Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (Amendment) Instrument 2019

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (Amendment) Instrument 2019.

The purpose of the amended scheme is to remove what we consider to be a discriminatory eligibility rule, and to provide a potential remedy to some victims of violent crime who have been affected by its application. It is right that we are seeking to make these changes expeditiously. I am grateful for the strong support on both sides of the House for what we seek to do, in particular from the shadow Minister. I am sure she will wish to shade into broader issues in her remarks.

Our knowledge and understanding of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children is far greater today than it was when the rule was introduced. It is not acceptable that a rule originally intended to stop perpetrators from benefiting financially from causing harm to people they lived with has unfairly denied victims acknowledgment of that harm and access to compensation for their injuries. All cases of sexual and physical abuse by a family member in the family home involve a grave abuse of trust, but the rule has operated in a way that has denied eligibility for compensation on the basis of victims being in a situation over which they had no or limited control and could not necessarily change.

The circumstances that have given rise to the need for this instrument are exceptional. It is fitting that Parliament is breaking new ground in meeting that need. For the first time, Parliament is invited to approve an amendment to part of the existing statutory scheme. Hon. Members will be aware that we have committed to bring forward a consultation later this year on the overall scheme, offering them and others the opportunity to comment more widely.

A commitment to abolish the pre-1979 “same roof” rule was announced in the “Victims Strategy” published on 10 September 2018. Today, with cross-party support I hope, we deliver on that commitment. Under the rule, applicants were not entitled to compensation if they lived with their assailant as members of the same family at the time of the incident. The rule applied to cases between 1964 and 1979, and affected victims who were adults or children at the time of the incident and claims for injuries from physical or sexual assault.

The amended scheme strikes out paragraph 19 of the 2012 scheme. That will enable victims of violent crimes who may not have applied due to the rule, or those who may not have been aware of the scheme, to consider applying. However, we have gone further in recognition of the unfairness attached to the application of the rule for more than 50 years. We have made provision in new paragraph 18A for past claimants who were refused on the grounds covered by the rule to make new applications.

We have also taken steps to avoid creating a new potentially discriminatory position whereby claimants who were adults at the time of one incident are treated more favourably if the incident happened before 1 October 1979. We have extended the post-1979 “same roof” rule of paragraph 20 of the 2012 scheme to a start date of 1964, to provide consistency in how the rule applies to all applicants who were adults at the time of an incident. The rule will be considered in the comprehensive review of the scheme that we announced in the “Victims Strategy” and to which I just referred. A public consultation on potential reforms to that overall scheme will take place later this year.

Requirements, eligibility rules, criteria and values of awards have changed over time. Members will recognise the importance of a fair and proportionate approach for all applicants, whether they are making a new first application or are reapplying following a past refusal on the grounds of the pre-1979 “same roof” rule. We have sought to enable as many of those victims affected by the rule as possible to consider and take up the opportunity to apply.

As I mentioned, this is the first time we are making changes to parts of an existing scheme and, uniquely, we are applying changes to past applicants. The complexity, therefore, of assessing applications made so long ago will be significant. Administratively, it will be challenging for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to assess and determine claims to the non-statutory or statutory scheme that was applied to previously, or to which a victim could have applied at the time had the rule not existed. We have addressed that by providing that new first applications or reapplications following a past refusal under the pre-1979 “same roof” rule should be made to the 2012 scheme—the existing scheme—and amending the scheme to that effect. We believe that that ensures equality of opportunity.

We have set a time limit for new applicants and past applicants who are reapplying that we believe is fair and consistent. They must submit their claim within two years, as applies to current claims under the scheme, beginning from the date on which the amended scheme comes into effect. We have retained the discretion in the 2012 scheme to extend the time limit where, owing to exceptional circumstances, an application could not be made within that timescale, thereby again ensuring consistency.

Placing a time limit on applications will help us to manage the significant financial liability potentially attached to the changes and to forecast the financial repercussions more effectively. However, where a victim meets all the relevant eligibility criteria under the amended scheme, an award will be made. I recognise that there may be challenges in meeting the evidential threshold required for a compensation award, and it is right to state that a successful outcome to a claim cannot be guaranteed, as they will all be considered appropriately in line with the scheme’s rules.

The changes to the scheme are designed to level the playing field for applicants to the amended scheme. All eligibility criteria in the 2012 scheme must be met. Cases will be assessed on their merits, and the authority will make appropriate inquiries with the applicant and relevant authorities as sensitively and as quickly as possible. All the circumstances of the claim must be considered as a whole to determine whether there is sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities to support it.

The safeguards in the 2012 scheme will apply to decisions of the authority on an application. They include review by another officer in the authority and, if the applicant remains dissatisfied, the right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal. We intend to monitor carefully the operation of the amendments once they are implemented. It is important that we assess the impact of the changes in meeting our intention to offer an opportunity for redress for the unfairness under the existing 1979 “same roof” rule. We recognise that there is a challenge in raising awareness of the scheme—a point that appertains to the two-year time limit, which is the same limit as applies for other applications under the scheme—and we are looking at that more generally in our review of the scheme.

