Domestic Abuse Bill

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Let me add my congratulations and thanks to everyone who has been involved in the Bill’s introduction. Let me also pay tribute to the many moving speeches we have heard today. The debate has brought out the best in this place, but I want to mention in particular the moving accounts given by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah).

We need to recognise that, although we are taking a momentous step, it is sad that we need to be here to introduce a Bill such as this. It is a sad indictment of our society. Given that leaders have such an important role in determining the culture and tone of society, we have to ask what that says about the quality of our leaders and our leadership. Although we have legislation which says that women are equal to men, we all know that that is not the case. Unless we address the power inequalities that women face in their jobs, whether they relate to gender pay gap or glass ceilings, it will be a challenge to tackle the power inequalities in their relationships. We need to address the two together. I should like to hear from the Minister how the Government will go about adopting the whole society approach—not just a cross-departmental approach—that has been recommended by Women’s Aid.

In the remaining time that I have, I want to add to the comments that have been made today, and also to ask specific questions about our public services and, in particular, our social security system. We need to ensure that the system is supportive, and does not impede women—or men—who may want to escape from abusive relationships. We have already talked about universal credit and the single household payment that is the norm. I know that the Minister will refer to the alternative payment arrangements that are available, but someone in an abusive relationship may have problems with access to those. The wait of at least five weeks for universal credit is a penalty in itself, but women in refuges may wait for double that time, especially if they have had to leave without any paperwork. One of my constituents, Suzanne, was very brave and left an abusive relationship, but was moved from tax credit to universal credit because of her changed circumstances—the so-called natural migration—and is now £400 a month worse off. The two-child limit is another issue that must be addressed.

I also want to say something about disabled women. As I told the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities when it was investigating breaches in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities back in 2015, disabled women are twice as likely to experience domestic abuse as non-disabled women. That abuse may be physical, emotional, sexual or financial, and the abusers may be personal assistants or, in many cases, carers. We must ensure that that is recognised.

Finally—I am being quite brief today, Mr Speaker, which is not like me at all—the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that there needs to be a statutory approach to ensure that public services support both men and women, and has drawn particular attention to the importance of the social security system, which I have already mentioned. That needs to be a human rights approach, and those services need to be adequately funded.

Court Closures: Access to Justice

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered court closures and access to justice.

I am pleased to have secured this debate. It concerns a topic of extreme importance, the rule of law and justice in our country. One of the underlying tenets of our legal system is that there should be equality before the law. I shall shortly explain how the piecemeal way in which the Government have implemented the court closures, coupled with the cuts in legal aid, has undermined that principle and left vulnerable people, disabled people and those with low incomes trying to gain access to justice with the scales firmly tipped against them. Our legal system can only deliver justice if everyone can access it fairly and engage with it, but the fact is that those pursuing local justice now find that it is not so local.

My first charge against the Government is that the court closure programme, since 2010, has been disjointed and fragmented, and is not logical. Cambridge magistrates court is a fine modern court, purpose-built in 2010. It is close to the railway and bus stations in central Cambridge, has modern facilities, and is ideally placed to serve the needs of the local community. Last year, it somehow found its way on to a list of eight courts that were due to be closed this year for—allegedly—being underused, dilapidated or close to other services. Of those eight, seven have been or will be closed by the end of the year. The Cambridge court survived only because it was on a long finance lease with restrictions. Had that not been the case, it would surely have closed a mere nine years after it had opened. This bizarre situation demonstrates the inconsistent decision making of Ministers.

Then there is the chaos and confusion surrounding the closure of Lambeth county court, in a prime location in Cleaver Square in Kennington. In 2015, it was announced that the court would close, despite overwhelming consultation responses opposing the move, and that all housing possession cases would be transferred to Camberwell magistrates court. Then Camberwell was earmarked for closure, and so a new plan was hatched. In early September 2017, Lambeth closed, but some court users were told that it would remain open to deal with some possession cases, while others would be dealt with at Stratford and at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court. Then court users were told that the Inner London Crown court would deal with Lambeth’s possession cases. Finally, it was settled that they would be dealt with at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. That just shows how ill prepared Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is to deal with its own court closures.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.

Oldham magistrates court was closed a few years ago. What is so disappointing is that there has been no compensation in the form of reasonable adjustments to accommodate disabled people—for example, those with agoraphobia who want to give evidence via a video link. Is that not an absolute travesty? Disabled people already face a host of difficulties, and this is yet another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent point. He is quite right: that is indeed the case.

