Sentencing White Paper

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman, who speaks with experience as a practitioner, is right to highlight that issue. I have considered whether we should just ban release on a Friday, but that is probably the wrong answer because, frankly, services need to be there every day of the week. There should be no distinction between what happens on a Friday and what happens on a Wednesday. That is why proper cross-government work has been done to ensure that accommodation and potential jobs are identified when an offender is released and to ensure the benefits system is working if no job is available. That is at the heart of what I am trying to do.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I welcome this statement and thank the Lord Chancellor for meeting me to discuss the tragic case of my constituent, Sean Morley, who was killed in a horrific hit-and-run accident. Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the punishment really must fit the crime for those who cause death or injury by dangerous driving? As Sean’s mum said, in the wrong hands, a car is as deadly a weapon as a gun or a knife.

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous work on the behalf of his constituents. As Solicitor General, I dealt with a number of egregious cases of causing death by dangerous driving in which the 14-year maximum just simply was not enough to deal with the true justice of the case. I have seen far too many judges struggle with the maximum, and I have seen the Court of Appeal’s struggle with it as well. We can end that struggle now by allowing far greater discretion when it comes to the most appalling crimes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to work with (a) local authorities and (b) Police and Crime Commissioners in the management of offenders.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to work with (a) local authorities and (b) Police and Crime Commissioners in the management of offenders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

We want to strengthen partnership working between probation and local partners, including local authorities and police and crime commissioners, and the future probation model announced on 16 May will better enable this with a new regional structure led by regional directors responsible for the delivery and commissioning of probation services. They will work with local partners to identify shared priorities and co-commission services that will better support the management of offenders in the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Tracey]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the transforming rehabilitation reforms had the very sensible goal of reducing reoffending by extending supervision to a group of offenders who previously did not have it?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I do think that is a very sensible goal, and sometimes that point has been missed in the debate about the transforming rehabilitation programme. My view is that we need to build on those reforms, and that is why on 16 May I outlined the changes we were making. My hon. Friend is right that we need to be ambitious and provide coverage for as many ex-offenders as possible.

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

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 25th February 2019 General Committees

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe—our paths seem to cross quite frequently when considering private Members’ Bills, and it is always a pleasure.

I wholeheartedly support the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park on his persistence and determination in ensuring that it reaches Second Reading. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place and welcome her. I was one of a very few Members who were in the Chamber when the Bill was objected to. The disgust and disappointment on both sides of the House when the Bill was blocked were clear. I made a point of encouraging the Minister, when an urgent question was brought on 11 February, to bring forward the Bill as quickly as possible. I am grateful that she has responded. I shall not delay the Committee long, but I want to raise two questions and thought that it would be easier to do so in a short speech, rather than through interventions.

First, how many cases before the family courts does the Minister anticipate will be directly affected by the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned that around 137,000 women and girls in this country have been affected by FGM. Will the Minister anticipate how many of those cases may go before the family courts?

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park on bringing forward the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is right to raise the number of cases involved. He served, as I did, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for International Development. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that although the Bill will help relatively low numbers of people in this country, DFID’s work around the world since 2013 has helped millions of women avoid FGM? There has also been more education around the world, thanks to the Department’s excellent work.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, not least because I look back fondly on my stint as a PPS in the Department for International Development—a wonderful Department that does much good across the world. The matter that we are considering is a good example of the work it does, and we should all be proud of it. Whenever I am challenged about why we spend money on foreign aid, I say that we should be proud to stand up and say exactly what we do—which in this case has been to help millions of girls across the world. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and indeed to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park, who also mentioned DFID’s work.

My second question arises from the fact that we have heard from several Members that there has been only one successful prosecution. I may be going slightly broader than the Minister’s remit this afternoon, but I still want to challenge her on what more can be done, within the ambit of the Bill or otherwise, to ensure that there will be successful prosecutions whenever FGM is carried out in this country.

The Bill clearly makes a technical amendment to the law, but I like to think that it is achieving something more than that, because we are debating it in Parliament and highlighting the issue. That is important in itself.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Craig Tracey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

In many cases there are, but in many cases those costs inflate. I referred to the fact that 47% of the value of pay-outs get consumed by legal fees. I hope that the fixed tariffs provision, which is not the subject of any amendment but is in the Bill, will further simplify matters.

