advice but at where technology can help to deliver legal advice to people.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

24. The United Nations special rapporteur’s recent findings were shameful and damning. They highlighted the fact that the “dramatic reductions” in the availability of legal aid since 2012 have“overwhelmingly affected the poor and people with disabilities, many of whom cannot otherwise afford to challenge benefit denials or reductions and are thus effectively deprived of their human right to a remedy.” When will the Government accept responsibility for the most vulnerable in our community, and will the Minister commit to ensuring that the overdue review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 will reinstate legal aid for early legal advice?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about ensuring that we have support for those who are most vulnerable, but I would like to make two points on welfare benefits, which she has highlighted. First, the most important outcome for benefit claimants is that the decisions on their claims should be right first time. This avoids the need to go to court at all, and my Department is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure efficient decision making. I have met the Minister twice to ensure that we get those decisions right first time. Secondly, while decisions on welfare claims significantly impact the lives of often vulnerable people, the claims are often not complicated. We are making changes to the tribunal system to ensure that those cases are handled simply, effectively and more quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Bad Boys bakers no doubt felt very privileged to be visited by the hon. Gentleman.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

10. What progress he has made on proposals for reform of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We will bring forward our proposals for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. We have made good progress on the development of our plans, with input from practitioners, non-governmental organisations, academics and many others right across the UK. Our proposals will be announced in due course and we shall consult fully on them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister says that plans will be published in due course, but plans to repeal the Human Rights Act were announced in the Conservative manifestos in both 2010 and 2015 and in the Queen’s Speech in 2015 and 2016. Can he please explain why his Department has so far failed to publish any proposals or begin a consultation on those plans?

[Mr Raab]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is eager to engage in a detailed, substantive debate on human rights. Distinguished people in the Opposition, from Lord Irvine through to the current shadow Justice Secretary, have talked about the defects in the Human Rights Act. They have made compelling points and we intend to act on them. I look forward to debating the matter with the hon. Lady in due course.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

That is an extremely common experience for MPs, because the letters sent out in 1995 by the then Tory Government were neither use nor ornament. I have got one here that was sent to a woman on 13 June 1995. This letter has five pages, and not one of them mentions that the pension age is going to rise to 65. In fact, every single page refers to the fact that the state pension age for women is 60. The final page offers the extraordinary suggestion that

“a form inviting you to claim your State Retirement Pension will be sent to you”

a few

“months before you reach 60.”

This happened in the very month that the Bill that became the 1995 Act was going through this House under that Government. That is a measure of what a desperately poor job they did of informing people.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I have lost count of the number of constituents who have contacted me to say that they had absolutely no idea about these pension changes and heard about them on the radio or the TV. Fortunately, we are raising the profile of this issue on the Government’s behalf. Is it not insulting of Government Members to suggest that these women are wrong, or lying, or that there is something wrong with them, when ultimately it is the Government’s responsibility to communicate these changes?

[Owen Smith]

It is wrong, it is insulting, and it compounds the more fundamental insult that women who, by and large, have smaller pensions because they had lower earnings throughout their entire lifetime while bearing a burden for the rest of us, have been told that they cannot access their pension. That is the real insult that we should be worried about.

My hon. Friend is right that it is completely insulting to suggest that proper notice was given, because the truth is that it was a botched job from start to finish. We know that because the current Conservative Pensions Minister in the House of Lords says so. She says quite clearly that

“until recently, many of these women were expecting to receive their state pension at age 60, since they were unaware of the changes made in 1995”.

The Government are damned out of their own mouths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

Another reason that some have called for the legislation to be revisited is that they felt that notification needs to be reconsidered. I simply do not accept that the Government have failed to make every effort to notify the women affected.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will not give way, as I wish to make progress.

Following the 2011 Act, we wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their state pension age. About 5 million letters were sent by the DWP and the sending of the letters to those affected was completed between January 2012 and November 2013. Letters to those whose state pension age was set by the 1995 Act only were sent between April 2009, when Labour was still in government, and March 2011, when that process was finished by the coalition Government. As a result of those efforts, in 2012 a survey by the DWP found that only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60.