Given that her term comes to an end imminently, I wish to put on record my gratitude to Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, not only for her work in that role but specifically for her review into criminal injuries compensation. She has been a tireless advocate for the rights of victims of crime and for their voice to be heard. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to work with her in the role for the past 11 months. I am sure that all Members wish to put that on the record. I look forward to working with her successor, Dame Vera Baird, who will be known to many in this House. She will be an equally passionate advocate for the rights of victims.

In relation to the changes that we are introducing, work has begun to engage with external stakeholders on how to ensure that potential applicants are signposted to guidance and support in making a claim. We recognise that making claims to the amended scheme may prove difficult for some applicants, and the authority has made specific preparations to implement it. A small dedicated team has been set up, ready to support people making applications by phone or online.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I simply wish to commend the choice of Vera Baird as the champion. She has done excellent work over many years, particularly on violence against women, both in a legal capacity and in the community.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words. We were clear that we wanted the best person for the job. This is not about party politics or anything else. We wanted someone who would do an excellent job and, crucially, carry with them the trust of stakeholders, be they victims or organisations. It is fair to say that Dame Vera has that in spades.

Applicants will be given a named contact to assist them through the application process. The amended scheme and the Government’s intent are clear. The changes we are making are necessary, fair, reasonable and, I would argue, urgent. I commend the amended scheme to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

We have fewer officers than in 2010. There was a reduction from 2010 to 2012, but we have now turned that around, with the 4,300 extra officers, meaning we can now roll out the key worker programme, which is central, as it means we have the ratios we need to have one prison officer allied with four prisoners to make sure we deliver the work on rehabilitation.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The number of officers is only one part of the equation. Will the Minister increase the almost poverty pay of those in the lowest-paid jobs in the Prison Service and the courts?

[Rory Stewart]

We have been looking at this very carefully, and the public sector pay review body is currently gathering evidence on the situation. We owe a huge debt of obligation to our prison officers and we have to think about their salaries. We also have to balance that with making sure our resources go into improving the physical fabric of these buildings and having the right security infrastructure and the right programming in place. Looking at the resources as a whole, we think we have got the balance right, but we will listen to the public sector pay review body.

Knife Crime

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is a real delight to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), who has done so much detailed work in this area. I put on record the work of the Youth Violence Commission, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has been working on during this Parliament. I also put on record how much I appreciate the passion with which my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke about his personal experience. I remember attending his conference speech in 1999 in Bournemouth when he was Policing Minister. He had people along to talk about young people and positive involvement with the police. He has a wealth of experience in the area, and it is pleasing to hear that he has not lost that passion for young people and social justice.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for introducing this debate, in which we have had many interesting speeches from both Opposition and Government Members. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her interventions and her expert knowledge, particularly about young children, nutrition and all the elements that go to make up positive primary schools, which we hear make such a difference for people’s long-term outcomes and whether they are caught up in the criminal justice system.

The debate is about sentencing, but I want to talk about enforcement and prevention, just to set the scene. There can be no more difficult thing for a Member of Parliament than to meet the grieving family of a youngster lost to knife crime. On 22 February this year, Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck was stabbed multiple times and lost his life. That was a real tragedy. I have been very involved, going to the gold groups with the police and working with the council and the Wood Green business improvement district to talk about our high street and how we can use its physical surrounds to improve our environment.

At its heart, this is a tragedy not only for the young man’s family—his mother is grieving and his son has lost a father—but for all the youngsters who knew him and loved him. The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) has met relatives, too, and brings it home to us just how many more people are affected now compared with perhaps 10 years ago. Those of us who have been involved with public policy for 10 or 15 years remember when it was perhaps one terrible thing over a three or four-year period. Now, it seems far too regular. The number of people now facing the impacts of knife crime make this the national emergency we all agree it to be.

In the terrible case of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck, he passed away from loss of blood, in a hair salon. There were a number of children having their hair cut or whose parents were having their hair cut, and they witnessed this dreadful loss of life and heard the young man’s last words. Those people just getting their hair cut—an eight-year-old, a four-year-old, a mother with a tiny baby—will never forget that. That points to this feeling that it has become the wild west, and we need to bear in mind the number of people now affected.

Our victim support works according to a rigid model. Those people were considered to be witnesses to a crime, but in actual fact they were victims of that crime, too, because they suffered trauma and stress. It took an intervention by me at a roundtable at my advice surgery to gain expert counselling support for those families. If I had not intervened, I do not believe they would be receiving the expertise and counselling that they need. Our victim support needs to be much more holistic in its approach and to look at who is affected by knife crime.

We have been through the statistics on the lack of police. As other Members have said, because we are in a national emergency, we need to look at the enforcement side and talk about sentencing, police numbers and the lack of police in our schools. In London schools, we always used to have a full-time police officer in the school who the children knew. That developed a great relationship of trust. Those officers are now spread much more thinly, and often it is not the same police officer in the same school all the time. We need to put that right. For what it is worth, my view on funding is that if we can spend £800 million a week on Brexit, we can spend more on the safety of our families and young people.

