Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

David Hamilton Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman’s comments undermine the whole purpose of this Bill, which is, supposedly, to exhort the public to do things that they would almost certainly do anyway. I do not think the public need this Bill to be encouraged to volunteer or to be told that they should intervene when situations demand. The practical point, which St John Ambulance makes, is that if there was a much greater emphasis on first aid training and on people being competent to intervene, not only would the outcome of interventions be better, but people would feel more confident about intervening. The evidence shows that the principal reason for non-intervention is that people lack the confidence to know what to do and fear that they may make the situation worse. I do not believe for a moment that people do not intervene because of concerns for their own safety.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we have to make sure that this is pushed through under Sewel, because although this is English and Welsh legislation, its effects will cover the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed. The Minister must be picking up, if not from this debate, but from the Bill’s previous stages, that at best there is weariness with more soundbite legislation and littering the statute books—[Interruption.] I believe that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has the brief within the Justice team to stop unnecessary legislation across government. He has taken his eye off the ball, because he cannot stop unnecessary legislation in his own Department.

The Under-Secretary must appreciate that criticisms are not coming just from Opposition Members. Although I do not expect him at this stage to abandon the Bill in its entirety, although he might as well put it out of its misery, he could at least take on board some of these sensible and constructive points. I appreciate that they are coming from me and so he might not want to do that, but other Members on both sides of the House have made the point about the wording of

“person’s own safety or other interests”

and about the poor drafting of clause 3.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

David Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

The Opposition, as we saw during their time in government, appear to believe that the only solution to anything is to create a law about it. If laws and statutory guidance already exist and it is common practice for certain processes to be followed, it might not be necessary to create a law to achieve the aim that she wants. The question that she should be asking me is whether we have put in place a mechanism to achieve the aim that she rightly identifies, and the answer to that is yes. We do not need to create further legislation to deal with something that has already been dealt with satisfactorily under present arrangements.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Will we have continuity? What discussions has the Minister had with the devolved Parliaments to ensure that we have a similar approach across the country?

[Norman Baker]

We and my officials have regular discussions with the devolved Administrations on this and other areas, and irrespective of political control the relationships between central Government here in London and the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are sensible and good. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular concerns and believes that there is a scenario in which the approach has not worked and is willing to drop me a line, I would happily look into it for him and take it further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to schedule 7, which, unless I have got this wrong, appears in the next string of amendments, but as he raised the matter I will deal with it now. He quite properly asked about our response to the changes to the schedule recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In coming to a final view on that and other matters relating to the schedule, we want to take into account the judgment of the judicial review into the David Miranda case and the report of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation into Mr Miranda's examination. Once they are available, we will naturally study them carefully and decide how best to proceed. Should we conclude that further amendments to schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are appropriate, we will seek to bring them forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) rightly drew attention to the peculiar powers—peculiar in the sense that they are unique—of the City of London. For example, it is the only authority to be designated a secondary authority for the control of dogs. Let me be clear on this point: we are, of course, deleting the reference to private Acts. Much of the land operated by the City of London corporation, as he mentioned, is done so under a private Act. As worded, the measure would have resulted in that land not being designated as a public space for the purposes of chapter 2 of part 4. That would have the perverse result of restricting the corporation’s ability to manage land that it is entitled to manage under a private Act, and that is why we have taken the steps that we have in that regard.

I hope that that deals satisfactorily with the amendments and points raised by hon. Members.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 88 agreed to.

Lords amendment 89 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendments 90 to 111 agreed to.

After Clause 152

Abolition of defence of marital coercion

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

David Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram]

I will develop that point at the end of my speech and explain why it is so wrong that it has taken so long even for the matter to be debated in this House.

The people we are talking about were arrested on trumped-up charges, received a dodgy trial and were given unsound convictions. That would not be allowed and would not be acceptable today, and it should not have been allowed and should not have been acceptable then. It was a legal process that would shame a third-world dictatorship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon has suggested, the exploitation of workers and the unacceptable and unsafe working conditions in which workers were forced to operate were the bedrock of the first ever national building workers’ strike in 1972. As a result of that national strike, which was settled on 16 September 1972, the building workers succeeded in achieving an across-the-board increase for all trades working in the construction industry. There was, however, enormous political anxiety as a result of that victory, fuelled by a targeted lobbying campaign by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. Shrewsbury 24 campaigners firmly believe that the end of the strike was in fact the beginning of the employers’ campaign to have pickets prosecuted, and to use that as a deterrent should they ever have the temerity to take further industrial action.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that that was the precedent that started the ball rolling for all the disputes that came after? That dispute set the goal, which is why it is important to have transparency. After that court case came ’74, ’84, and the miners’ strike—the legal position changed at that point.