The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary mentioned several surveys and was somewhat selective in those to which he referred. The one done by the DWP, which runs and is in charge of the pension scheme, has a fair amount of validity and, as I say, only 6% of women who were within 10 years of receiving their pension thought that their state pension age was still 60. As for the original 1995 changes to the state pension age, in 2004 nearly three quarters of those between 45 and 54 were aware of changes to women’s state pensions. Our communications campaign has focused on raising general awareness of the changes and encouraging those closest to the state pension age to get a personalised state pension statement.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting those facts on the record. I am, however, sorry that as he was making those points of substance, all he got was the yah-boo politics that we can expect from the Opposition. I am afraid that the truth, as anyone watching this debate at home can see for themselves, is that the Opposition do not want to know the substance or the facts. All they are interested in is the politics, but this is far too important an issue to be treated with the political naivety with which some Opposition Members are treating it. This is an important subject and the Government are dealing with it and treating it with the seriousness it deserves.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and he is clearly in a difficult corner, but I wondered whether he could clarify whether the Government now accept that women—well, anybody—need at least 10 years’ notification of a pension change in order to plan and prepare. If the Government now accept that, will he explain why that does not apply to this group of women?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady will be aware that Governments have to take difficult decisions at times. Considering the state of the economy and the financial position that this Government came into—she will be aware that one of her own colleagues said that there was no money left—and considering the longevity of both men and women, the Government had to take difficult decisions, as all Governments of both shades have to. This Government had to take difficult decisions and we took them because they needed to be taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

I will give way later, but I want to make some progress because I am aware of the time constraints.

Parliament voted unanimously on 7 January for a motion that the Government should put into place mitigation for the women affected. The Prime Minister speaks about the sovereignty of this House. Why have the Government ignored that vote? Why have they ignored the will of the House? Whose sovereignty now? They cannot ignore the will of the House at random on the legitimate demands of the WASPI people. The Government are treating this House and the people of this country with contempt. Where is parliamentary democracy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Minister has, basically, confirmed from the Dispatch Box that this disgraceful discrimination is a price worth paying for deficit reduction?

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. The women in the WASPI campaign are paying for the failures of the economic policy of this Government.

Let me remind the House that what we have is a Conservative Government—

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We fund counter-terrorism from a separate budget, and that is enormously important. We have a Minister of State who specifically deals with that task. It is really interesting that even though I have heard Opposition Members say today, “This is terrible! This is going to happen; this has happened,” actually the 43 authorities welcomed the Chancellor’s Budget, and I have had really interesting discussions with them, in some of the areas represented by Members who have complained today about the settlement. That is what this debate is supposed to be about: it is about a very generous settlement, which we would not have had if we had not won the arguments with the Chancellor.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I am slightly baffled by the Minister’s comments. Northumbria police force expects to have lost about £150 million between 2010 and 2020, and its workforce has already been cut by a quarter, split equally between police officers and police staff. Will he clarify in what way that is a generous settlement?

[Mike Penning]

Let me go over the arguments. We inherited a fiscal mess left by the previous Administration. We had to make really difficult financial decisions, including on policing. The police forces did brilliantly well. They were genuinely very worried that we would extend that approach into 2015-16, but we did not do that, which is why they are saying thank you to us for not making 10% cuts to policing, which is what Labour’s Front-Bench team would have done.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Richard Graham]

I will come to questions in a moment.

I hope the Minister will confirm all my points, because they have important consequences for everyone, not least the 10 years’ notice of any change.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. You asked us at the start of this debate to do the maths on the time needed to allow all 20 speakers to speak. I did the maths, and it was five to six minutes. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be having some difficulty.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

That is not a point of order, but the point is well made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Again, that is not a point of order, but the point is made.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. Can you guide me on whether you have any control over this issue? My concern is that it is deeply disrespectful to the many women here who are concerned about this subject.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Mr Graham has the floor. He has heard the points, and I intend to impose a time limit when he sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I, too, strongly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for leading this debate so powerfully. Although the injustice imposed on women born in the 1950s has been repeatedly debated, discussed and raised with the Prime Minister in recent weeks and months, this is my first opportunity since returning to the Back Benches to express my constituents’ concerns, and I am grateful for it.

The Minister and the Government regularly state that the changes to the state pension age imposed by the Pensions Act 2011 are vital to ensuring that our pensions system is fair, affordable and sustainable, and I am sure the Minister will repeat those words today; but not a single Member of this House would suggest that our pensions system should be anything other than fair, affordable or sustainable, and nor would any of the women who are part of the brilliant WASPI campaign. I agree that it is right to equalise the state pension age for women and men, but I thoroughly object to the Government’s implication that the women, and indeed men, who are campaigning on this issue are standing in the way of progress, or acting as a barrier to the achievement of gender equality and fairness. That is deeply insulting, patronising and wrong.

We are, thankfully, living longer, and few people would doubt that the state pension age must rise to reflect that, but the crux of the matter is that these pension changes have not been properly communicated to those affected, and women born in the 1950s have been disproportionately hit because their pension age has been increased not once but twice, with very little time for them to do anything about it. That relatively small group of women is being asked to bear the cost of making our pension system fair, sustainable and affordable for everyone else. That is patently unfair and blatantly discriminatory. Women across the country have been left in real fear, simply because they did not have the foresight to be born a few years—in some cases, a few months—earlier.