One reason why we have a problem that needs solving in this area—new clause 1 would inhibit that solution—is qualified one-way costs shifting, which was introduced a few years ago. I understand why it was introduced—the shadow Minister referred to David and Goliath—but under a system of qualified one-way costs shifting, unless the respondent can prove quite a high level of intention, deceit or malfeasance, the claimant’s legal costs are borne by the respondent in any event, even if the claim is dismissed. That creates significant moral hazard, as it means that claimants can bring claims, even if those claims have relatively little merit, safe in the knowledge that they, or indeed their advisers, will never have to bear the cost of the claim. It is a one-way bet, which means that claimants may as well just have a go and see what happens. The number of cases in which a claimant is shown to be so egregiously fraudulent that they have to pay the cost is extremely small. This one-way bet—this free option—that the legal system now provides is one of the reasons why there has been such an explosion in claim numbers.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I should declare that I chair the all-party group on insurance and financial services. I agree with my hon. Friend’s opposition to the new clauses. Does he have any thoughts on why personal injury claims have risen by 40% over the last decade, yet during the same period, cars have become safer and accidents have reduced by nearly a third?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Robinson]

I am talking about the compensation that would normally be paid by train operators.

It is important that we tackle whiplash fraud, but it is hard to explain to those who are injured that the same injuries sustained in different circumstances—for example, a comparable injury at work—should be compensated differently. Under the reform proposals, someone who had been involved in a road accident would be entitled to £3,910 for a whiplash injury lasting up to two years, but would be unable to recover the cost of paying a lawyer to assert their rights. Someone who suffered an identical injury at work would be entitled to £6,500, and would be able to recover costs. For many people, it goes to the heart of ensuring fairness that comparable injuries should attract comparable awards—if awards are indeed to be given—whether those injuries were sustained in a road traffic accident or incurred at a place of work.

If, as is hoped and predicted, these changes result in savings to the insurance industry, it is important for members of the public to see that the savings are passed on via reduced premiums. Concerns were raised about that in Committee, and I am encouraged that the Government accepted amendments that will hold insurers to account. As amended, the Bill places a statutory requirement on insurers to provide the Financial Conduct Authority with certain information to enable Treasury Ministers to report to Parliament on whether the insurers have upheld their public commitments by passing on savings. The Government have estimated that these measures would lead to a reduction in motor insurance premiums of approximately £40 per customer per year. I expect the industry to demonstrate that savings are being appropriately passed on, so that consumers can see fairness in the insurance system.

[Craig Tracey]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the support for the Bill in its current form? A survey conducted by Consumer Intelligence showed that the most important factor in a low-value personal injury claim was a simple claims process, and the least important factor was the ability to claim back their legal costs.

[Mary Robinson]

It is absolutely right that people support reform of the system, and I support the Government’s action in doing so. I am keen to ensure that we can secure fairness for everyone through the Bill.

According to the recent AA British insurance premium index, these reforms have already triggered a fall in premiums owing to the expectation that claim costs will fall, and only yesterday it was reported that motor premiums had fallen for the first time in years: last month they were almost 10% lower than they had been in the same month in 2017. That means that the average driver is £45 better off as a result. Consumers will be pleased with lower premiums, but they must be convinced that that is worth any detriment that they may experience should they become victims of traffic accidents.

We might not be having this debate at all were it not for fraudulent claims. I can almost guarantee that, at some point in the past year, every Member—including, perhaps, the Minister—will have been contacted by a claims management company, usually wrongly asserting that they have been involved in a car accident recently, and can lodge a claim. That seriously concerns and aggravates many people. A 2017 YouGov report shows that more than two thirds of people are in favour of a ban on cold calling for personal injury claims. Cold calling is a particular issue for the vulnerable and the elderly, who may be talked into making fake or exaggerated claims. A Justice Committee report earlier this year stated that the recent restrictions on cold calling by claims companies

“do not go far enough and that an outright ban should be introduced.”

Bedford Prison

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

That is absolutely correct. First, it is a fact that there are some very, very good, very dedicated prison officers who are doing a very good job, and it is worth paying tribute to them.