Women’s Aid has highlighted that fact that, in rural areas in particular, survivors of domestic abuse must travel long distances to reach family courts. Apart from the question of childcare arrangements and the cost of travel, there is a serious safety concern, as the perpetrators of the abuse may be travelling on the same route at the same time, owing to the infrequency of public transport services in those areas. That has the potential to make an already stressful and harrowing experience even worse. I note that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that it is considering whether to pay for taxis to ferry defendants and witnesses from the most remote parts of the country to hearings. This just goes to demonstrate that little or no consideration has been given to the impact of court closures on court users.

As alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), there is a court modernisation programme and most people are broadly supportive of this £1.2 billion programme and making best use of technology to help alleviate the pressures on courts and tribunals, but this is not the panacea for court closures. There are those who will be digitally excluded due to difficulty in reading or writing, but even those who can navigate their way through the technology will still need proper advice.

Many litigants in person do not understand the legalities in their case. This can lead to unintended consequences such as pleading guilty to something they have a defence to, or choosing a path that may lead to them being penalised with costs. The cuts to legal aid funding and the lack of access to legal advice leads to a raw deal for some. They should be getting justice. The Public Accounts Committee said in its report “Transforming courts and tribunals” that

“without sufficient access to legal advice, people could make uninformed and inappropriate decisions about how to plead, and that the roll-out of virtual hearings could introduce bias and lead to unfair outcomes.”

Video hearings are not suitable for all cases because the informality of giving evidence by video could result in adverse inferences being taken about a person’s demeanour, which would not be the case if that evidence was being given face to face.

Some courts are not even ready to deal with court modernisation. Court No. 1 in Taunton only has one plug socket on the lawyers’ bench, making it impossible for all lawyers present to charge their laptops. Wi-fi is also poor or non-existent in some courts.

The reality is that HMCTS has no overarching vision of what it expects courts and tribunals to look like in the future. Unless it provides data to make it possible to make a robust assessment of the equality impacts of current court closures, it should cease closing courts.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is talking about the impact of court closures on access to justice. If we look in a cumulative way at all the different cuts—for example, to legal aid—as well as what he is describing now, we see that the lack of access to justice that many of our constituents are facing is profound. Does he agree that this is a real indictment and shows the impact of this Government’s policies on the justice system?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is certainly right about the cumulative effect of cuts to legal aid and court closures making it harder for the most disadvantaged to access justice as they should be able to.

Local justice and fairness and equality before the law need to apply to everyone equally. The court closures programme has fundamentally failed and skewed things against those on low incomes and the disadvantaged. This has to stop and has to stop now: justice must be for everyone, not just those who can afford it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

This Government are committed to the Union and to respecting the distinct Scottish legal system. I am fully aware of the matter before the Supreme Court, and we look forward to its judgment.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of his Department’s compliance with article 13 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities on access to justice.

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

The Government remain fully committed to the convention, and we assess the UK’s implementation of article 13 of the convention as part of the reporting process to the UN. The latest report to the UN was this year. To improve access to justice for people with disabilities, we are investing £1 billion in reforming the Courts and Tribunals Service, to continue to ensure that we have a modern justice system that is accessible to all. We are also increasing the use of technology to benefit the mobility impaired, who may have greater opportunity to participate in court and tribunal services without needing to travel to a hearing centre.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Article 13 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, to which we are a signatory, goes well beyond access to and the right to a fair trial and includes all aspects of democracy, rule of law and the effective administration of justice for all people. Given that disabled people have been disproportionately affected by cuts to legal aid for social security cases, and that hate crimes against disabled people are on the rise and employment discrimination is increasing, when will the Justice Secretary ensure that we fulfil our commitments under article 13?

[Mr Gauke]

We do fulfil our commitments, and I have to point out what we do as a country. We are proud of our record in supporting disabled people, including through the landmark Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and we have some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, including the Equality Act 2010.

Future of Legal Aid

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I am concerned about the impact on sick and disabled people. In some cases, up to 90% of social security claimants on the employment and support allowance, the personal independence payment or the disability living allowance have been denied access to support as a result of the cuts, but 70% of people who go on to challenge the decision, in person or with a welfare advocate, will be successful in their claim. Is that not a real injustice?

[Andy Slaughter]

The figures speak for themselves. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am responding to a series of powerful interventions. Across the board, matter starts have gone down from more than 900,000 at their peak in 2010, to about 140,000 in the past year. That is a dramatic fall, but in some areas, such as welfare benefits, the decline has been even sharper.

Victims Strategy

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

Let me begin by echoing what has been said by Members, including my hon. Friend the Minister, about the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the amazing work that she has done. She is championing her constituents, as her name suggests, and it is important that she does not become a victim in any sense. There should be no witch hunt surrounding any of us who do our jobs and champion our constituents.