How dare the Government lecture those women about the importance of gender equality? They have worked hard, done the right thing and paid into the system. They have faced discrimination, unfairness and inequality throughout their working and often their family lives. They thought they had entered into a pensions contract with the Government, only to discover as they neared retirement that the Government were not going to keep their side of the bargain. That is the very definition of unfairness, and the notion that inequality can be fought by imposing more of it is absurd.

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sorry, but I will not.

Women across Newcastle North face real financial hardship as a result of these changes, just when they thought they had done their bit As well as repeatedly lobbying the Minister for Pensions about the wider injustice, I have written to her about every single case in my consistency that I have been contacted about. I want her to appreciate the real impact that the changes are having on individuals’ lives. I want to share some examples today, if I have enough time.

One of my constituents, a brilliant WASPI campaigner, at the age of 54 and on the advice of her union contacted the DWP in 2008 to request a state pension forecast. She was informed that she had attained 38 qualifying years. She has received no other information from the Government about the 1995 changes. However, she was born in November 1954, so under the 2011 pension changes, at the age of 61 with 45 qualifying years, she is unable to receive her state pension for another five years. She has worked since she was 15, and is now unable to do so because she is pre-diabetic and pre-glaucomic. She claims jobseeker’s allowance, but cannot complete the job searches because her condition makes it difficult to use a computer. She is attempting to find work in a region that has the highest level of unemployment anywhere in the country by some margin.

What particularly worries me about that case is not only that my constituent has received no information from the Government about the 2011 changes—she found out about them by chance—but that she has been informed that she will not be entitled to receive a full state pension under the new system unless she makes further contributions between 2016 and 2020, despite having 45 qualifying years. Given her health conditions, it is impossible for her to do so. I gently ask the Minister, who campaigned vociferously on this issue, what is the point of becoming a Minister if you are unprepared to use the levers of power when you have the opportunity to do so?

Corporate Economic Crime

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) on securing this important debate on prosecuting corporate economic crime, and on his argument, which he put forward with his customary elegance. The debate is timely, in the light of recent announcements by Ministers. I congratulate all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, who made powerful contributions and set out strongly the arguments that the Government should listen to. Each of them made important points, to which I shall refer. I do not mean to diminish the Minister’s presence when I say that I am disappointed that neither of the Law Officers could attend the debate. I hope that is not a sign of Government obfuscation on these important issues.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), I am not here to bash bankers. The City of London is the world’s second-largest financial centre and a major contributor to the UK economy. Its success is clearly founded on the professionalism and integrity—for the most part—of those who work in the sector. That is why we cannot allow its reputation to be undermined by the actions of the minority who engage in fraud, corruption and market manipulation. Yet despite the events of 2007 and 2008, and all that has followed—parliamentary commissions, Select Committee inquiries and the setting up of new regulators—economic or white-collar crime remains a serious problem in the UK. We need only look at the horrifying spectre of LIBOR rate rigging to be reminded of why the Government cannot rest on their laurels in this matter; yet the ability of our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to tackle such pernicious crimes remains limited.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North pointed out, the Government gave some promising signals. They announced the introduction of a senior managers regime to hold named executives to account for their actions, and they pledged to introduce a new corporate offence of failure to prevent economic crime. It is disappointing that that was not, as my hon. Friend pointed out, etched in stone, but it was in the manifesto for all to see. Both proposals were seen as vital to prevent the repetition of the failings of the past and bring the UK regime into the 21st century. However, in both cases, the Government have backtracked.

What do we know about the reasons for the Government’s change of heart about the corporate liability offence? According to a response to a written question to the Ministry of Justice,

“there is little evidence of corporate economic wrongdoing going unpunished”,

despite the fact that according to the Financial Conduct Authority banks have paid an estimated £1.8 billion in compensation for mis-selling financial products such as interest rate swaps and have already set aside an additional £27 billion to compensate for payment protection insurance mis-selling. That is not to mention the £4.4 billion lost each year to tax evasion, according to the latest estimates from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or the countless banks and financial institutions that are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office for various types of misconduct, but have not yet been prosecuted. Why have the Government concluded that no action is required? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us.

Some recent disclosures are cause for concern. Last month, the Treasury published the national risk assessment, the first comprehensive assessment of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing—both from within the UK and flowing through it. It is the first assessment of its kind and has been highly anticipated since the Government committed themselves to producing it, in their 2014 anti-corruption plan. The Government’s assessment of the risks posed by elements in the financial sector is clear:

“The size and complexity of the UK financial sector mean it is more exposed to criminality than financial sectors in many other countries, including abuse enabled by professional enablers in the legal and accountancy sector”.

Nevertheless, the report notes that the UK has “significant intelligence gaps” with respect to money laundering, despite what is judged to be a serious threat from, for example, the legal, banking and accountancy sectors. The conclusions are not encouraging:

“The UK’s response is well developed, but more needs to be done to ensure it is commensurate with our status as a well regulated global financial centre.”