[Steve Rotheram]

Absolutely, it was used as a battering ram to send a message not just to construction workers but to working class people throughout the country who decided to take industrial action.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

David Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

The previous speaker should not read anything into the silence in the Chamber. It was not acquiescence; we were stunned into silence.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on being the driving force in bringing forward new clauses 2 and 3 on veterans to which I would like to speak briefly. I also welcome Government amendment 5 on the extension of restorative justice, which is a positive step. We had a debate on that in Committee. The Minister said that he would go away and consider the matter and he obviously has done so. I am sure we are very grateful for that.

I was glad to read in the papers over the weekend that there will be a Government review of how to improve the rehabilitation of ex-service personnel who are in prison, and that it will be led by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). I wish him well in that work. I have a feeling that it will be done consensually and that we will all be able to muck in, as it were, and do our best to come up with some good answers for the Government, because the work is long overdue.

As the House may be aware, I have campaigned for a number of years for greater recognition of the welfare needs of veterans of the armed forces, and I have raised the issue in this place and elsewhere since 2008. In January 2010, I published a paper that contained detailed recommendations for increasing the support available to veterans, in particular to those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. I have also had the privilege since 2010 of chairing the veterans in the criminal justice system parliamentary group, which meets under the auspices of the justice unions parliamentary group. The group comprises parliamentarians and representatives from criminal justice trade unions and charities, including the National Association of Probation Officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Prison Officers Association, the Royal British Legion and several military charities. The group is able to disseminate good practice to ensure that it is available throughout the British isles, and I think that that is coming together and is working. I hope that at some point the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border might care to attend, to contribute and to perhaps pick up on a few points.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

May I draw attention to what is happening in Midlothian, where Police Scotland has been giving out leaflets to local pubs, clubs and voluntary organisations? When an arrest takes place, the police now ask directly whether the person arrested is an ex-member of the armed forces, which helps quite a bit. We should replicate such things and learn from each other.

[Mr Llwyd]

That is precisely the point of the joint group, and I am proud to say that the police force where I live, north Wales, have been doing that for more than 12 months, as have others. It is difficult, though, because some ex-military personnel are not prepared to admit to having been in the forces; they feel they would be letting the regiment down. Then there are others—we have all met them; they always seem to be former leading members of the SAS—who have not served a day any more than I have. It is not simple—we need to be doing a complex set of things—but I am pleased that we now have something to concentrate our energies upon.

I first became aware of the disproportionate number of veterans in the system when appearing as a barrister in Chester and north Wales Crown courts one particular week some years ago. I noticed that increasing numbers of people who were appearing in court for serious crimes professed to have a military background, and often the distinguishing feature was that their crimes were inexplicable, or at least difficult for a person who had not served in theatre to explain. I remember one case vividly of a young man who had come back from Iraq and was standing in a fish and chip queue when the lad behind him who had had too much to drink bumped into him. He knocked the hell out of the young lad in no time at all. He was trained to look after himself—almost by reflex he would do it—and he ended up doing three years for assault.

When people come back from theatre, they need to be decompressed and brought back into society. Heaven knows how I would be affected, had I been out with the forces in theatre. It is natural to presume that many people will suffer mental scars as a result of service, and we owe it to them to do something about it.

Presumption of Death Bill

David Hamilton Excerpts

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I will talk about the Missing People charity later, but for now let me just commend it on the wonderful work it does.

Alistair said:

“The 7 year wait on the death certificate was a serious strain on everyone involved with my father’s case. Dad made sure that we would have been provided for in the event of his death but due to the circumstances the death certificate was not released for nearly 7 years. Our house was defaulted on and sold, the boat was sold and I very nearly had to change schools in the middle of my GCSEs. Due to some serious hardships from my Mum and step father I managed to complete my GCSEs and A-levels and am now flying as a commercial pilot. I think I was one of the lucky ones!”