I welcomed what the Minister said in introducing the victims strategy, which is an important piece of the jigsaw that includes the need to reduce crime overall, to secure justice for victims and to reassure people and make them feel safe. The serious violence strategy, the Offensive Weapons Bill, the forthcoming domestic abuse Bill and this victims strategy should be all of a piece rather than working in isolation.

If the Minister wants any advice on how to roll out the strategy and make it a really meaningful document, he could do worse than come down to the Churchill Room at 7 o’clock this evening. Coincidentally, a couple of my constituents, Ray and Vi Donovan, will be attending a dinner there. They run the Chris Donovan Trust. What happened to them was this. Chris was walking along the street with his brother one day. He was beaten up, left to die, run over and dragged by a car—murdered, 16 years ago.

Ray and Vi, who naturally experienced a lot of anger and horror at losing their child, have turned that horror, that anger and frustration, into an incredible charity. They actually met the perpetrators who served their sentence, and they now go out into prisons and schools and work on restorative justice. They realise that victims are not just the people who have lost loved ones, and that any serious crime such as murder creates any number of victims because people’s lives are written off.

Ray and Vi also work with other charities. Along with the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who is in the Chamber, I attended an awards ceremony that they hosted recently. They present awards to other small charities, typically run by the families of other victims of serious crime who have been murdered. They have taken that negative energy and turned it into something really positive to prevent people from going down the same path and creating more victims. One of the people to whom they awarded a prize was the Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, who had suffered a horrendous amount of abuse from a long-term stalker.

I have often spoken about domestic abuse in this place, and I am glad that the subject has arisen now. We must go further in ensuring that we support domestic abuse victims fully. A family member has gone through some harrowing times over the last few years because of her controlling, coercive partner. Fortunately, she did not have to be cross-examined, but that is not always the case, despite the Government’s best efforts. I know that many courts are working to try to separate entrances—certainly in the criminal courts people cannot be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator, but in the family courts they can. Organisations such as Women’s Aid have given many examples of that.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has been affected by the fact that universal credit payments are made to only one member of the household, but that can make the position even worse for families in which domestic abuse is an issue. He might like to have a word with the Secretary of State, who does not seem to want to introduce split payments to this flawed process.

[Paul Scully]

I do not think that that applies in the case that I have mentioned, but the hon. Lady has made a very interesting point.

We need to do more to ensure that victims cannot be questioned by perpetrators, which, effectively, extends suffering for many years.

There have been more than 100 victims in London this year. We have seen victim after victim portrayed in photographs in the Evening Standard. That senseless loss of life is often, but not solely, a result of gang activities. It is important to remember these victims’ names, from Kyall Parnell, who was only 17 and who was stabbed in Tulse Hill on New Year’s Eve, to Sandra Zmijan, whose body was found in a back garden in west London only about three weeks ago, on 24 September.

Just this week I was walking through Victoria station on my way to Westminster, as I usually do on my daily commute, and saw members of the Metropolitan police and some family members and activists handing out leaflets and posters. They wanted to find one of the most wanted people, Shane O’Brien. He murdered someone three years ago, and we must not forget his victim’s name: Josh Hanson, who was murdered in Eastcote in Hillingdon three years ago. They are trying to find Shane O’Brien and bring him to justice, so that Josh Hanson’s family, who are victims as well, can have some justice. If anybody can help, the incident room can be reached on 0208 785 8099, or people can report via Crimestoppers. We need to look at all these things as part of a holistic solution in London and across the country.

That wider solution includes ensuring we can protect our police on the street. I am working closely, as our party’s vice-chairman for London, with Shaun Bailey, who is talking about putting 1,000 more police on the street, using lessons from New York, which is utilising artificial intelligence and technology to release police from certain activities and on to the frontline. But this is not just about money, although that is important—I know every London MP of every political hue calls for extra resource for the Met police; it is also about how that money is spent. The Met police have £110 million from Government—from the precept, and therefore from the Mayor as well. So this has come from right across the board: the Mayor has the money, and he has given it to the Met police, and now we have to make sure that they can use it effectively to recruit the policemen we need.

We must move on from that consideration, too, because by the time someone has a knife in their hand and a policemen has found them, it is too late. We need to reach these people far earlier—not at secondary school, but at primary school.

The victims strategy fits in well in the London knife crime context not just through the ability to give someone who has been a victim and is a member of a gang the emotional support they need, but by having a way of removing them from the situation that would allow them to enter into gang retribution, so that we can break the cycle. The victims strategy can be used as a method of breaking the cycle, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

There has been some consensus in the Chamber about the direction of the victims strategy. I certainly agree with the Minister’s statement that how we treat victims is an indication of the kind of country we are. Sadly, though, as we have heard—Members from all parties have talked about some heart-rending cases—that support is not there as often as it should be.