I want to briefly talk about the work being done throughout the rest of the criminal justice system. Like many Members who have spoken today, I believe the legislation is probably right. Given their expertise in this area, I trust their views. As it is the Prisons Minister who is with us, will he say what he thinks constitutes a positive prison experience? I am one of the Members involved in the MPs scheme to visit prisons. I look forward to my first visit to HMP and YOI Isis next Friday. What does the Minister feel is the key to a positive prison experience? Some people say a short experience in prison is worse than a longer one, because some of the excellent prison officers working in our prison system have a really positive impact on many of our young people, particularly in our youth offender institutions. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that.

To expand on the view put by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, we know that literacy rates in our prison system are low. What is being done during sentences to push up the rates? Are there proper college courses? What are we doing so that when young people come out of prison they are ready to go into jobs and employment?

I cannot mention prisons without mentioning the use of drugs and how they have a negative effect on the staff inside prisons. Drug use can lead to attacks on staff, and staff themselves can become high as a result of Spice and other drugs being used in the prison system. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) mentioned that the Express has called for longer sentences. If longer sentences mean more low-quality experience with more drug use and attacks on staff, low morale and a lack of skills training, literacy or other meaningful, purposeful activities, I cannot support more and more and longer and longer sentences if they do not address the problem.

The National Audit Office has commented on the privatised service; it is poor value for money and is not leading to the outcomes that we want to see. We have very high rates of recidivism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West mentioned earlier, and, unfortunately, a revolving-door system. I want to make a brief point about the prevention strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central mentioned social services’ involvement with young people, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I work closely in the London Borough of Haringey. We met the Home Secretary several months ago and he promised to look at the resources and the interconnection between the numbers of police, the probation service and the prison experience, yet we still have a crisis on our hands. It is an absolute tragedy that we are not able to get a grip on the situation.

There is the bigger picture on funding when it comes to what local authorities can do. However, specifically on the point that has been made about even primary school children beginning a journey into a life of crime at the end of primary and the beginning of secondary school, I have sought a meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss Haringey. Incidentally, Haringey has the highest level of police resource of any London borough because of our problems. I want to ask him for a special fund for a buddying and mentoring scheme for the families described by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. Rather than a social services punitive approach, we need a friendly approach so that when the first letters come home from school saying that the youngster is not coping, the buddying and mentoring scheme can help the family and perhaps help with other siblings or whatever it is that stops that youngster thriving in school. We need to keep young people in school for as long as possible. We know that many of the prison population have been expelled or excluded from school from an early age.

Although it is tempting to jump on the bandwagon of longer sentences, I think the Minister has realised that what is important is the quality of rehabilitation in prisons and that we have to look much more closely at resources in schools and early intervention. We need also to look at what local strategies there are. A lot of good practice is carried out in Glasgow, which is certainly worth considering for other local authority areas. I want to emphasise that with Brexit costing £800 million a week, there must be more that we can spend on such a crucial situation.

I want to re-emphasise how pleased I am to see Members of all parties joining together to look at the problem as a national emergency. There is excellent police work in parts, but we must improve and increase that and bring together the passion that some Members have for this crucial area. We must not lose hope because that would be giving in. We must redouble our efforts to concentrate on the crucial question of young people and knife violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Out of that 82%, approximately 22% of the cohort do not receive a full custodial sentence. All that goes to the core of what the mitigating and aggravating factors in the judge’s hands are. As the hon. Member for Gedling pointed out, this is absolutely standard in any legislation that we bring forward—we leave some discretion for the judges.

One of the questions at the core of this issue has been raised again and again by the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova): deterrence. In order to be practical, we need to focus on the fact that the main thing that the evidence suggests makes a difference to somebody who is considering committing a crime is their chance of being caught. Their receiving a six-month, nine-month or 12-month sentence, or even a five-year sentence, is much less likely to motivate their behaviour than the chance of being caught. In burglary, for example, it is almost certainly the very low rate of conviction, rather than the length of sentence, which has made the difference. If someone feels that they have a 3% chance of being caught, it does not really matter how long the sentence is, which is why most of our focus is now going into putting another £100 million behind the police to focus on knife crime, rather than on increasing this form of sentence length.

There is another reason that we have to be cautious in response to the suggestions for a 25-year sentence for using a knife and a 10-year sentence for possessing a knife: any sentencing needs to balance with other forms of sentencing, otherwise victims and their families will feel that justice has not been done. What do I mean by that? If someone gets a 25-year sentence for using a knife in any way—cutting somebody with a knife—while the minimum custodial sentence for murder is 15 years, it would be very understandable that a family would look at somebody getting 15 years for murder and wonder why somebody else was getting 25 years for using a knife. The same would be true if someone got 25 years for using a knife and another person got 25 years for killing somebody with a knife; the family would understandably ask, “How come this person is getting 25 years for using a knife to wound, when here is another person getting 25 years for committing murder with a knife?”

It is a fundamental principle of our law that we look at the consequence of the crime and the culpability of the criminal; we do not look at the weapon used. We do not determine whether somebody used a crossbow, a gun or a knife; we look at whether it was murder or grievous bodily harm. What form of offence was committed? That is really important, because if we start introducing offences based purely on the type of weapon that is used, we will end up with injustice being felt all the way through our legal system. That does not mean that we cannot look at sentencing, but this particular proposal does not make sense.