The message is clear: far more needs to be done. I would therefore welcome reassurance from the Minister that something is being done. The aim must be to ensure that the appropriate measures are in place to deter behaviour that facilitates or contributes to the committing of economic crime. That would not only encourage good practice and the right corporate culture, but mean that wrongdoers were held accountable, which would be a deterrent. There is widespread concern that the UK’s current corporate liability regime is not up to the job. That is the view of the Law Commission and the OECD’s working group on bribery, both of which have produced seminal work on the subject. Both concluded that the current regime does not allow the UK to hold corporations and key persons within them to account effectively for their part in economic crimes.

In its extensive work on the UK’s corporate liability measures, the Law Commission described the present regime as

“an inappropriate and ineffective method of establishing criminal liability of corporations”.

It also noted the unfairness inherent in the identification doctrine, explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North, which makes it far easier to prosecute smaller companies, where the “directing mind” is more easily determined, than large corporations with much more diffuse chains of command.

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend raises a point that has given me pause for thought. Does she agree that there is such a thing as a corporate culture in certain companies—I think that there is ample evidence of such behaviour—and that if, often, the culture is not in the interest of probity or the wider public, it is difficult to identify the person of whom an example should be made? If the culture is allowed to fester and permeate, inevitably it spreads. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an issue of identifying an individual, pour encourager les autres at the very least?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that goes to the heart of the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon argued cogently that, ultimately, we need a better way of establishing responsibility for the actions of a company and those who serve within it. It is not enough for those at the top to wash their hands of responsibility for the actions of the officers and employees who operate, act and work under the company’s name.

There needs to be much greater clarity about the legal framework. Many bodies, including the Law Commission, have called for that. What is even more key is that the Government seem to share that view. In a consultation undertaken in July 2015 on the introduction of a new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion, the Government concluded:

“Under the existing law it can be extremely difficult to hold the corporations to account for the criminal actions of their agents”.

That observation has been made by the Government and Ministers on several occasions, as well as by my hon. Friends in their contributions today.

The Law Commission, the OECD working group and the director of the Serious Fraud Office point to section 7 of Labour’s Bribery Act as a potential solution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North set out in his speech, section 7 of the Bribery Act makes it an offence to fail to prevent bribery. It places the onus on companies to prove that they have put in place adequate procedures to prevent bribery and is widely seen as a far more effective way of holding companies and the individuals within them to account, which is why many want to see that model extended to other types of economic crime.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have talked a lot about accountability and trust today, but another important word here is “risk”. We saw in the events leading up to 2008 and the collapse of Lehman Brothers a systemic failure to manage risk. It is in the interests of both Government and the private sector more broadly—the real economy and the financial services sector—to put systemic measures in place to manage risk in a way that ensures the appalling events in and following 2008 never happen again. Some regulation of the market is therefore, by definition, required as a risk management tool. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and anticipates my next point. First, I want to clarify exactly where the Government seem to be on this issue.

The Government’s recent announcement has caused much confusion among those who care about this issue, because it seems to be very much at odds with what they have been saying and the messages and signals they have been sending out. In his first speech as Attorney General over a year ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) suggested that he was considering the section 7 proposal. We then discovered, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, that it had been dropped. We need clarity from the Minister today about exactly why that decision was made and what the Government will do to ensure that our concerns are addressed if they are not proceeding with that proposal.

The director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green, has made clear his support for the expansion of section 7 of the Bribery Act. He has described how useful it would be to better facilitate the use of deferred prosecution agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) set out eloquently how deferred prosecution agreements work and their potential importance in dealing with some of the issues that have been highlighted. It is no secret that the Serious Fraud Office director favours the use of DPAs, which are currently more widely used in the United States. To clarify, they provide for a corporation to avoid prosecution by entering into an agreement with a number of conditions attached, which may include paying a financial penalty, paying compensation or co-operating with future prosecutions of individuals. In doing so, they avoid prosecution. The aim is to hold key individuals to account, to secure significant financial penalties from companies that have committed wrongdoing and, ultimately, to prevent future wrongdoing by encouraging or mandating reforms within those companies.

Deferred prosecution agreements are not without their critics, but they have been widely used in the US for the past 20 years or so and brought in some $4.2 billion to the Department of Justice in 2014 alone. One key problem with importing the use of DPAs to the UK is that they are intended to be a carrot, while the stick is the prospect of prosecution for corporate economic offences.