Although we have seen improvements over the past 20 years, many victims, particularly victims of personal or sexual crimes, lack the confidence to come forward, lack proper support if they do, and face an unacceptable ordeal if their case gets to the courtroom. When they do come forward, victims of crime regularly complain that communication and treatment are consistently poor across all criminal justice agencies. That really has to change, and I know that the Minister recognises that.

I genuinely welcome the Government’s victims strategy and have considerable regard for the Minister, who was formerly my co-chair of the all-party group on dementia. However, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that, more than three years since the promise was made to legislate for a victims law, we are still waiting for one.

The Minister will be aware of the plethora of codes, charters and guidance that have moved support for victims on, albeit too slowly, but without it being enshrined in law the effectiveness of the changes is inconsistent. As has already been mentioned, we need to consider the financial and operational pressures on the criminal justice system. That was highlighted in this week’s “Dispatches” on screening out crimes. There is a danger that services to victims will come a poor second priority to operational demands.

Recently, I met my excellent chief superintendent who operates not just in Oldham, but in Rochdale and Tameside—when I was first elected, he was just based in Oldham, but now he has to cover three areas. I know that the force struggles to deal with the full range of policing duties. It is at crisis point, as the police have to cover many issues that, previously, social services, particularly children’s social services, would have dealt with. What will happen to those forces in the future? We do need greater support for victims in the policing system, so what will happen to that support given the difficulties that the force currently faces?

This week, the Victims’ Commissioner for London and founder of Voice4Victims, Claire Waxman, stated:

“The Government’s victims’ strategy aims to improve victims’ experiences, but unless they address the cuts to police funding, victims will continue to feel ‘ignored’. This impacts communities who will feel vulnerable and at risk.”

In addition, the closure of more than 230 courts since 2010 leads to victims facing longer travelling times, and that is hardly offset by the improvement in waiting facilities, which was also promised in the strategy.

The victims code was a significant and positive development when it was introduced in 2005 and it should be supported, but although its provisions remain important, they are not directly enforceable, which is why a victims’ law is so urgently needed. I gently repeat my disappointment that, in addition to the concerns about cuts to the criminal justice system and more widely to public services as a whole, we have not had that commitment to the victims law.

I welcome many measures in the strategy, including the reform of the criminal injuries compensation fund. However, the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) of the organisation that manages that fund was absolutely shocking. I congratulate her once again on everything that she does for victims of child sexual exploitation. It is important that we fund that system so that we address the significant financial pressures that victims face. Also welcome is the promise of new guidance on pre-trial therapy and the recognition of the need for dedicated support for victims, but we need to go further.

PC Nicola Hughes was one of my constituents. Members will remember that she, along with her colleague PC Fiona Bone, was cruelly murdered six years ago in the line of duty. Nicola’s father, Bryn Hughes, has suggested that more needs to be done to provide immediate financial help for practical things such as funeral costs and travelling costs to and from courts. As a divorced parent, he has said that more needs to be done to ensure that both parents are supported and kept informed during and after the investigation and trial. Again, that does not always happen.

I have to say that I was horrified to hear about the family of our former colleague, PC Keith Palmer. They were not able to get legal aid and had to rely on pro bono support when it came to the inquest. Surely that shames us all. Given the dedication and support that our police officers give, that really does show how much they have been let down.

Many campaigners have also expressed disappointment that there is no commitment to appointing the independent advocates for victims as a single point of contact to help navigate the criminal justice system. I recognise the role of the public advocate, but, as described, it is not broad enough as those advocates will not be able to represent bereaved families at inquiries or at inquests. Again, I would welcome hearing something from the Minister on that.

Last month, when the Minister presented his statement on the strategy, I raised the very distressing case of Liane Singleton, who was brutally murdered in 1998 by Paul Stowers. What the family went through was really absolutely atrocious. Liane was mutilated and her body parts were put in bin bags. It was horrendous. How any parent can recover from that, I have no idea.

Liane’s parents, Gordon and Jacky Singleton, are my constituents. They have been trying to prevent the release of Stowers, including by petitioning Parliament back in July. Last month, they found out that they had failed and he is due to be released next month. They felt dreadfully let down by the criminal justice system and totally powerless to influence the Parole Board. I know that the Parole Board will be taking steps to ensure that there is a presumption that a victim’s personal statement can be read in hearings.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

From experience in my constituency, I know about the horrific events that people go through, and having to relive them causes trauma for families and local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is why it is so important that we get a victims law?

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening to give me a moment. It has been quite traumatic just listening to Jacky and Gordon, but it puts into context the importance of what we are doing here, including all of us who have stayed to represent our constituents.

The Parole Board will listen to the personal statement, but I welcome anything the Minister can say about how this will be taken forward. He mentioned that this will be reviewed in January, but I would welcome a bit more detail about that and the new rules that will be required.