Let me address the proposed 10-year sentence for possessing a knife. Currently the minimum sentence for possessing a firearm is five years. The public would feel a deep injustice if someone were to get 10 years for a knife and another person got five years for a firearm—it simply does not make sense. In thinking about sentencing, we cannot think about just one type of offence; we have to think about the effect on the whole system.

I shall move on quickly, because I am aware that we have trespassed on your patience for a very long time, Mr Davies. I want to discuss early intervention and prevention, supporting communities, and effective law enforcement, which are the three central planks of any response to knife crime. On early intervention and prevention, the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Croydon Central made very eloquent interventions and speeches. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for—given Scotland’s extraordinary success in this area—a very modest and charming speech. I thought it was a very intelligent speech, which demonstrated that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution and that we can learn from Scotland without replicating their approach. I pay tribute to what Scotland has done and the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman approached this debate.

Clearly we have to look at risk factors. The key risk factor in an individual involved in knife crime is the individual themselves. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, that could mean an acquired brain injury, or neglect, or abuse in the home. The second factor is the family context, which is central. In a recent study, 47% of people who had committed homicide had been in care—almost half of them. The third factor is the community context in which people operate. Living in a deprived neighbourhood makes someone much more likely to commit knife crime.

Another important factor is the school that someone attends. Serious risk factors include an individual being caught up in bullying at school or playing truant, and we need to do more to work with schools. Schools are quite good at picking up on children who are victims of domestic abuse, but are they good enough at identifying people who are being sucked into knife crime? Should we be working with Ofsted to try to assess schools on how good they are at identifying people who are being sucked into knife crime?

Someone’s peer group—the people with whom they spend their time—is the fifth biggest risk factor in determining whether they get sucked into knife crime. We can respond; this is not just touchy-feely nonsense. We can prove that a targeted approach, not a universal approach, is most effective. It is about being really smart with public money. The answer is not to lecture every child in the country on knife crime, but to ensure that we target those who are most at risk with the most serious support. The likelihood of a child going on to commit a violent offence can be reduced by 25% by bringing in a therapist with a case load of five or six children and ensuring that the therapist spends time with the family once a week. That one thing makes a huge difference. As we begin to build up these different things, we can begin to address some of the underlying causes of knife crime.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East spoke eloquently about supporting communities. We need a multi-agency public protection arrangement-style approach, which is something that, again, the hon. Member for Gedling referred to. We need to think about comms and how we get a proper media approach. We need to think about how that could be a digital media approach. How do we communicate to people the dangers of knife crime? We need to think about what we do with retailers who sell knives, which involves bringing in trading standards. If we are going to wrap up different bits of Government, we need trading standards to get under-18-year-olds to try to buy knives online. We need under-18-year-olds to go into shops—even small retailers—to try to buy knives and then report back to the retailer if somebody on the shop floor has sold a knife to someone who is under age.

We need to think about victim support, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said. The answer to her specific question is that anybody who witnessed the attack is entitled to victim support. They do not need to be related to the victim. I am very pleased that she champions that issue.

[Catherine West]

Does the Minister agree that victim support is inconsistent? It is very good in some places but not so good in others. What measures are the Government putting in place to monitor where it is not good, and what are they doing about it?

[Rory Stewart]

The answer is that we have just published a victims strategy, and we are investing more in victim support—more than £90 million a year—as part of a broader spectrum of support. We now have £200 million going into a youth endowment fund, which is directly driven by the strategy and responds to the public health approach pioneered in Scotland. We have another £22 million going into an early intervention fund to respond to the stuff that we have been talking about in relation to schools and families.

That brings me to effective law enforcement, where my hon. Friend the Member for Romford is pushing us. He makes a very interesting point about the way in which community policing does or does not overlap with ward boundaries. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) also spoke in some detail about community policing. We need to balance that with very specific stuff on knife crime, which means ensuring that there are plain clothes officers in hot spot areas. Hot spot areas are central. In Peterborough, we discovered that taking a hot spot approach, getting the right data and finding where the problems are coming from reduced violence by 37% without displacing it to any other area, so hot spot policing is central.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

Strangely, the experience is that there has not been displacement activity. We have looked at that very carefully, and it seems that, by targeting those areas, we grab it and do not push it on to neighbouring areas. There are different theories about that. One is that some of this is gang-related, and some gangs are geographically limited, so it is not likely to be displaced into other areas.

At the core of all this is crack cocaine and crack cocaine gangs, although the innocent victims have nothing to do with crack cocaine. Although drug use in general is coming down, crack cocaine use is going up. It went up 18% between 2016-17 and 2017-18. County lines, which are an incredibly important part of this, are also contributing. The same gangs are involved in both. That means that we have to get on top of mobile phones. We have had to bring in new ways of intercepting mobiles, which are central to the way that county lines gangs operate. We have set up a new National Crime Agency taskforce to focus on county lines, and we have had to be much smarter about data. In partial response to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who made a very good speech about that, one of the things we are learning is that our data has not been good enough. For example, we have not been coding knife crimes properly. Setting up smart software that allows us to pick out as knife crime something that was simply registered as grievous bodily harm makes a huge difference to our ability to target hotspot areas.