One challenge that we face is that we have a lot of new prison officers, partly because we have been doing a recruitment drive—we have 3,500 more officers than we had two and a half years ago. A lot of these people have not developed the five or 10 years’ experience on the wings that are really needed to learn how to exercise legitimate authority. What can we do about that? We can improve the training courses, with a particular focus on violence before the officers arrive in the prisons; we need much more mentoring, with experienced officers alongside new officers; and we need to make sure that people own the wings again—that a particular designated officer is responsible for a particular wing. In the end, though, it is absolutely right that in some prisons—unfortunately, this is the case in Bedford—with some of the less experienced staff, they are backing off the prisoners. They do not have the confidence, experience and training. That is what we need to build up to get the right form of legitimate authority.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

In general, the use of body cameras by police forces has produced very positive results. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what progress is being made in rolling them out across the prison estate?

Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Rory Stewart]

I am not in a position to accept or reject that figure—I am not familiar with that figure and I am not clear how it has been arrived at. I am happy to look at that in more detail before Report stage of the Bill.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

The Minister mentioned the reforms of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, but is it not right that, in the two years following those reforms, insurers passed on £1.1 billion of savings, and that average premiums dropped by £50?

[Rory Stewart]

Again, the Competition and Markets Authority is our best guide. Its job is to look very closely at the operations of its industry. It believes that this is a very competitive industry, which is why it is confident that the reforms introduced led to savings that were passed on to customers and why it believes that the current reforms will lead to the same. If that does not happen, it would be interesting to hear Labour Members’ theories about why competition is not operating in this market and why they believe there is a cartel. If that is the argument they wish to make, they will be assisted and not impeded by the Government new clause, which will enable them to gather the information with the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority in order to make precisely that case.

Civil Liability Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I declare the advice that I have received from Thompsons Solicitors, which will be entered in the register.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Stringer. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on insurance and financial services, and as a former insurance broker.

[The Chair]

Are there any other declarations of interest?

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Tracey]

I just do not see any reason why someone who drives as part of their employment should recover a different sum to somebody else—one of our constituents, for example—who is driving in the normal daily course of their life, because they can still claim loss of earnings. The Bill does not change that, so they can still be compensated if they lose money as a result of being unable to work.

[Gloria De Piero]

It would be grotesque nonsense for a cyclist or a pedestrian injured through no fault of their own to find themselves subject to a tariff and a £2,000, let alone a £1,000, small claims limit when the target is whiplash and, in turn, apparently fraud. The same applies to workers. What on earth have they to do with whiplash for the purposes of fraud? If the Government will not move on this point, the only conclusion one can draw is that there is one rule for the small number of those wealthy enough to own a horse and another for the tens of thousands who drive for a living, many of them not in well-paid jobs—say, the paramedic or the refuse collector—who run the risk of whiplash when going about their jobs.

It is deeply disappointing that the Government are sneaking through crucial parts of their changes via a statutory instrument in order to avoid this sort of scrutiny. I wish to make perfectly clear today where the Opposition stands on workers for the entire package of measures. Workers, like vulnerable road users, should be excluded from both the Bill and the small claims increases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I shall speak to amendments 10 and 11, which have been tabled by Opposition Mems. I stated on Second Reading that Opposition Members had expressed deep concern about the implications of the Bill and the policy agenda that the Government were operating under the cover of cracking down on fraudulent claims. Fraudulent claims are wrong, but we are not in the midst of an epidemic of fraudulent claims as Ministers would have us believe. In fact, insurance industry data show that of all motor claims, 0.17% were proven to be fraudulent in 2016. This is an extremely low percentage.

[Craig Tracey]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the figure of 0.17% relates to all motor claims, not just those relating to personal injury?

[Ellie Reeves]

The point about fraudulent claimants is that it is a very low percentage, and the insurance industry has reporting duties. No insurance company has stated that fraud is a material risk. It is not correct to suggest that there is an epidemic of fraudulent claims. Such claims should be tackled, but the way to do that is to go after those who commit fraud rather than innocent victims of road traffic accidents. The implementation of the Government’s package of measures in this Bill and the forthcoming changes to the small claims limit would eviscerate access to justice for many people with genuine injuries. In its current form, the Bill would replace the long-standing and established Judicial Studies Board guidelines with a rigid tariff that would undermine judicial discretion and leave injured claimants worse off.