I share the view of the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, that any challenge mechanism should not require members of the public to have to crowdfund to pay for legal representation, and that a reconsideration process should be judge-led. Recognising that it is likely that the majority of reconsideration applicants will be offenders, will the Minister commit to a speedy and properly funded process to ensure that the benefits to victims of having the right to challenge a decision is not outweighed by the distress caused to other victims of waiting months for a final parole outcome?

I have met with the group Justice After Acquittal, founded by another constituent, Ann Roberts, and Carole Longe, to whom I pay tribute for their many years of hard work and campaigning for murder victims’ families. As the Minister will know, bereaved families are very concerned that when a family member has been killed and no one has been brought to justice, or when there has been an acquittal, there has been very little by way of a framework governing whether and when the case will be reviewed by police and prosecutors.

Last year, the national standards of support were launched by the CPS and the Metropolitan police—I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who did a lot in his previous role to bring this about—and their work with Justice After Acquittal has been very much welcomed. However, I would be grateful if the Minister let me know how these standards are being monitored. How many families have been offered and have taken up the offer of a post-acquittal meeting since its introduction?

The Government should be on notice that we are not prepared to wait much longer for the victims law. Victims need to be informed, supported and listened to. They need to be able to challenge decisions on their cases now. They need their rights to be placed into law so they are central to our criminal justice system. The victims code should be put into primary legislation and independent advocates should be fully funded to draw up a support package to meet the victims’ needs, represent them in dealing with agencies and support them at every step of a trial.

I will continue to press the Minister to look again at a mechanism for providing independent advocates to help victims to navigate the complex and intimidating criminal justice system, in addition to registered intermediaries following the Victims’ Commissioner’s statement that the number of registered intermediaries must rise to meet demand. I do not believe that an increase of 25% is anywhere near enough.

Finally, from a victim’s point of view our justice system is not fit for purpose. The family of Liane Singleton, facing the imminent release of her killer, feel let down. Others such as Carole Longe, Ann Roberts, Bryn Hughes and Claire Waxman, to name but a few, have had to campaign for years following failures in the criminal justice system to protect victims’ rights. For too long, victims have felt like an afterthought in the process. The Government continue to produce strategy documents, but victims need action now. I will not let the Minister rest until he has finally introduced a victims law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

If it is okay, I would like to meet the hon. Lady to understand in more detail exactly which request is being discussed. I am very happy to talk about it in person.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Given the very lucrative public contracts given to Atos and Capita, and the fact that they are clearly failing—71% of assessments for personal independence payments are overturned in the upper courts—what discussions has the Justice Secretary had with his counterpart in the Department for Work and Pensions about the imposition of a fining system? Atos and Capita are not only blocking up the courts, but treating disabled people appallingly.

[Mr Gauke]

I have regular conversations with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about a range of matters, including this one. We continue to do everything we can to ensure that the system is working properly.

Victims Strategy

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and highlights the issue of awareness of the victims code. The fact that 20% of victims say they know about it and that 80% do not cite it does not, in and of itself, mean that the code is a bad thing. I believe that it means that we need to do more to promote awareness of it. We need to make it simpler, which is exactly what we are planning to do. We are actually planning—dare I use these words? —to simplify it almost to the point of being a pledge card that, up front and in very simple terms, will show victims what their entitlements are. We continue to develop and strengthen the victims code, just as we continue to make both the court experience and the support available to victims, pre and post-trial, better.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Liane Singleton was brutally murdered in 1998 by Paul Stowers. Her parents—my constituents Jacky and Gordon Singleton—have been trying to prevent the release of Stowers, including by petitioning this House two months ago. Today they found out that they have failed. They felt dreadfully let down by the criminal justice system, and totally powerless to influence the Parole Board. What difference will today’s announcement make to Jacky and Gordon? Can the Minister give them any reassurance?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who I know has highlighted this issue before. Her constituents are lucky to have her championing their cause as their Member of Parliament. It would be wrong of me to go into the details of that specific case on the Floor of the House, but I can say that the Parole Board will be taking steps to ensure that there is a presumption that a victim’s personal statement can be read in hearings. We will have made changes to the victim contact scheme by the end of 2019, and we will have rolled out new training for victim liaison officers by the end of 2018.