As a result of my researches into the issues involved in such cases I have also been fortunate enough to meet Peter Lawrence, the father of Claudia, who has now been missing for more than three and a half years. I, along with many people throughout the nation, have been extremely moved by his story. I have listened carefully to his testimony, and he is very clear that the law needs to be updated. Peter would also like provision to be made for guardianship, and I shall touch on that subject, too.

For all the reasons I have set out, I hope this Bill can be progressed, and the law can be improved for people with missing family members who find themselves in the distressing situation of not being able to deal with their affairs following the disappearance of a loved one.

I am acutely aware of the fact that many people have spent a great deal of time—more than I have spent—in campaigning on this issue, and in bringing energy to advancing a solution to this problem. Some of them are present today, supporting the Bill. I must mention a 2009 private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Daventry, Lord Boswell of Aynho. Unfortunately, his Bill did not make it on to the statute book, but I have based my Bill on its contents.

I also wish to put on the record my gratitude to Baroness Kramer, who has a similar Bill in the other place. Should my Bill be fortunate enough to progress, she will be able to assist in the other place. I have also had a great amount of cross-party support from hon. Members, particularly those associated with the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, especially the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who, unfortunately, cannot be here today.

At this point, I should mention the help I have received from the Missing People charity, whose sharing of expertise has been so invaluable on this subject. I am thinking, in particular, of the valuable evidence it gave the Justice Committee prior to the publication of its report in February. Missing People was founded in 1986 by Mary Asprey OBE and Janet Newman OBE following the disappearance of the estate agent Suzy Lamplugh. The charity supports the friends and family of those who have gone missing, young people who have run away from home and missing adults. Missing People offers advice and practical support, as well as maintaining a database of missing people and providing a central point of contact to report sightings. It also provides advice on working with the media and the police, and on the legal and financial difficulties faced by families when somebody goes missing.

I would like to use my speech to pay a particular tribute to the chief executive of Missing People, Martin Houghton-Brown, who has been a tireless champion of presumption of death legislation. He has made his case persuasively in the media over many years and during the Justice Committee’s inquiry. Martin is, unfortunately for Missing People, about to leave that organisation, but I know that I speak for everyone he has worked with in wishing him well in his new role. Martin is generally acknowledged as one of the most effective advocates and campaigners in the charity world.

The Justice Committee’s report on presumption of death strongly recommended primary legislation on this subject. It stated:

“Non-legislative solutions to the problems of resolving the affairs of missing people are necessary but not sufficient. Primary legislation is required…the fact that, in 34 years, only one person who was the subject of an order under the Scottish Presumption of Death Act 1977 has reappeared is a compelling argument that the legislation provides a clear, robust court process to resolve the question”—

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

rose—

[John Glen]

I would be delighted to give way.

[Mr Hamilton]

I wish the hon. Gentleman well with his proposals. Would it not be relatively simple to use the Scottish and Northern Irish approaches, and then replicate them in England? That would make things much easier. We are not starting anew; we can actually adopt what happens in other areas to see how things can go forward.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and this Bill indeed builds directly on the provisions in Northern Ireland and Scotland, learning many of the lessons from their experience.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

David Hamilton Excerpts

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the criminal injuries compensation scheme as proposed by the Government. The scheme is due to be considered formally in Committee on Monday, but the concerns are serious enough to be properly aired in the Chamber today. They received a full airing in the other place on 25 July, and I believe that the Lords were wrong to approve the proposals. Significantly, the Minister in the Lords was the only speaker to support the proposals. The previous Government had the good sense to withdraw a similar proposal and I urge the current Administration to do likewise.

I am also grateful for information received from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the Communication Workers Union, both of which have members who are particularly affected by the proposals. I make no apologies for taking up the cause on behalf of the trade unions and the thousands of employees they represent. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has also provided information, for which I am grateful too. I should add that one of my trade union memberships is with the CWU.

Let me return to the origins of the scheme. In a House of Lords debate in December 1962 on the “Report of the Working Party on Compensation for Victims of Crimes of Violence”, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, told peers:

“For the innocent victims of such crimes we all feel sympathy, but we feel that sympathy alone is not enough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 December 1962; Vol. 245, c. 305.]