[Stephen Pound]

My hon. Friend is giving us a masterclass, and it is greatly appreciated. I am sure that she, like me, felt her heart leap when the American authorities started to act against FIFA using their Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Does she agree that we can learn much, for once, from the American example and the action they took against the appalling, utterly corrupt situation regarding FIFA? I am not remotely comparing any British business to FIFA—it would be hard to find anything outside the Augean stables or the seventh circle of hell that compared to that organisation. The Americans seem able to achieve things that we cannot. Is that because of the quality of the excellent US Attorney General and her staff, or should we be learning from the American legislation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We should not shy away from learning lessons from any jurisdiction that manages to control risk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon highlighted, and to hold companies to account where wrongdoing has occurred. Where there are lessons to be learned from the US, we should learn them and do what we can to implement them within our own system. We could then hold ourselves up as a beacon for other countries and hold our heads high as a well-regulated, world-leading financial centre. That has to be our aim in all of this.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath pointed out, without the fear of corporate economic crime being prosecuted, there is little incentive for companies to enter deferred prosecution agreements and no incentive for companies to co-operate with the SFO to change their practices as mandated under a DPA. Unlike in the US, which has far stronger vicarious liability laws, there are still far too few corporate prosecutions in the UK under the current identification principle. No matter how much we may wish to learn from the United States—if that is what we see as the right way forward—without a strengthened corporate liability regime, we will be hampered in our efforts to implement such changes.

Finally, I turn to another area that shows concerning signs of backtracking by the Government and in which we would otherwise have seen individuals in companies held accountable for their own and others’ actions. In its 2013 report on the banking sector and how to prevent the failings that led to the 2008 crash, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards similarly recognised the difficulty in identifying individuals and holding them to account. One of its key recommendations was to introduce a senior managers regime to hold named executives personally responsible for key risks in the bank. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, who made a powerful speech about encouraging better and more responsible management within companies to change bad practice where it is found. The commission recommended that the regime place a burden of proof on those named executives, who would have to show the regulator that they had done all they reasonably could to prevent failings or misconduct if they were to avoid sanction.

[Christina Rees]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even though we have the legislation in place in section 7, there is no will to use it? That is the problem. There has not been a single prosecution.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a concern relating to the Bribery Act, but there are two ways of looking at the Act’s implementation and the fact that no prosecutions have yet happened under it. There is evidence that it has already brought about significant changes in corporate culture and that the managers tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that they have taken all the steps they could reasonably be expected to have taken to prevent bribery in their organisations have taken those steps. Some positives can therefore certainly be derived from the situation, but I agree that a very close eye needs to be kept on prosecutions. I note that there are already murmurings from the Government about backtracking on the Bribery Act and trying to weaken that legislation, and we must stay vigilant about that.

On the senior managers regime, the commission recommended that the regime place a burden of proof on those named executives. The recommendation was accepted by the Government and enshrined in the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013. However, the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, which is currently in the other place, is set to reverse that burden of proof, meaning that instead, the regulator—the Financial Conduct Authority—will be required to prove that senior managers have failed in their duty to prevent misconduct or prudential failings. The onus will be back on the regulator, and not on the named senior executives. Is that just more backtracking from the Government, who seem to be going soft on economic crime? I would be grateful if the Minister provided reassurance that that is not the case.

Ministers urgently need to look again at their approach to tackling economic crime, because without change, the prospect of ensuring that justice is served to those who have mis-sold financial products, evaded tax, laundered money and defrauded seems as remote as ever, and the risk of the scandals of recent years being repeated has far from disappeared.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that although he has an unusually large amount of time in which to wind up, under the new procedure, there is time at the end for Stephen Pound, the proposer of the debate, to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I am grateful for that intervention. I stand better informed than I was before, but obviously I cannot comment on individual prosecutions or cases until they are in a position to conclude.

Much has been made of the Conservative manifesto commitment, rather caricaturing the nature of what was very clearly stated and ignoring the fact that we are specifically further considering legislation relating to tax evasion. As hon. Members will know, but this is an opportunity to remind them, the consultation on that closed on 8 October. I am sure that further announcements will be made in due course.

The shadow Justice Minister made some of her most powerful points on deferred prosecution agreements, which were introduced in the last Parliament and represent a significant opportunity for prosecutors to take action. I think that they rather refute the suggestion that this Government have been either lax or demonstrating inertia in trying to develop the tools we need to deliver convictions and accountability in this area.

It is also worth saying that, as a basic principle, we should try to exercise existing law enforcement powers to the full before we go back to Parliament and ask for more. I fear that it was rather the epitaph of the previous Labour Government to legislate hyperactively and leave the statute book littered with offences that were not really ever used in practice, so I make no apology for saying that we really ought to be crafting criminal legislation on the statute book that will deliver convictions in practice.

The hon. Member for Aberavon, who unfortunately is no longer in his place, made an interesting speech. He widened the debate to talk about systemic risk, which is an important point, and expressed some of the concerns about the 2007-08 financial crisis that are understandably still feeding calls for further action to be taken now. In that context, I highlight the action that has been taken on the banks by the coalition Government and this Conservative Government in relation to capital ratios, the bank levy and regulating to ensure proper separation between the investment and retail arms of banks. He was absolutely right to make that point, but the whole system of regulation on systemic risk looks fundamentally different today from when the Labour Government left office in 2010.