On the hon. Lady’s broader point, we have consulted on the detail of a mechanism for the reconsideration of parole decisions in certain circumstances. The consultation ran until the end of July, as she will be aware. We are carefully considering all the responses and will set out our next steps later this year. We are also carrying out a full review of all the Parole Board’s rules, which will be completed by the end of this year. I will be happy to meet the hon. Lady once those reviews are completed, if that would be helpful.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

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

[Mr Gauke]

In combination with the other measures that we are taking, I think that we are really able to address the problem that my hon. Friend has so eloquently highlighted and that she has personal experience of. What she has highlighted is that we do have a problem and that we do need to take action, and that is exactly what this Bill does.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, but then I am keen to make more progress.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. I have real concerns about the reduction again in access to justice. The group Access to Justice has highlighted that, each year, people injured in road traffic accidents will be denied access to legal advice if they want to go to court to claim for their injuries. How can he guarantee that that will not happen?

[Mr Gauke]

We have a system of small claims—by and large, these are very straightforward claims. We want to ensure that support is there so that people are able to bring the claims in person. As I have said, these are simple claims and it is right that we also take action to address some of the concerns that we have. I shall set out more detail in my remarks, but I believe that we have the balance right in terms of the increase to £5,000.



The Bill provides that the tariff will be set in regulations to be debated via the affirmative procedure by Parliament following Royal Assent. We are committed to tabling an amendment in Committee that will require the Lord Chancellor to consult with the Lord Chief Justice before making those regulations. The judiciary will have discretion to increase the compensation payable in exceptional circumstances and, after listening to the views in the other place, we have amended the Bill to ensure that overall compensation levels in the tariff are reviewed at least every three years. We listened carefully to the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the Lords. We accepted its recommendation and tabled an amendment to include a full definition of whiplash injury in the Bill in order to remove any ambiguity about what that constitutes in law.

The Government’s reform programme also includes measures—not included in the scope of this Bill—to increase the small claims track limit for road traffic accident personal injury claims to £5,000, and for all other personal injury claims to £2,000. As these claims are generally not complicated, they are suitable to be managed in the simpler, lower cost small claims track. This route is designed to be accessible to litigants in person without the need for a lawyer, although claimants may still seek legal representation if they wish. To support this, the Government are working with a wide stakeholder group including the insurance industry, claimant solicitor representative groups and consumer groups in order to design and deliver a simple-to-use online service to enable the vast majority of those claiming for low-value road traffic accidents who may well choose not to be represented by legal advisers to receive help and guidance to manage their cases through to conclusion.

The service will be designed for those with no legal advice or training, and will be as simple to use as possible to ensure that the claimant journey is as smooth as it can be. Raising the small claims limit for these RTA cases to £5,000 will work to control their costs, acting as an incentive for insurers to challenge, rather than settle, those cases that they believe to be without merit. This is vital to changing the unhealthy culture that sees whiplash claims as a way to make easy cash. The reality is that, as insurers are forced to offset the cost of the abuse by raising premiums, fraudsters are simply taking money out of the pockets of honest motorists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

Right across the justice sector, the real targets of the Conservatives’ reforms have not been lawyers, but ordinary people. That is the reality.

I will move on to the measures that the Government have included in the Bill. We are very concerned by the tariff system, which would fix the amount of compensation in so-called minor whiplash claims. I will come on to the fraudulent claims later and the measures—or lack of measures—to tackle that in the Bill. However, the reality is that even if the Government’s case about the scale of that problem were correct—I note that the Commons Library says clearly that it is “not universally accepted”—the way the Government are seeking to resolve this would still be wrong. The Government’s main proposal to tackle fraud is to penalise genuine whiplash victims. The proposed new levels of compensation under the tariff system are significantly lower than current average compensation payments. Surely that is unfair.

For example, compensation for an injury lasting up to six months would fall to a fixed £470, down from a current average of £l,750. For an injury lasting 10 to 12 months, compensation would be £1,250, down from a current average of £3,100. For an injury lasting 16 to 18 months, it is £2,790, down from £3,950. Those are considerable drops in compensation for injured people. This will make a real difference to working people and their families in the worst possible way. It is a crude and cruel policy that penalises genuine victims. Who really stands to gain? It will be insurers who will be excused from paying full compensation, even where negligence has occurred.

There was widespread discontent among legal experts in the Lords regarding this tariff approach. Lord Woolf, former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, said:

“it results in injustice and it is known to result in injustice. Indeed, no one can deny that it results in injustice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1620.]

Lord Judge, another former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, said:

“We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.]

In a very powerful intervention, Baroness Berridge said:

“I have met many a claimant for whom the difference in damages now proposed by the introduction of the tariff…is a significant matter for many peoples incomes up and down this country. I cannot have it portrayed that this might not make a great deal of difference to many ordinary people in the country…in this Bill, the intended consequence…will be to affect that group of people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1611.]

Baroness Berridge is of course a Conservative party peer.