I agree with the conclusions of the Access to Justice group in its written submissions to the Committee, which state that the increase in the small claims limit and the introduction of a tariff system is punitive and arbitrary. The draft tariff system presented by the Ministry has shown an overwhelming reduction in payments for pain, suffering and loss of amenity for whiplash injuries. In comparison with the 2015 average pay-outs under the existing guidelines, injuries lasting 19 to 24 months would be compensated 13% less, and those lasting 16 to 18 months would be compensated 29% less, while injuries lasting 13 to 15 months would be compensated 45% less. I note that Government amendment 4 would ensure the Lord Chancellor consulted the Lord Chief Justice before proceeding with regulation changes, but it is not satisfactory and would not see access to justice delivered for injured claimants. It misses the point of what is damaging about the move from judicial guidelines.

The Bill classifies injuries dealt with by the proposed tariff scheme as minor. I am not sure by whose definition a minor injury is one that can last up to two years. By most standards, it is surely a significant injury, and I welcome the shadow Front-Bench amendments that would see injuries of more than a year removed from the scope of the tariff system. To grade an injury of up to 15 months as minor and restrict damages to nearly 50% of what they are currently is a clear, ideologically-driven assault on access to justice.

Moreover, the evidence submitted to the Committee by the Carpenters Group showed that 15% of road traffic accident injuries lasted for more than 12 months. We cannot insist that the punitive measures invoked by a move to a tariff system affect the ability of a substantial number of people to access justice. Further, on the secondary legislation changes to the small claims track from £1,000 to £5,000 for road traffic-related personal injury claims and to £2,000 for all other types of personal injury claim, the package of measures, of which this Bill forms part, will see thousands of injured people fall out of scope for free legal advice and potentially denied justice. Current predictions are that around 350,000 injured people will be put off pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault. Access to justice is on the line for thousands of genuinely injured people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

In 2016, there were 7,572 confirmed fraudulent motor claims and 58,576 suspected claims, resulting in 66,147 detected motor fraud claims. However, my point goes much wider. Because of the asymmetry of information and because it is impossible to prove whether the injury has occurred—particularly at the three to six-month period—it is impossible to put a precise number on it. We can be confident, through the soaring inflation in the number of these claims, that many are exaggerated, to put it mildly, even though we cannot prove the exact number beyond the 66,147 that are actually fraudulent.

[Craig Tracey]

I spent 20-odd years on the frontline dealing with these types of claims and acting on behalf of the client rather than the insurance company. For genuinely injured people, we found that financial compensation was a minor consideration in the overall claim. They wanted to feel better and get put right. Is it not right that insurance companies should focus on rehabilitation, treatment and proper diagnosis rather than worrying so much about value?

[Rory Stewart]

I absolutely agree. It is very important to keep reminding the House that we are focusing on general damages, not special damages. In other words, we are focusing on what ultimately must be a difficult, subjective judgment about the level of pain that an individual experiences, and not loss of earnings or other forms of treatment.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Craig Tracey Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Let me begin by declaring an interest, in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for insurance and financial services. Before my election in 2015, I also spent more than 20 years working as an insurance broker, so I have had a lot of experience of dealing, in the front line, with claims such as those that we are discussing this evening.

I think it important for Members to understand the scale of the problem that we face, and I want to talk about that before dealing with the specifics of the Bill. Reforming this industry does not just mean tackling the cold calls that I am sure colleagues on both sides of the House have had to endure from people informing them that they have had an accident when, in many cases, they have not; it also means addressing the out-of-hand compensation culture that has been allowed to evolve in the United Kingdom. When so much money is at stake for the multi-million-pound personal claims industry, the reality of whether someone has sustained a genuine injury is often merely an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a barrier to the making of a claim.

Over the last decade, the number of personal injury claims resulting from road traffic accidents has risen by 40%, although vehicles have become safer, and there has been a long-term decline in the number of road accidents of nearly a third. The Department for Transport’s 2016 annual road casualties report showed a 3% reduction in the 2015 figure, and the 2016 figure was the lowest on record. Let me put that in context. According to data from the Compensation Recovery Unit, during 2017-18 the number of personal injury claims rose to 650,000 from 460,000 in 2005-06, about 85% of them being whiplash-related. In the last year alone, the insurance industry was able to identify 69,000 motor insurance claims that it considered to be fraudulent, and undoubtedly many more went undetected.

[Ruth George]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Craig Tracey]

I am sorry, but given the time constraint and the fact that many other Members want to speak, I will crack on.