Going back to the identification principle, we have heard that the law on corporate and criminal liability has that very much at its heart. The identification principle means that a corporate is criminally liable only if a person who is its controlling mind and will is criminally liable. In most cases, there will be liability only if a director is criminally liable. Hon. Members made perfectly reasonable points about that and about the related difficulties and challenges. Many other assertions were made about the state of the current law, such as that the evidential threshold is too high and that it makes it easier to prosecute smaller businesses than larger corporates and particularly difficult to prosecute large and complex multinational corporations. Those are all valid points, rather inherent, though, in trying to regulate and enforce offences in this sector. We certainly do not want small businesses to be hammered while the big ones get off scot-free. That is absolutely the wrong approach and one that we are mindful of the need to avoid.

Other points made about the current state of the law are that it can result in corporates escaping prosecution where there is criminal wrongdoing on behalf of a corporate and the corporate benefits; it does not do enough to deter economic crime in the UK or to promote good corporate governance; and it puts UK prosecutors at a disadvantage compared with some law enforcement agencies overseas where the attribution of corporate criminal liability does not have such a high threshold. The hon. Member for Ealing North made the point about the United States very well. Some have called for a much broader vicarious liability for companies, closer to the US model.

I recognise the point that a different approach, combined with the DPAs introduced in 2013, could have a powerful impact. We need to consider the criminal legal basis along with the prosecutorial tools. That combination is the key to getting more convictions and plea bargains under the DPA arrangements. Notwithstanding the common desire for accountability and convictions, we need to take half a step back and acknowledge the need to be careful to guard the basic principles of justice that we all, at least notionally and rhetorically, hold dear—the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof—and ensure that we have a focused, targeted law enforcement system.

The Bribery Act 2010 contains the much-discussed new offence of failure to prevent bribery by a person associated with the company, which allows prosecutions of corporates for failure to prevent bribery in cases in which the identification principle threshold could not be reached. There have been suggestions for further change by extending the Bribery Act model to other areas. Under that legislation, a commercial organisation is guilty of an offence if a person associated with it bribes another person while intending either to obtain or retain business for the organisation, or to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of its business. The legislation sets out that it is a defence for the organisation to prove that it had in place adequate procedures designed to prevent people from undertaking such conduct. That is the balance struck.

The legislation relates specifically to bribery—a very serious economic crime—and is designed to encourage more responsible corporate behaviour. Extending section 7 as some have suggested could criminalise commercial organisations that fail to prevent other types of economic crime, including fraud and tax evasion; I am sure that hon. Members can think of other examples. Some people have urged the Government to go even further and advocated a more dramatic change, calling for legislation to create an offence of vicarious liability. That would be far more like the US model.

As I think was mentioned, the Government published last December the “UK Anti-Corruption Plan”, which included the commitment to consider the case for a new offence of a corporate failing to prevent economic crime. Much has been made of the statement made on 28 September by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that we will not be carrying out further work on this specific point at least at this time. It is important to understand the reasons for that. Again, they have been rather caricatured, although not intentionally; I would not say that.

The reasons for not taking the work forward at this stage are as follows. First, the UK has corporate criminal liability and commercial organisations can be and are being prosecuted for wrongdoing. Secondly, as I have mentioned, there have been no prosecutions under the Bribery Act offence, so it is not as though we have a huge amount of concrete practice to learn from—in fairness, that point was also made by the hon. Member for Neath. Thirdly, as a result of that and the information and evidence that we get as we look at whether the case is made for new offences, there is little concrete and specific evidence of the wider corporate economic wrongdoing that we should now target that is currently not unlawful and could reasonably be caught by a proposed new offence. If hon. Members want to tell me about a specific area and tailored offence, I will be all ears.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It does not sound as though the Minister will go on to explain how he intends the Government to live up to their manifesto pledge. He indicated earlier that it was in relation to tax evasion only, but the Government did in their manifesto state:

“We are also making it a crime if companies fail to put in place measures to stop economic crime, such as tax evasion, in their organisations and making sure that the penalties are large enough to…deter.”

If the Minister explains how the Government will fulfil that manifesto pledge, that will give hon. Members reassurance today.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the shadow Minister for her intervention. She has not come up with a specific offence beyond tax evasion.

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way again at this point, but perhaps I will shortly.

The hon. Lady referred to the manifesto commitment, which specifically cites tax evasion. I will go on to say a little about that. I thought that one of the best points in her original speech was about the intelligence gap. That feeds the point that I have been making that we should not confuse the difficulties or challenges that we have in enforcing, which is what the intelligence gap is all about, with the breadth of the criminal base that we have on the statute books. That is a very important distinction, which she made rather well.