One key point in our opposition is the slashing of compensation for genuine claimants. Another is that it will be the Lord Chancellor setting tariff levels, which risk becoming a political football or, rather, being reduced ever further by the powerful insurance industry lobby. Tariffs are a rather blunt instrument; people should simply get the correct compensation for the specific injuries they have suffered. As former Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf says, establishing the correct level of damages is

“a highly complex process of a judicial nature”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593.]—,

and damages might vary from case to case, making the fixed tariff inappropriate. We will therefore propose amendments to delete the power for the Lord Chancellor to set the tariff.

If the Government are set on going ahead with tariffs, the judiciary should be involved in setting them. The Judicial College currently issues guidelines with levels of damages for different injuries. Lord Woolf stated:

“they have been hugely important in the resolution of personal injury claims.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1594-95.]

I hope that those across this House who profess to defend the independence of the judiciary would agree that tariffs should be determined by the Judicial College and not by political actors, of whatever political persuasion. We will be pursuing amendments to that effect.

That is not an end to the powers that the Lord Chancellor is accumulating. This Bill even allows him to define whiplash. Surely, it would be more appropriate for the definition to be set by medical experts rather than politicians, especially when an incorrect definition could mean people with injuries much more serious than whiplash having them classified as such.

The Government’s justification for genuine claimants suffering substantial reductions in damages is reducing the incidence of fraudulent claims. The Government give the impression that it is an uncontested point that fraud is at the levels that the insurers claim, but that is contested. That is not to say that there are not fraudulent cases—of course a small minority of cases are fraudulent—but we need to properly understand the problem if we are going to have genuine solutions.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The Law Society considers that fraudulent claims should be addressed by targeting the fraudsters and that the vast majority of honest claimants should not have to put up with the changes proposed in the Bill.

[Richard Burgon]

That is absolutely right; it is a powerful moral argument. It is immoral to make the honest vast majority pay—literally—for the fraudulent activities of a tiny minority. The Justice Committee explained:

“we are troubled by the absence of reliable data on fraudulent claims and we find surprising the wide definition of suspected fraud”.

Looking at premiums, the insurance industry’s own estimates show that the amount paid out on whiplash claims fell by 17% between 2007 and 2016. What happened to premiums in this time, while the amount paid out on whiplash claims fell by 17%? They actually rose by 71%.

There is therefore little in this Bill, aside from penalising genuine victims, to deter fraud or to prevent the nature of any fraud from changing to circumvent the new measures.

Compulsory medical reports are a good idea, but there is little to limit insurance companies settling too quickly on low claims that they may view with suspicion but pay out on anyway because it is cheaper to settle than to contest them. There is little on controlling unscrupulous claims management companies. Beyond warm words from the insurance companies themselves, there is also no mechanism yet to guarantee that lower insurance premiums will result. The Secretary of State said that something is on its way in relation to that, but we will reserve judgment until we see what concrete measures the Government actually propose.

We will therefore propose amendments that toughen up these measures but do not penalise genuine victims. One amendment would reduce the period for which the tariff applies to one year, not two. It is much less likely that fraudulent cases will be those lasting for the longest time. Two years of suffering is surely too long to be deemed a minor injury. Given that there is no evidence that workers such as ambulance drivers or HGV drivers who suffer whiplash during their employment are behind any fraud whatever, will the Minister find a way to exclude those workers from this legislation?

Finally, where someone has suffered an injury that will leave them with many years, or a lifetime, of disability, they need to be certain that the lump sum compensation award they get has been properly worked out so that it does not run out. The discount rate is key to this calculation. Victims should always get 100% of the compensation they are entitled to. Getting that right means that someone whose mobility is restricted after a serious accident will have enough money over their lifetime to fund the extra costs that reduced mobility will entail. Getting it wrong would leave seriously injured people getting less compensation than they are entitled to, with potentially hugely damaging consequences for their quality of life. That is why we will closely scrutinise the Government’s proposals to change how the discount rate is set, so it is determined not by the powerful insurance lobby but in the interests of society as a whole. That is why we will table amendments to strengthen the safeguards in the Bill and ensure that all victims get 100% of the compensation they are entitled to.

To conclude, the Government have an opportunity—an opportunity to do the right thing and to show that this is not just another attack on access to justice. They can do that by backing amendments to remove the barriers to justice that are all too prevalent in the Bill. If they fail to do so, we are clear that we will vote against the Bill.

draft Child Support (Deduction Orders and Fees) (Amendment and modification) Regulations 2016

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 General Committees

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is nice to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan.

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. As he said, the draft regulations propose two changes to the 2012 child maintenance scheme, administered by the Child Maintenance Service: first, to allow collection and enforcement fees to be waived for six months for certain groups transferring to the 2012 scheme; and, secondly, technical changes to the regulation deduction orders and lump sum deduction orders to

“increase operational efficiency by allowing the collection of fees in certain circumstances not already covered by existing regulations”,

as well as enabling arrears accruing in earlier child maintenance schemes to be collected. However, the Government need to address a number of issues relating to the changes, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to the following questions.