That principle should be maintained. In 1964, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was established, later becoming the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority—the CICA—which administers the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

In October 2010, the then Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), told the House that the scheme was underfunded. As a result, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, which has resulted in the current proposals, which exclude innocent victims of crime from the scheme, denying them financial compensation. Before that, in 2009, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), now the new Lord Chancellor, showed his caring side, saying:

“And law abiding, decent people are asking—who’s looking after me? Well, my message to them is that a Conservative Government will start looking after you.”

Withdrawing the proposals will enable the Lord Chancellor to match those words with deeds. To withdraw compensation from these innocent victims of crime goes against the very purpose of criminal injuries compensation and ignores the view held by successive Governments for decades that victims of violent crime deserve more than just words.

The scheme uses a tariff system that is split into 25 bands. The Ministry of Justice has proposed removing the first five bands—which currently include all claims valued under £2,500—from the new scheme. According to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority annual report for 2010-11, 48% of all payments made by the CICS fell into bands one to five. That represents 17,700 victims a year on average. By way of example, under the new scheme someone who has suffered a minor disfigurement of the face will no longer be entitled to any compensation, and someone who suffers temporary partial deafness will also be denied compensation.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter to our attention. I should like to declare an interest as someone who has a scar right across his face. The wound was inflicted without provocation and the person was convicted for it. I believe that it would be an outrage to take away the possibility of compensation from anyone who was entitled to it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.

It is unacceptable to say these injuries are not life-changing, as the Minister in the Lords did. Many victims say that they are. They suffer flashbacks, nightmares and panic attacks, for example. Moreover, many of the awards in tariffs 1 to 5 are for permanent physical disabilities such as corneal abrasions, speech impairment, or a “continuing significant disability” to a finger—very important for those who do manual work such as filling shelves or delivering letters. Nor are the awards “penny-pinching” amounts, as the Minister claimed. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. To a shop worker on the minimum wage who has to take weeks off work because of a fractured hand, £2,000 compensation is a substantial amount that would help to pay the debts accumulated during the period off work.

As well as removing the first five bands, the Government propose to slash compensation for claims between £2,500 and £11,000 in bands 6 to 12 by up to 60%. Those seven tariff bands represent 42% of criminal injury compensation payments under the CICS. Injuries covered by those bands can include the loss of a finger, two collapsed lungs or the partial loss of an ear, and they account for 13,000 cases a year. The Lords Minister stated that shop workers would still be able to claim for mental trauma of six weeks or more, but that is incorrect. To qualify for the level 6 tariff, a person requires diagnosis by a psychiatrist, which does not occur for several months, until courses of anti-depressants have been tried.

Over the past five years, 23,000 postal workers have been attacked by dogs. On average, 12 postal workers are attacked by dogs every day, amounting to about 5,000 being injured every year in dog attacks. Many are never able to return to their job, owing to the physical and psychological effects of the attack. Many are scarred and receive facial disfigurement for life. Many have lost fingers through dog bite amputations and many others have sustained dog bite injuries leading to painful lacerations and puncture wounds, nerve, ligament and tendon damage, fractures, serious infections, disability and disablement. I was bitten by a dog while delivering leaflets during the last general election campaign. I was not seriously injured—I required only a plaster and an anti-tetanus injection—but it was a disturbing experience.

That group of workers who suffer the disproportionate majority of violent dog attacks now needs the support of the law, the enforcing authorities, the judges and the courts in dealing with the problem. It also needs the support of the scheme, which in many cases is the only remaining avenue for obtaining personal injury compensation. Many postal and BT workers have suffered personal injury through violent crimes, as defined by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, caused by irresponsible, reckless and negligent dog owners who are usually uninsured and often do not have the financial means to pay any compensation and cannot therefore be obliged in law to do so. I understand that this is known to lawyers as the doctrine of the man of straw.

The injuries to postal workers may be physical or mental, or both, and in some cases they have resulted in near death. However, the proposals remove the right to claim for injuries resulting from an animal attack. As a result, postal workers will have nowhere to go for effective compensation. Dog owners are unlikely to have third-party insurance, and may have no assets from which to recover a civil litigation claim or pay a criminal compensation order. The current scheme is the last resort for victims of dog attacks, and it will be removed under the proposals. All of the public will lose the prospect of compensation for dog bites, not just postal workers.