The bottom line is that there is no point in legislating for the sake of it. The hit and hope approach does not do any good; in fact, it feeds public mistrust. Frankly, we saw far too much of that under the Labour Government. I want to know that when we legislate we are putting in place a model, a criminal offence on the statute book, that will deliver prosecutions, convictions and the wider deterrent effect that we all want.

[Mr Raab]

We are taking forward the manifesto commitment. We have an ongoing consultation on tax evasion and, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come on to it. The other point made in the manifesto commitment is about the need to punish and deter. That is not just about legislation; it is about the enforcement regime. Over the years, hon. Members have been far too willing just to nod legislation through without thinking properly about how it will be enforced in a targeted and effective way.

Having said all that, I can give examples of very good outcomes, including in the high-end serious and complex cases dealt with by the Serious Fraud Office, which emerge from within the existing legislation and even pre-Bribery Act in some instances. There are other outcomes aside from criminal prosecutions. Deferred prosecution agreements are a further and significant tool. Civil recovery orders are an option.

The SFO cases involving prosecution or substantial civil recovery orders for a corporate have included the cases of AMEC, BAE, Innospec and Macmillan. Fines and civil recovery orders for more than £40 million were issued in SFO cases between 2008 and 2012. Nearly £30 million was paid by BAE to the people of Tanzania, following a settlement with the SFO and the US Department of Justice. More recently, last year, the SFO completed the Innospec and Smith & Ouzman prosecutions, both of which resulted in the conviction of the corporate as well as senior officials in relation to foreign bribery. And the SFO had its first prosecutions under the Bribery Act—they were associated with a biofuel fraud—albeit not under section 7.

The director of the SFO has said that there are current cases that may prove suitable for prosecutions under section 7 of the Bribery Act. Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot go into too much detail on things that are subject to either a pending prosecutorial decision or investigation. The Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have had important successes, too, and some have also been very high-profile.

On tax avoidance, HMRC is responsible for policing the tax and excise laws. It has a range of tools and powers to secure compliance, including the power to conduct criminal investigations in appropriate cases in line with HMRC’s criminal investigation policy. Since 2010, HMRC has increased the number of criminal investigations leading to prosecution by 500%. That is a very clear example of where we have managed not only to have the legislation in place but to deliver a quantum leap in successful law enforcement. I am sure hon. Members from all parts of the House agree that that is what we should be aiming for.

Marketed tax evasion schemes have been one strand of priority work for HMRC during this period, and the CPS has brought a number of complex prosecutions against individuals. There are a number of high-profile examples, including Vantis and cases relating to the film industry. I have acknowledged the suggestions that have been made about extending the remit of section 7. Although Ministers have decided to halt that work for the time being, the criminal law is always monitored and if any clear and well evidenced difficulties come to light on which we can take targeted action, we will, of course, do so.

A proposed new offence of failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, whether onshore or offshore, was the subject of public consultation by HMRC between July and October this year. The consultation closed on 8 October, and the Government are considering the responses. That clearly falls within the area of the manifesto commitment that Opposition Members have enjoyed citing. That work is ongoing.

Deferred prosecution agreements, which became available on 24 February 2014, are one of the critical law enforcement tools that the Government have brought into being. To date, no DPAs have been concluded, but I am aware that a number of cases in the pipeline may yield DPAs. Under a DPA, a prosecutor charges a company with a criminal offence, but proceedings are automatically suspended. The regime has been designed carefully and we consulted on all its aspects. There are important safeguards in place, which is why we need to be a bit careful about the rather gung-ho suggestion that we should follow the American approach lock, stock and barrel. If we did so, concerns would be raised by Members on both sides of the House about the lack of safeguards in place.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with the Minister that a gung-ho approach should never be taken to any of those matters, but does he acknowledge that significant concerns have been raised about the DPA tool not being as effective as it could be, while it remains so difficult to bring prosecutions against corporations, because the identification principle has set the bar for prosecution so high?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the combination of the law enforcement tool—in this case, the DPA—and the criminal base will be the key to securing convictions. We will constantly look to fine tune and sharpen up that double act of legislation and law enforcement. If she has any suggestions about how that can be done in a sensible way, I will consider them. I am not sure that the extension of section 7 more broadly and exponentially will be the panacea that she is looking for, but if she can come up with specific, tailored and targeted areas in which that might be the case, I will consider them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will give way shortly, but I want to make a little bit of progress, because I am mindful of your advice about timing, Mr Stringer. I want to talk briefly about the code of practice for DPAs that the director of the SFO and the DPP issued on 14 February 2014. That followed the consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Lady made her views known at the time. Prosecutors should have regard to the DPA code when they negotiate a DPA, when they apply to the court for approval of a DPA and when they oversee a DPA after it has been approved by the court. A DPA can be appropriate where the public interest would not be best served by entering into a prosecution. Entering into a DPA will be a transparent event, and the process will be supervised by a judge. That is important, because even if a DPA is in place, we want justice to be seen to be done as well as to be done.