Parents on the three previous child maintenance schemes are only being invited by the Government to apply to the 2012 scheme; transfer is not automatic. Will the Minister explain why it is not automatic and the administrative implications? I understand what he has said about people not wishing to apply, but I think there are assumptions that have not been fully explored.

What is the progress in transfer to the new scheme for the different segment groups and when is the transition of all live CSA cases expected to be completed? Will the Minister explain why, from the quarter of a million invitations to CSA cases to transfer to the child maintenance service, only 28,800 have been transferred to date?

Whereas there are no collection fees under the legacy schemes, that is not the case with the transfer to the 2012 scheme. In particular, can the Minister explain the Government’s thinking in relation to non-resident parents currently in segment 5—those who are subject to some CSA enforcement action as a result of non-payment of child maintenance? As I understand it, non-resident parents who have in the past not complied will be given a six-month grace period under which they will be able to demonstrate that they will fulfil their obligations by providing the necessary child support for their child or children. That will determine whether they can move on to the direct pay system or the collect and pay system via the Child Maintenance Service, with the associated charges.

For non-resident parents who demonstrate that they have complied during the six-month period, will the Minister clarify what happens to the arrears owed in child maintenance from the legacy schemes? I understand that a system of arrears cleansing is currently under way to ensure that a precise figure of what the non-resident parent has failed to pay in child support can be reached, but why is that taking so long? When will it be completed and why was that not done at the outset, so that non-resident parents’ willingness to pay could be tested for both the new and old child support schemes? Will the agreed arrears be collected by the same enforcement method or, having been found compliant with the new scheme, will the parent be able to transfer to direct pay or collect and pay? What assessment has been undertaken of the likely non-compliance in arrears repayment for the different scenarios, and what does that mean for delays in child support to children?

I understand from Gingerbread that an estimated £700 million in arrears is owed to children. Will the Minister explain why some parents with care are getting letters saying,

“Some clients in a similar position to you tell us that they do not want their child maintenance to be managed by the new organisation and wish to make a fresh start by writing off their arrears”?

I am concerned about that and would appreciate the Minister’s response. It seems to be a pressure in terms of writing off debt.

On deduction from earnings orders, can the Minister explain what enforcement methods will be used during the compliance opportunity for the bit that is being enforced alongside the voluntary partial payments? The Minister in the other place mentioned using DEOs, but in some cases, such as self-employed non-resident parents, a DEO is not appropriate. What other tools will be used for the enforcement part of that payment if a DEO is not appropriate? For example, will deduction orders or freezing orders, or setting aside of disposition orders, be available during the compliance period? Finally, as the Minister in the other place was unable to answer this question—and a number of others, I have to say—I would be grateful if this Minister could explain what powers the second regulation will give the Government that they do not have now and in what circumstances they envisage using them? Will he confirm that all the cases covered by the regulations will still have statutory maintenance arrangements, not voluntary or family-based arrangements?

It is absolutely right that parents who are separated or divorced fulfil their obligations to their children and provide financial support, as well as other support. As the noble Baroness Sherlock said in the other place:

“It is the responsibility of the Government to demonstrate that, in their desire to save money running a child maintenance service, they have not reduced the incentive on non-resident parents to take responsibility for their children, and reduce the incomes of their children as a consequence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 March 2016; Vol. 769, c. 216.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debbie Abrahams Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is indeed some very good cross-departmental working. The Social Justice Cabinet Committee takes the issue very seriously, and I have had outstanding help from the Employment Minister, who has been extremely supportive. We have been given plenty of practical help by the DWP, the construction industry and training organisations. Buses are sent into prisons so that prisoners can complete their construction skills certification scheme cards, and sewing machines have been bought so that they can use them after their release.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), what is the Minister’s assessment of the impact of overcrowding on educational opportunities for offenders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. That is an absolutely appalling case, and all cases of that kind are absolutely abhorrent. I would certainly be willing to hear from him about the specifics of the case, and we will of course look to see whether there is a case for additional sentencing powers over and above those that we already have.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Before the legal aid restrictions were introduced, 78,000 disabled people a year were able to challenge social security decisions, 80% successfully. How can withdrawal of legal aid to disabled people, who are twice as likely to live in poverty, be fair or just?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is important that the hon. Lady appreciates that we have not withdrawn or abolished legal aid. Legal aid still exists for the most vulnerable and the most needy. We do have certain criteria. However, in terms of the decisions that are coming to the courts, the officials who take the decisions in the first instance are looking at the decisions of the courts, so that they do not have to come to the court by way of appeal in the first place.