During my latter years as a broker, I saw the attitude change. Exaggerated claims were often seen as a “victimless crime”, and as being okay, because the insurance industry would pick up the tab. Although the amounts of compensation paid for soft-tissue claims are relatively small, the associated claims-handling costs—including the costs of investigation, processing, lawyers’ fees and medical reports—are disproportionately large. For example, a claim for about £1,000 may ultimately cost the insurer two or three times that amount. It is clear that fraudulent claims have a direct impact on the cost of every one of our constituents’ motor insurance premiums. Given an average of about 60,000 vehicles per constituency, there is a considerable cost. According to the Association of British Insurers, for every pound paid out in compensation, nearly another 50p is then paid to the claimant’s lawyer in costs.

The Bill gives us an excellent opportunity to fix the current broken system, a system that is not working for millions of motorists throughout the country. It will bring about long-overdue reforms of personal injury compensation. It will provide a fairer system for claimants, insurance customers and taxpayers by creating a more proportionate compensation system in the case of both whiplash-style claims and claims to which the personal injury discount rate is applied, while ensuring that claimants still receive 100% compensation. Part 1 sets a new fixed tariff for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, and sets a higher financial threshold for lawyers’ recovery of their legal fees from insurers. The new system will also make it much easier and faster to make a claim, with a new online portal ensuring that small claims can be processed efficiently.

It is important to note that larger claims following serious injuries, and any payments for medical bills or loss of earnings, will be unaffected. The savings will result from the cutting out of a very expensive middleman, which must be a win-win for our constituents. The findings of a recent survey back that up, showing that nine people out of 10 think that in this area legal costs are too high, and 71% would be happy to use an online portal to make their claims rather than requiring legal representation.

Supporting this Bill will help provide a fairer environment that will inevitably lower motor insurance premiums for millions of motorists. The Government consider that the reforms would lead to savings of about £1.1 billion and rightly expect that to be passed on to motorists, which would result in an average saving per motor insurance premium of about £35. Many insurers have already committed to pass on cost benefits to their customers in a letter to the Lord Chancellor, which was signed by firms representing 86% of the ABI’s UK motor and liability insurance business members. That letter provides the clear intention of the industry and, significantly, the benefits that this Bill represents to every motorist in the UK.

I had hoped to speak a little more about the discount rate, but time is against me. I am, however, very supportive of the reforms and it is striking that the Government have had to set aside £6 billion extra for the NHS alone just to cover potential claims over the coming years. Every day that these reforms are not put into effect customer premiums will remain higher than should be the case, which will have a particular impact on old and young drivers who usually already have to pay the highest premiums.

Finally, although this is not directly attached to the Bill, I welcome the wider proposals which suggest an increase to the small claims track limit to £5,000. The current level has not been increased since 1991 and has been changed to £10,000 for virtually all other types of claim.

It is clear that compensation culture has got way out of hand and penalises everyone who insures a car. When I first started in insurance, whiplash or soft tissue injury claims were virtually non-existent, but over time they have grown to become a significant manifestation, which, as we have heard, cost motorists anywhere between £40 and £90 extra on their policy.

Critically, this is an industry where in many instances the claimant is not the main beneficiary. The measures put forward in the Bill will not, as is suggested by its opponents, affect the ability of people to seek fair compensation for their injuries or suppress access to justice, but will, more reasonably, cut the incentives for a claimant industry to disproportionately profit from our constituents’ misfortune.

I have had dicussions with a range of insurers and they are committed not only to passing on the savings directly to consumers, but also to provide a renewed focus on rehabilitation from the injuries, which from my experience of dealing with genuinely injured customers was exactly what they wanted. These reforms are long overdue and will deliver benefits to millions of motorists, while delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to

“reduce insurance costs for ordinary motorists by cracking down on exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims”.

That is why I am backing the Bill’s progress today.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill

Craig Tracey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 6th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) in supporting this very important private Member’s Bill, and let me repeat the congratulations that have been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who has shown such deftness in guiding this private Member’s Bill this far. She has done a fantastic job and I strongly congratulate her on her fantastic work. This private Member’s Bill is incredibly important, because the widespread—I am afraid that it is widespread—use of mobile phones in our prison estate is causing very serious problems. I will use three cases to illustrate exactly how serious these problems are, because individual cases are always more powerful than simply quoting statistics.