All the stuff that I have been talking about so far is about preventing somebody from being dragged into these gangs from early childhood onward. Then it is about the violent crime taskforce moving into an area to make sure that if somebody picks up a knife, we get them as soon as possible, particularly on possession. Then—God forbid—if somebody is convicted or uses a knife, we move on to the question of what happens in the courts, prisons and probation. There, too, we have to look at all these other issues. We have to take on board the fact that the real protection for the public is ensuring that the person who has offended once does not reoffend.

Statistically, we are doing a bit better on knife crime than on other crimes. Generally, short-term offenders reoffend at a rate of nearly 60%. Knife crime offenders reoffend at about half that rate. Half that rate is still too high, so we need to address addiction issues, get them jobs and help them into accommodation.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. Does he agree that the current approach to drug rehabilitation services in prison is not robust enough? Not enough people have access to those crucial treatments and are cured of drug and alcohol issues.

Draft Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 General Committees

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We will not divide the Committee on the regulations. We understand the purpose behind them and the need for them. I will not go into the detail of what is being proposed—the Minister has adequately dealt with that—but I will draw the attention of the Minister and perhaps the Ministry of Justice to the fact that so far we have had no information regarding what the Government’s proposal is in relation to the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. What will the agreements be in relation to them? They are important to ensure that our criminal justice system works efficiently and smoothly.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is little late in the day not to have clarity about those matters?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree, which is why I am taking the opportunity to raise these important issues. The outline of the political declaration is vague on security and justice co-operation, which almost suggests that the Government have given up on trying to deal with key European Union security arrangements, such as the European arrest warrant.

The declaration talks about negotiating “swift and effective arrangements” on extradition, but not about remaining within the European arrest warrant. As everybody knows, that facilitates the extradition of wanted people across European Union borders and stops us having to go through the long and detailed extradition process that applies to countries that are not part of the EU. Hon. Members familiar with the workings of extradition know that, when it is applied to non-EU state members, our Government can be stuck for years trying to get people brought to this country or get people from this country extradited back for serious criminal offences.

Having access to Europol assists massively, in the sense that Europol police officers co-operate on many issues across the criminal justice system, as does having access to the European criminal records information system. I am told that at the last estimate, we used the information on that system about 500 million times in one year. That extensive database system exists across the European Union and has been of enormous help to police and security agencies throughout the European Union and in our country. It would be helpful if the Minister or the Ministry were able to tell us what their proposals are in relation to those matters, whether any discussions have taken place, and whether any statutory instrument is in process. Essentially, we do not know what is happening.

Ironically, those issues have been raised in at least two Westminster Hall debates, to which I responded on behalf of the Opposition. We have raised those issues time and again. We are now two weeks away from 29 March, and we are no further forward in dealing with those important issues, which will ensure that the criminal justice system and the security and safety of our citizens are being dealt with properly and efficiently.

Draft Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 General Committees

[Lucy Frazer]

Of course, the charity sector plays a vital role in supporting those in need. The order will not affect the amount paid out to charities when there is a fixed bequest rather than a percentage, but I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the important issue of probate deserves fuller debate, in the main Chamber and in Government time?

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned, the changes that the Government are making were considered previously in Committee and were well documented in the press, and points on the matter have been put to me in the Chamber. We have the power to pass the legislation by way of statutory instrument, and that is how we are doing so.

It is important to have a fair and functioning justice system. I will touch on the service that HMCTS provides. The decisions that are made in courts and tribunals convict the guilty, protect the innocent and help ordinary people take back their lives. The Government are committed to providing a world-class courts and tribunals system that supports vulnerable people. We are investing £1 billion to modernise and upgrade the courts system but, as is obvious, an effective and efficient justice system requires proper funding and it has long been the case that users of our courts contribute towards the costs, reducing the burden on taxpayers. We believe that remains relevant and reasonable.

By asking those who use the courts to pay more, where they can afford to do so, we are able to fund areas where we charge no fees to vulnerable victims and users. That includes, for example, domestic violence protection orders, non-molestation orders and cases before the first-tier tribunal concerning mental health, where applicants do not have to pay a fee at all. In 2017-18, the running costs of HMCTS were £1.8 billion, but we recovered only £710 million of that—less than 40%—in fee income. That position is unsustainable, and it is right that we look to users of the service to contribute more. We anticipate that the new fees will bring in additional income of £145 million in the next financial year, helping to fund our courts and tribunals by reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I do apologise, Mr Gray. The JCSI is the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the SLSC is the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords. I am grateful for that intervention—acronyms boggle us all.

The SLSC also suggested that, as a result of the anticipated reduction in running costs following reform of the probate service, the fees are disproportionate. We disagree, as the fee is not tied to the cost to the service under the enhanced fee powers.