No one asks to be a victim of crime. Reducing, or removing altogether, the amount of compensation available to those people will send a clear message that the state does not view their injuries as serious or important. The Government propose to retain awards at their present level for injuries resulting from sexual offences and physical abuse, but that accounts for only about 8% of victims of all crimes who will be unaffected by the changes.

The Government misrepresent the current cost of the scheme. In the consultation, it was claimed that the scheme was not sustainable, and that it had historic liabilities of nearly £400 million. The Minister inflated that figure to £532 million by including possible claims yet to be lodged with the authority—presumably for crimes not yet committed, which seems odd, to say the least. However, examination of the authority’s accounts shows a stable and sustainable scheme, and that view is supported by the impact assessment.

Closer analysis shows that the average annual cost to the Ministry of Justice of existing tariffs is £192 million. It has varied very little, between £171 million and £214 million over the past four years. The cost for 2012-13 is estimated at £181 million under the current scheme rules. Even if I supported the Government’s deluded economic policy, I would have to point out that reducing the scheme’s budget by £50 million will do relatively little to reduce the Government deficit. It is a small sum in the scheme of things.

Historical liabilities have been reduced to 73 cases, estimated at less than £150 million, most of which the authority says should be cleared by 2014. Almost all these cases involve children who were seriously injured before the tariff scheme commenced in 1996, and whose ongoing needs could not be established until they reached adulthood. Neither is the CICA lax in exercising its responsibilities, with over half of claims refused. In 2011-12, of 58,000 applicants, over 30,000 claims—52%—were disallowed.There is therefore no immediate financial imperative to make these drastic cuts, which will impact so seriously on some of our most vulnerable people who most need support.

To add insult to injury, under the new scheme victims will be asked to pay up to £50 up front to obtain their initial medical evidence. Making victims pay this amount when they may be off work or still emotionally and mentally scarred from their attack could prevent genuinely injured victims from bringing a claim. Victims of violent crime who are eligible for compensation under the new scheme and who are unable to work owing to their injuries will also suffer as a result of changes to the scheme. These victims will be worse off because of changes in the arrangements for future loss of earnings, which will now pay only statutory sick pay, which is currently £85.85 a week. If someone were to work a 37-hour week on a minimum wage of £6.08 an hour— £225 per week—before they were injured, they could be worse off by £139.15 a week, which could result in serious financial hardship.

Changes to the scheme also fail to take into account the current employment market. The new scheme states that to be eligible for a loss-of-earnings payment, the victim will have to have been in

“regular paid work for a period of at least three years immediately before the date of the incident giving rise to the injury”.

The scheme offers exemptions if the person had a good reason for not having been in regular paid work—for example, because of age, care responsibilities or full-time education. In the current climate, however, it would not be unusual for someone to have been moving between temporary jobs, or to have had a period of unemployment in any three-year period. The new scheme will prevent someone from receiving a loss-of-earnings payment under such circumstances, even if they are now in regular paid work.

The changes to loss-of-earnings provisions will affect not only those who have been injured but relatives eligible for dependency payments after the loss of a loved one. The dependency payments, which are awarded to someone financially or physically dependent on the deceased, will be reduced as a result of these changes, and may not be enough to support the dependant.

Some of the most vulnerable people in our society are, of course, children, yet this new scheme will do nothing to protect children who are victims of certain violent crimes. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recently consulted on the possibility of extending section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to make it a criminal offence in England for an owner of a dog to allow it to be out of control on private property, such as on the owner’s own property. That consultation closed on 15 June, and no response has yet been published. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice has proposed removing the right of compensation from those attacked by animals, unless the animal was

“used deliberately to inflict an injury on that person”.

This would create a scenario in which a child who has been mauled by a dog will be denied compensation, even though a criminal offence may have occurred—if the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is extended—and the child will have sustained life-changing injuries.

While the Government are retaining all awards for sexual offences, the decision no longer to cover the cost of private medical care may prevent a victim of child abuse from receiving counselling and support quickly. While these services are available on the NHS, private funding would prevent any delays, and prompt treatment can be vital in such circumstances.

It is the Government’s intention to cut the lower standards to provide better protection and support for the most seriously injured victims. There is, however, no evidence that this has actually happened. Even those with the most serious injuries will suffer as a result of these changes. The Government should show common sense and compassion and withdraw these proposals.