The first case is that of Shaun Walmsley, 30 years old, who had been imprisoned in HMP Liverpool for a particularly brutal gangland murder. This man was a high-level criminal, running criminal gangs, and had murdered one of his criminal associates. He engineered a hospital appointment by feigning illness and, over the course of three months, used a mobile phone that he had illicitly obtained in prison to plan his escape. During his second hospital appointment, he was sprung out of custody by masked men brandishing machine guns in an episode that police say had been planned over a period of three months, using the mobile phone that he illicitly had. If measures such as those in the Bill had been in place, it would have been impossible for Shaun Walmsley to plan and execute his escape, and the prison guards who were accompanying him to the hospital—Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool—would not have faced machine gun-wielding thugs as they escorted the prisoner.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) on progressing this Bill so well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentions, a lot has been said about making calls, but I think the point he is making is that, with rapidly advancing technology, the problem is much broader because it is about access to such things as the internet and applications, which are aiding criminals in prisons, and we need to stamp that out as well.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point: this is about not just voice calls, but data. The case studies that I am mentioning illustrate that the use of mobile phones in prisons is not a harmless activity that we perhaps frown upon, but to some degree, can turn a blind eye to. In fact, what we are seeing is the organisation of very serious criminal activity being facilitated by mobile phones. A moment ago, I mentioned an escape involving machine gun-toting masked men.

A second example is that of Imran Bashir, who was incarcerated in HMP Garth in Lancashire. He was using a mobile phone in that prison to co-ordinate a widespread heroin-smuggling and heroin-dealing network, bringing untold misery probably to hundreds of people who were buying and taking heroin. He was running this criminal enterprise via a series of conference calls, which he had organised and was participating in using his mobile phone. My hon. Friend mentioned the use of internet and data. This man was using conference call facilities to organise his criminal network. Had measures such as those in the Bill been in place, it would have been impossible for him to do that.

A third example is that of convicted armed robber Craig Hickinbottom, aged 65. He was serving a prison sentence but was using a mobile phone that was in his possession to run a very well-organised smuggling network, which was bringing prohibited items into not just his prison, but several prisons in Scotland and the north-west. He was only uncovered when cameras on the prison perimeter, which were being used to film wildlife—that might have been an elaborate cover by the authorities—spotted drones flying over the prison walls carrying prohibited material, some of which was suspended on fishing line.

The subsequent investigation revealed that Craig Hickinbottom had been co-ordinating a vast smuggling network over many prisons. More than £1 million-worth of banned material had been smuggled in, including drugs, mobile phones, SIM cards, offensive weapons, a screwdriver—I assume that it was intended to be used as a weapon—a Freeview box and a remote control. He was eventually convicted and given a new prison sentence. All that nefarious activity was facilitated by his having a mobile phone.

The prohibition of mobile phones in prison is no minor matter. I have given just three examples of extraordinarily serious criminal activity being organised and orchestrated using mobile phones. Taking mobile phones out of our prisons will prevent that serious criminal activity. The Bill therefore has my complete support.

I have two questions, either for my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes or for the Minister—if he does not intend to make a speech, I will happily take an intervention. My first question relates to clause 1(2), which states:

“The Secretary of State may authorise a public communications provider to interfere with wireless telegraphy.”

The word “authorise” indicates that a provider can be permitted to do that, but can they be compelled? Can the Secretary of State actually require a provider to jam the signal or in some other way prevent mobile communications? The Secretary of State may authorise it, but what if the provider declines to act? Does the word “authorise” give the Secretary of State enough power? Should it not be replaced with “compel”? I see that the Minister is tempted to intervene, but he is indicating—with extraordinarily dextrous hand signals—that he will return to that point in due course.

My second question does not relate directly to the legislation, but it touches on it. The Bill relates to public communications providers, but is it possible to install equipment in prisons to allow the signal to be jammed independently of the providers? Could the Prison Service bring a portable device into a prison in order to jam the signal?

Oral Answers to Questions

Craig Tracey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I met Hannah Jones at a Westminster Hall debate organised by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). That is a dreadful case. I gather that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is reviewing it and that that information will be transmitted to Hannah this afternoon.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

T7. Does the Minister agree that greater use of release on temporary licence for work placements can play a significant role in helping inmates to transition back into society and, crucially, reduce reoffending rates?

[Mr Gauke]

I very much agree. Indeed, that is a point we make strongly in our education and employment strategy. Release on temporary licence can help get people into work when they leave prison. If they are in work, they are less likely to reoffend, and that can bring down crime.