Conveyancing

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy, for the first time—

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

Let’s minute that.

[Mr Raab]

—with glorious sunshine outside and in. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing a debate on this important topic. It seems like only yesterday that I was responding to him on a different debate that he secured, which shows what an assiduous MP he is on behalf of his constituents.

There were some 1.1 million completed property transactions in England and Wales in 2014-15. About a million of those—the vast majority—were residential sales and the amount of human as well as monetary capital caught up in and reliant on the conveyancing process at any one time is difficult to overestimate. The process, which delivers a secure and marketable titled property, is important to the parties to the transactions and to our underlying competitiveness as an economy.

The broad purpose of the conveyancing process is first to deliver a good and marketable title, free from unexpected encumbrances, to the buyer and to the lender funding the process in order that it can be registered at the Land Registry without difficulty. The investigation of title is only part of that process. Secondly, conveyancers must interrogate the seller and public records for information affecting the property and, once obtained, information must be analysed and any uncertainties clarified. The buyer and lender must, at the end of the day, both be content to proceed. They will both rely on their conveyancer, who is normally the same person, and, in the event of negligence, the conveyancer’s professional indemnity insurers.

Thirdly, conveyancers must know their clients and satisfy the money laundering regulations. Fourthly, conveyancers must co-ordinate their transactions so that they proceed only when their clients both want to proceed and are able to proceed. Finally, conveyancers should support their clients through an emotionally charged process that in most cases they will encounter only a few times in the course of their lives.

As if that was not complicated enough, residential cases can be even more convoluted. The reality is that most individual residential transactions are linked by virtue of chains and without simultaneous transactions sellers and buyers would have to move into temporary accommodation. That carries the additional risk of the market moving before they can re-enter it or having to take out potentially open-ended bridging loans with the risk of unaffordable interest. The conveyancing process as we know it today in England and Wales is a result of those competing pressures and objectives.

The process is not mandated in detail by law. Rather, the law tries to provide a broad framework in which the parties are free to decide how to shape their own transactions, although in practice most of those transactions follow fairly straightforward—or at least common—standard industry protocol. Sales may proceed by auction, tender or private treaty, with several different approaches available in each of those courses, but in practice the vast majority of transactions proceed by private treaty, which in layman’s language is really private contract, and it is that experience that shapes their views.

Opinions on the conveyancing process vary. They are sometimes negative, as we have heard from my hon. Friend. There are complaints about the time taken and the costs involved. Transactions can be prone to delay and all parties can get frustrated about the lack of transparency in the process. Estimates vary, but anecdotal sources suggest that the fall-through rate is roughly between a quarter and a third, which can amount to additional costs to both consumers and the wider economy of about £270 million each year. Millions more may be lost to estate agents and conveyancers operating on a no sale, no fee basis, who incur costs they cannot recoup directly if a transaction falls through.

It is important to say that not every failed transaction is as a result of some form of bad faith, but the practices of gazumping and gazundering, even if relatively rare, do little to improve the reputation of the business. There is no clear cause, or at least no single cause for those problems or the fluidity of the underlying market, which is inherent in a free market system. Many people point to the length of time needed to get from an agreement subject to contract to a binding legal commitment as the key problem. Often the solution proposed is a requirement to enter an early conditional contract along the lines of the traditional Scottish model. However, the truth is that, at least at present, few people in England and Wales seem to be keen to use conditional contracts as a matter of voluntary practice.

In the same way, few people try to protect themselves despite the risk of the transaction failing: they do not seem to make great use of either cost guarantee agreements, where the party that breaks off the deal forfeits a specified sum to the other, or lock-out and lock-in agreements that can secure exclusive negotiating rights. That may be due to lack of costs or awareness or the likelihood of being able to secure those terms—it is true that that is not clear. I think the lack of use or take-up should at least give us some pause for thought before we prescribe a single mandatory remedy as the silver bullet.

Another complaint that we hear is that certain parts of the process—most commonly the local authority search—take too long. Where there is an essential process within an overall conveyancing framework, steps to improve response times will assist in reducing delays. Examples include inquiries of the seller, inquiries of the landlord in leasehold situations, or Land Registry and local authority searches. There may also be wider benefits in making property information more accessible online, and the Land Registry, which holds 24 million titles, has moved from a paper-based system to an electronic approach. That has at least helped to make quicker transaction times possible. The Land Registry has successfully developed certain digital products—most notably the award-winning MapSearch and Property Alert services, which will further modernise and digitise the services that consumers receive. The Land Registry is also taking over the local land charges register from local authorities, so that we deliver a single digital local land charges register in England. That should help to reduce overheads and also eliminate regional variations in practice.