I recognise that some organisations and others have raised concerns about the amount of information that will be available about DPAs as they are being negotiated. Letters of invitation to a company to enter into a DPA negotiation are confidential, for understandable reasons. The code of practice for prosecutors explicitly states that the letter of invitation to a company to enter into negotiations should make an undertaking in respect of confidentiality about the fact that DPA negotiations are taking place. Negotiations are, and need to be, confidential in the early stages to encourage co-operation on the part of the corporate. Any DPA that is agreed will be publicly announced, and that will provide transparency and accountability. As soon as a DPA is approved, the court must make a declaration to that effect, along with reasons, in open hearing. Unless it is prevented from doing so by an enactment or order of the court, the prosecutor will be expected to publish the DPA on its website.

I hope that hon. Members will agree that there is much to be positive about. Good results are being achieved in cases across the prosecuting authorities. We are giving active consideration to further changes where there is evidence that they are warranted, particularly in relation to tax evasion, but we remain open-minded if a case can be made broadly from a specific evidence base.

Outcomes other than prosecution should be acknowledged and welcomed. It may not always be in the public interest for a company to be prosecuted, and that is one of the considerations that led to the DPA regime. The director of the SFO, David Green CB QC, has said that he expects the first DPAs to conclude this year. I know that hon. Members will join me in looking forward to seeing the first successful outcomes. We are seeing a step change in the law enforcement model and the vigour with which it has been applied since 2010. The tax gap was reduced to record levels in 2014. The SFO’s asset recovery against serious criminals has been expanded; in 2014-15, 26.5 million financial orders were made. Since 2010, HMRC has increased the number of tax evasion criminal investigations leading to prosecution by 500%, as I have said, and we also have the DPAs. A huge amount of action is being taken. I am grateful for the contributions of hon. Members from across the House today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the “Transforming Rehabilitation” proposals, which will mean that those receiving even sentences of under 12 months will for the first time receive help in prison, which will ensure that they are much less likely to reoffend when they come out.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Since May 2010, we have had 15 months with no Victims Commissioner at all, and two years with a part-time Victims Commissioner. What kind of signal does the Minister think that sends about this Government’s attitude to victims of crime?

[Damian Green]

I think that we have an excellent Victims Commissioner, who does the job extremely well.

Legal Aid Reform

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. In my area, since April the bedroom tax has increased arrears in the city already by £750,000, pushing more families into misery and making them more in need of the very advice to which she refers.

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is another excellent example. I am sure that colleagues will have examples from a number of areas of service and from all over the country.

On the “Transforming Legal Aid” agenda, while it is true that a Labour Government would have faced difficult and not necessarily popular choices about the justice system and legal aid, one of the elements that we regard as critical is maintenance of the ability for the accused to have a choice of lawyers. There is a risk that the proposed changes will lead to a loss of specialist services and quality services driven by choice, and potentially to miscarriages of justice.

I want to share with the House a letter I received from one of my constituents in the run-up to today’s debate. It is from Anne Maguire, one of the Maguire Seven convicted in 1975 of possession of explosives together with her husband, two teenage sons, brother and brother-in-law and a family friend. She received a sentence of 14 years. She and all her relatives and friend were innocent and their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1992. She says:

“Over many years, our solicitor Alastair Logan worked tirelessly without payment to overturn our wrongful convictions. Without his diligence and painstaking work, it’s no exaggeration that the miscarriage of justice we suffered would never have been put right. Under the government’s terrible proposals, solicitors’ firms such as Alastair’s would disappear to be replaced by a reduced number of large commercial operations with no interest in helping innocent prisoners.

Many more miscarriages of justice will occur if plans to award legal aid contracts to the cheapest commercial bidders such as the haulage company Eddie Stobart and to remove the ancient right of accused persons to choose their own lawyer are implemented.

I hope you'll attend the debate on Thursday”.

I am pleased to do that but also to join my colleagues in the vote.

I would love to be able to talk about the judicial review proposals and the accountability of public services that will be lost, but I want finally to touch on the issue of residency. As my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has pointed out, urban constituencies such as ours with large migrant populations are most likely to feel the impact of the new residency qualifications. Those qualifications will have a particularly severe impact on children. I am indebted to a law company in my constituency called Just for Kids Law, which has raised with me its fears about the residency qualifications and the extent to which they will hit trafficked children and the children and families of victims of domestic violence, some of whom have come here on their husband’s visa. It will hit children and families of people who have come here to work in domestic service. This is something I am familiar with in my constituency and have many problems with. Finally, it will hit the babies and small children of British citizens who have been abroad and returned to this country, who will lose their qualification. That is a serious impact on the rights of children. I believe the measures must be resisted and look forward to joining colleagues in voting against them this afternoon.