The reforms aim to make the probate service more efficient. Users will experience a better system, which has benefited from significant investment by the taxpayer. It is right that both the efficiency savings and the additional income are used to cross-subsidise other areas, with vulnerable users and victims not charged a fee at all. We are clear that this is an application fee for a specific purpose—to obtain a grant of representation to deal with a person’s estate—and that it is distinct from general taxation. The primary power states that any income generated by these enhanced fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective courts system. Charging fees is justified as a way of funding our courts system in order to provide access to justice, which the Government are committed to maintaining.

Finally, I will deal with access to justice and affordability. When considering the fundamental principle of access to courts, we need to be careful that nobody finds themselves unable to apply for a grant of probate because of the fee. The fees will never be unaffordable; the probate fee and any reasonable expenses are recoverable from the estate and determined by the value of that estate, so the executor will not be permanently out of pocket, and any difficulty paying the fee will, by definition, be one of cash flow. We believe that in most cases the executor will be able to access funds in the estate to pay the fee, including, for example, bank accounts and savings belonging to the estate. Data from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs indicate that the average estate is around 25% cash, whereas the fee will never be more than 0.5% of the value of the estate.

We have been working with UK Finance, the Building Societies Association and the Money Advice Service. The industry has set out bereavement principles to encourage its members to support the bereaved and allow necessary payments to be made from the deceased’s account to cover expenses, including probate fees, where possible.

Furthermore, when an executor is not initially successful in accessing funds from a bank or building society, the probate service is willing to write to the relevant institution to provide reassurance that are assets are needed to pay the fee. Other avenues of funding will also be available, including a personal or executor’s loan. In cases where people are unable to take advantage of any of those options, they can apply for a limited grant of probate to provide them with partial access to specific funds of the estate, for the sole purpose of paying the fee. That application will not attract an additional fee.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for generously giving way a second time. Does she accept that, despite a consultation and discussions with the voluntary sector, she has not really outlined how she is taking on board, and responding to, the Joint Committee’s objections? Could she give us more of an idea of how she is responding to those objections?

[Lucy Frazer]

The points that the Joint Committee has made are legal ones. It claims that the Lord Chancellor does not have the power to make this provision, but we say that he absolutely does. A specific provision in section 180 of the 2014 Act states that the Lord Chancellor has the power to charge fees in excess of the cost of the service. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to provide a fully functioning, efficient and fair Courts Service. That power and duty combined mean that he has not only the power to charge enhanced fees but, I suggest, a duty to do so when there are sufficient funds to run a fair and efficient Courts Service. Under the combined provisions, the Lord Chancellor has the duty to bring in the statutory instrument. In the House of Lords debate, in which there was not unanimity, two distinguished Members—Lord Pannick was one, and Lord Thomas may have been the other—made clear their view that the power could be exercised by the Lord Chancellor.

[Catherine West]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. Will she confirm how many situations there have been in which the Joint Committee has had serious concerns but the Government have pressed on nevertheless? Is this a precedent?

[Lucy Frazer]

I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer to a question that ranges beyond this SI, but the matter has been through the House of Lords. A fatal motion was tabled on the back of the Joint Committee’s report, but it did not pass, so the House of Commons is proceeding with the order.

We are confident that the fees will never be unaffordable, and that it would be wrong to exempt certain estates from fees purely on the basis of cash flow, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab. That is why the order also removes probate fees from the statutory Help with Fees remission scheme, because in normal circumstances fee remissions will not be necessary or justified. However, there is a safety net for the rare cases that do not fall into any of the categories mentioned previously. We have retained the Lord Chancellor’s power to offer a fee remission in exceptional circumstances where the executor has exhausted all other options to pay the fee and would suffer undue hardship as a result.

We intend to publish guidance on ways to pay probate fees, outlining all the options for financial support more clearly to those who are applying. We continue to work with external stakeholders to ensure that the guidance is effective, and we will publish it before any fees are changed. We have the power and the duty to ensure that the Courts Service runs effectively and efficiently, we have introduced a progressive system to ensure that the burden will be spread fairly, and we have taken an additional 25,000 people out of liability for the fee. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. There is fierce opposition to these proposed changes, from legal experts, charities and legislative bodies. The Government plan a probate fee hike from the current flat fee of £215—or £155 if the application is made by a solicitor—to a sliding range between £250 and £6,000, depending on the value of the estate. The changes encompass fee increases to a level that is nearly 28 times what some people currently pay. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Law Society, among many others, have joined a chorus of condemnation of the proposals.

Apart from the staggering increase in costs, the proposed fees have no bearing on the actual cost of the service provided. The services involved in a grant of probate are fundamentally the same, regardless of the value of the estate. The proposals are clearly disproportionate and excessive, but they also make a mockery of the long-standing principle that fees for a public service should recover the cost of providing it, and no more. I am frankly shocked that more Conservative Members are not fighting to maintain that fiscal convention.

Combined with the Government’s conviction that funds raised through the changes can be reinvested elsewhere in the struggling justice system, the proposals represent what the Law Society identifies as

“a tax on grieving families”.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has likewise suggested:

“To charge a fee so far above the actual cost of the service arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’”.