Speed of communication between the principal participants is also sometimes flagged as a problem. Obviously, improved communication between the various parties involved could only be beneficial. However, I have to say that my impression is that the office procedures within the conveyancing process today are generally computerised and likely to become more so in response to consumer expectation and, indeed, competition. Chains of transactions of course present their own communications challenges, almost inherently, but attempts so far to provide an all-embracing, all-encompassing, secure electronic environment, in which members of the chain can communicate seamlessly, have foundered. That happened most recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester mentioned, with the Law Society’s Veyo project. That is clearly a difficult nut to crack.

Finally, Mr Speaker—

[Andrew Percy (in the Chair)]

Oh!

[Mr Raab]

It is only a matter of time. Finally, Mr Percy, we should not forget, when looking for the causes of procedural problems in the system, that the conveyancing process has to deal with some pretty difficult areas of law, and simplification and modernisation of the substantive, underlying law has a part to play in improving the overall effect of the conveyancing process. Work on the Law Commission’s recommendations to reform the laws relating to easements and covenants, as announced in the context of the Queen’s Speech, shows the Government’s commitment to improving the underlying substantive law in the area, which should have a knock-on effect for consumers, in terms of process.

The Government of course also announced at the time of the autumn statement last year that they would publish a call for evidence on home buying, exploring options to modernise the process and provide consumers with different and potentially quicker, simpler, cheaper and more effective ways to buy and sell a home. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made reference to that. The call for evidence will be published by BIS later this year. It will invite evidence and proposals for innovation from all aspects of industry, but also from consumers. I am sure—I certainly hope—that my hon. Friend will be engaged and involved in making sure we get the right evidence in, and that the right conclusions will be drawn from the evidence throughout the process.

I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend for bringing this topic before the House, and I am sure that I will be back again to respond to him in debate soon. I hope that in the light of my comments he will be reassured that the Government are aware of the multiple concerns he has raised, and that they are endeavouring to take the right action to address them.

Question put and agreed to.

European Convention on Human Rights

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing tonight’s debate and pay tribute to his recent work as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He is very knowledgeable in this field and he made a very powerful speech.

For all the contentious debate about human rights, few argue against the common-sense list of rights set out in the text of the European convention on human rights. The Government are and will remain committed to the protection of those rights. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the convention and was instrumental in its drafting. I have said on a number of occasions that those who suggest it was somehow an exclusively British creation are overegging the pudding or rewriting history. The negotiation of the convention saw an interesting contest of views between the common law and civil law traditions, as evidenced clearly in the travaux préparatoires of the convention, which are available online. The convention—the product of those negotiations —reflects the compromise between those two very different traditions and approaches.

Nevertheless, the concerns that have arisen about the convention are far less about being objections to the strict list of rights set out there; they lie more with its interpretation and application, which has been expanded and extended exponentially, well beyond what the original drafters intended. That is partly the result of judicial legislation by the Strasbourg Court, but it has been compounded by the design and structure of the Human Rights Act. It should be pointed out at this stage that serious criticisms have come from Labour Lord Chancellors, lawyers across the spectrum and senior British judges, as well as from Government Members. These problems have fuelled a rights inflation that has undermined this country’s liberal tradition of freedom and its approach to human rights, which is founded in Magna Carta and in the thinking of great British philosophers from John Locke and John Stuart Mill through to Isaiah Berlin. We have shifted towards imposing more and more obligations on government that require it to provide, rather than merely insisting that it refrain from acting in certain arbitrary ways, which was very much the history and tradition of the liberal approach. These developments have exposed us unnecessarily to judicial legislation at home and in Strasbourg that takes decisions out of the hands of this House.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister is making a powerful critique of the convention, so perhaps he can now tell the House when we are going to fulfil our manifesto commitment to get out of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I will come on to the manifesto commitment and resolve to deliver on it shortly.

I want to make this point very clearly: there are legitimate different views as to what we should include in a list of fundamental human rights. There are liberal models, Marxist models and a social democratic tradition, which informs an approach to human rights. There is even a shift from individual rights to collective ones, including environmental rights. We can take different views on that, and hon. Members will, but whatever our view, if we are a democrat, the legislation and the definition of that list of rights must be made by elected representatives who are accountable to the British people. That is the objection to a rights inflation through judicial legislation—whether it takes place at home or abroad. It corrodes the most basic principles of democracy, and that was a point that my hon. Friend made very clearly and powerfully.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for allowing me to intervene at this late hour. The Minister will know when he reads through the Belfast agreement signed on Good Friday—I am sure that he has studied it at length—that the European convention on human rights is an integral part of that agreement and that that agreement was voted on in a referendum in Northern Ireland and also in the Republic of Ireland and thousands and thousands of people supported that agreement. Where does the Minister think it would leave the peace settlement in Northern Ireland if this country were to withdraw—and I hope that it does not—from the European convention on human rights?