It is true that Government cuts have left the justice system in crisis. Prisons are overcrowded, the probation service is overstretched, courts are closing and people across the country are excluded from access to justice because of devastating cuts to legal aid. It is also true that time and time again the Opposition have called for the investment and resources that the justice system needs to operate properly. It is unacceptable that, through these changes, the Government intend to place the burden of covering those costs on the shoulders of vulnerable, grieving people.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that all these problems began when the Ministry of Justice was led by someone known commonly in the press as “failing Grayling”—

[The Chair]

Order. Not only should the hon. Lady not refer to a Member of Parliament by his own name, but to use such an expression is not appropriate in a Committee of this sort. The Committee must focus only on the SI before us, not on other, more peripheral matters.

[Catherine West]

I do apologise, Mr Gray. Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the wrecking of our prisons and all the other terrible things that have happened since 2010 go back to the cuts to legal aid and to our justice system, and that grieving families will pay the price?

[The Chair]

In the context of this SI only, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the hon. Member for Ashfield for their thoughtful submissions. I am grateful for the engagement I have had with my hon. Friend and for our discussions about this important area. The Ministry of Justice acknowledges that this fee will affect people—often those who have properties valued in excess of a certain amount—and we have not taken this decision lightly. I am grateful for the points he has made today and during the course of our consideration on how to go forward with this issue.

What we are proposing is an enhanced fee, not a tax. It is not charged by the Treasury and will not be collected as general taxation; it will be ring-fenced for the courts. In fact, we are raising this money because it is our obligation to ensure that we have a fair and efficient Courts Service. My hon. Friend is right to identify that people try to evade various taxes or to manage their affairs—in a legitimate way—to ensure that they do not pay certain amounts to the Treasury. We will of course always tackle illegitimate attempts to do that, but that is not a reason not to take action or bring measures forward. We have identified this measure as suitable to ensure that our Courts Service is properly funded, and we think it is fair and proportionate, which is why we are bringing it forward.

On shared assets, it is interesting that couples—whether married, in a civil partnership or otherwise—are free to choose how to hold their property. Paying probate fees on property held by couples as joint tenants—the most common form of property ownership between couples—would not be required.

I will deal with several points raised by the hon. Member for Ashfield. She suggested that it is inappropriate to charge a progressive fee in circumstances in which the cost does not necessarily relate to the fee charged. I recently read an interesting article—in The Law Society Gazette, I think—that suggested that solicitors actually charge progressive fees for their services in relation to the estate, which may or may not vary according to the work they do. That is a third-party article and I do not rely on it, but it is interesting to consider.

I am quite surprised that the Opposition oppose a progressive fee, with those who can afford to do so paying more. I thought that was at the heart of the Opposition’s way forward on taxation. They regularly suggest that we should pay more income tax if we earn more money. We are putting forward a proposal that allows people to take on a burden where it is fair to do so.

[Catherine West]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I will just finish these points. The hon. Member for Ashfield suggested that the justice system needed more money. Mr Gray, you were right to point out that this debate is on a particular SI. However, our justice system does need more money, and we are putting forward a reasonable, progressive, proportionate way of ensuring that it has that money. For those reasons, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that she does in this area. I know that she is a frequent visitor to Chelmsford prison in her capacity as its constituency MP. In fact, I understand that she might almost have her own cell there, such is the regularity of her visits. She highlights the important relationship between prison officers and prisoners. We are introducing the key workers programme across the prison estate, and the early signs are that it is making a positive difference in terms of relationships and of reducing violence. There is more work that we need to do, but I am pleased that we are able to do that and to ensure that prison officers get the training they need to make best use of it.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Out-of-control drug use in prisons fuels violence. Yesterday I met the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), the Health Minister who is dealing with this issue. I want to know what more can be done both before a prisoner enters the prison system and afterwards, as well as how we can ensure that during that crucial period when he—it is usually a “he”—is in there, he can have proper drug rehab so that his time in prison is not wasted.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have formed a drugs taskforce and we are working with law enforcement and with health partners across Government to restrict supply, reduce demand and build recovery. The taskforce is developing a national drug strategy, which will provide all prisons with guidance and examples of best practice to support them in tackling drugs. I should also point out that we are investing £6 million in 10 of the most challenging prisons to tackle drug supply and reduce demand. There is a greater focus on drug detection, on dedicated search teams, on body scanners and on improved perimeter defences.

Courts IT System

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Issues have arisen, but HMCTS staff have been working around the clock to resolve them. They have been working extremely hard, and I would like to thank them for that work. Issues have arisen, but we have attempted to resolve them as quickly as possible.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What compensation will be made available to victims of crime who wait so long to get justice, and to other court users who often give up days of work? There is a massive loss of productivity in the system already, and issues such as this continue to aggravate the situation. Will there be a compensation system that is open, so that people can claim back for such lost productivity and make other claims they may have in relation to this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. It is important not only to be able to initiate proceedings easily, but participate in them. Recently, we had early testing of full video hearings held in a tax tribunal, enabling the applicant and the respondent to not have to travel to court or take any time off work. In fact, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was based in Belfast in those cases and the applicants were elsewhere in the country—and, in one case, in Greece. That small scale evaluation shows that participants found them convenient and easy to understand. They will not be appropriate for every case, but this is technology we need to consider.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The number of litigants in person has shot up. What urgent action is the Ministry of Justice taking to ensure proper representation for people across the board?

[Lucy Frazer]

Litigants in person do need support through our justice system, which is why, over the past few years, we have spent £6.5 million investing in helping them through the court process. Many of our reforms which form part of our £1 billion programme will make sure that forms are easier, applying to court is easier, getting to court and the whole process is easier for people whether they have a lawyer or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee to do that when parliamentary time allows. Of course, there are currently some pressures on parliamentary time.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

T7. Too many prisoners are in desperate need of drug rehabilitation services. How many inmates are currently using drug rehabilitation services and what is the MOJ’s target for 2019?

[Rory Stewart]

We do an assessment whenever a prisoner comes in. In a prison such as Humber, for example, almost a quarter of the prisoners are currently on some form of drug rehabilitation treatment. Those are very high numbers. Drugs in prison are a big issue: nearly 50% of prisoners have alcohol or drug-related addiction issues. The NHS takes the lead on that; I would be happy to get back to the hon. Lady with the figures.

Future of Legal Aid

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

That is not something we discussed during the passage of LASPO, because the impact on criminal law seemed relatively mild compared with the effect on civil law, but that came afterwards. Now, eligibility restrictions and the reduced availability of legal aid practitioners as a result of cuts mean that people often go into court unrepresented, even in quite serious matters, which of course increases the risk of miscarriages of justice.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of the Government’s policies has not fallen evenly on all members of the population and that women have been particularly affected? Often, they will represent themselves and be repeatedly brought back to court by a perpetrator, perhaps their ex-partner, and have to face the trauma all over again. That has been a particularly damaging result of the changes introduced by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Rightly, more attention has been focused on domestic violence than on perhaps any other single issue. Although changes have been made, they are nugatory as far as the Government are concerned. In many cases, women are still being victimised because of the changes that LASPO introduced, against the assurances given at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend identifies the fact that by pulling away parts of the legal aid structure, the whole thing has collapsed in many areas. It is often the case that one problem, which may be housing or debt, is caused by another solvable problem, which is the lack of welfare benefits. Because they are not in receipt of welfare benefits, someone who would otherwise be eligible for legal aid may not qualify under the eligibility rules, and therefore the whole thing spirals down.

As I was saying, I have three specific requests. There are other discrete issues that I wish to mention and I will say a bit more about those in a minute, but I would like some indication from the Minister, when she responds to the debate, that at least these three specific requests are being considered as part of the review.

LASPO was billed as having four objectives,

“to discourage unnecessary and adversarial litigation at public expense; to target legal aid at those who need it most; to make significant savings to the cost of the scheme; and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer.”

The Ministry of Justice predicted that the budget for the legal aid bill would be cut by £350 million. It promised that there would be innovative ways in which advice and legal services would be offered, allowing costs to be cut while still maintaining access to justice.

There was, however, little of substance. Instead, LASPO swept away 60 years of the development of legal aid, taking almost all private family law and most of social welfare law out of scope, introducing onerous restrictions on eligibility, and turning on its head the principle of a right to advice and representation. Now, matters would be eligible for legal aid only if expressly allowed by the schedule to the Act.

Later, criminal legal aid got the LASPO treatment. It did not feature in any detail in the original Bill, but subsequent secondary legislation introduced cuts of a similar scale for crime, opening up the prospect of advice deserts and, as we have already touched on, miscarriages of justice, where defendants do not meet eligibility criteria but cannot afford representation.

[Catherine West]

On the narrow point of advice deserts, does my hon. Friend agree that some London boroughs are appreciative of the Bar’s pro bono unit and the free representation it offers, and indeed, in my borough’s case, of the St James’s Church Legal Advice Centre in Muswell Hill, where the excellent Peter Thompson, who is not 21 anymore but still gives legal free aid, works? However, access to justice is a genuine issue in other parts of the country, where retired solicitors are simply unable to provide that kind of support.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, however good pro bono services are, they cannot replace legal aid and it would be wrong to say that they could. Secondly, I will give an example of a letter I received in preparation for this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas)—who is in attendance and is himself a distinguished solicitor—may want to comment on. It says that in north Wales only two firms are contracted to do mental health work, in an area with eight hospitals with mental health services, and only one firm is doing community care—that is, social and health care law. That situation is far from untypical.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

A manageable case load is of course absolutely central, as is the flexibility to make sure that when a probation officer has a high-risk offender—a criminal who is more challenging to deal with—they have smaller numbers of offenders to deal with and can adjust their case load according to the risk posed by the individual and the complexity of the case.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

What assessment has the Minister made of NHS and non-NHS-provided drug-curing services? The drug problems seem to be getting worse, rather than better, in so many of our prisons.

[Rory Stewart]

This is a serious issue, not only in England but in the devolved Administrations such as Scotland, where I saw very high levels of methadone prescription. I am happy to sit down with the hon. Lady to discuss the subject in more detail.