[Mr Raab]

I will come on to address that point very squarely in a moment. I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady the reassurance that she needs.

I will, if I may, return to some of the problems of the democratic deficit that have been created. One example that has been mentioned by Members on a number of occasions is the creeping extra-territorial extension of the convention. The negotiating record of the European convention—the travaux préparatoires—is very clear on that point. No one intended that those making military decisions on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan should or would be subject to the convention. That area was rightly left for the law of armed conflict, including international humanitarian law.

Another example, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the situation whereby increasingly elastic interpretations of article 8 rights to family life override the very clear public interest in deporting serious foreign criminals. The Government are clear that where there is a real risk of torture to an individual, they should not be deported, but the right to family life is an inherently qualified one and must be balanced against the rights of others. That balance, which should properly rest with Parliament, has been tipped out of kilter too much and by too great a degree by the courts. This is not to attack the ECHR. In truth, those making that point are being faithful to the convention, because paragraph 2 of article 8 makes it crystal clear that Governments should be able to qualify the right to family life to take effective law enforcement measures. In this regard, it is the judicial branch, which is, through creative extrapolation—that is the most generous gloss that can be put on it—departing from the convention. Those are two illustrations. There could be many more, but we have limited time this evening.

There are two strong reasons why this Government will reform the UK’s human rights framework, and with it, our relationship with the Strasbourg Court. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to deliver that reform, and I can confirm to my hon. Friends that we remain absolutely resolute about delivering on that pledge.

Our proposals will remain faithful to the principles in the European convention—I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured on that point. Our focus will be on restraining and restricting the expansion of rights by the Strasbourg Court and the Human Rights Act, without proper democratic oversight.

[Lady Hermon]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

If the hon. Lady will give me more of an opportunity to address her concern.

As the 2015 Conservative party manifesto pledged, the Government will repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights. Our aim is to protect fundamental rights, prevent the abuse of human rights law and restore some common sense to the system.

My hon. Friend asked for clarification—the hon. Lady did as well—on the Government’s position on the European convention. Let me repeat what I and the Justice Secretary made clear at oral questions towards the end of last month. Although we cannot rule out withdrawal from the convention forever, that is not part of the proposals that we are finalising for consultation. We aim to achieve reforms while remaining members of the European convention. Our proposals will help restore a more balanced separation of powers between the proper role of the courts and greater respect for the Supreme Court in this country, and also the proper role of the Legislature and of Parliament.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. Two points require clarification. The Minister appears to have completely contradicted the line taken by the Home Secretary, for whom I have enormous regard. She clearly stated in this House that it was her wish that we would withdraw from the convention. The Minister can confirm this evening that that is not Government policy—that there is no intention of this country withdrawing from the European convention on human rights. As for a British Bill of Rights, would that extend to Northern Ireland, or does Northern Ireland have to come up with its own formulation?

[Mr Raab]

On the position on the convention, I think the hon. Lady will find that the Home Secretary’s remarks were made not in this House, but elsewhere. The Home Secretary is, of course, entitled to her view; there is a degree of licence and latitude in the current debate on the EU. What I have explained clearly to the hon. Lady is the Government’s position on the ECHR. On the application to the devolved Administrations—I understand the hon. Lady’s particular concerns relating to Northern Ireland—obviously we will consult fully, including with the devolved Administrations. We are mindful of the interrelationship of the convention with, and its effects on, the Belfast agreement, which she mentioned.

Critically, our reform agenda is not about eroding people’s fundamental rights. The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of respect for human rights that goes back long before the Human Rights Act 1998, and long before the European convention. Our history of protecting human rights at home and fighting for them abroad stretches back over 800 years to Magna Carta, and even before that, in truth.

We will take no lectures from the Labour party on this front. It was the last Labour Government who introduced identity cards and proposed 90 days’ detention without charge.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

How is that relevant?

[Mr Raab]

In stark contrast, the last Conservative-led Government scrapped identity cards and cut pre-charge detention. The reason why it is relevant, as the right hon. Lady should know, is that actions speak louder than words.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Mr Raab]

I will not give way, because the time I have left is so limited. This Government also brought forward the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We have transformed the fight against sexual violence in conflict, persuading more than 150 states to agree for the first time that sexual violence should be recognised as a grave breach of the Geneva conventions. This is a record that we can be proud of, and are committed to building on. Our commitment will not falter or fail, but we need to restore some credibility to human rights, which many people in this country increasingly view as dirty words—an industry or bandwagon for lawyers, rather than a tradition to take pride in. We can do that by restoring common sense to the system. We are confident that we can deliver our common-sense reforms within the bounds and parameters of the European convention.

We have already sought and listened to views from practitioners, non-governmental organisations, academics and politicians right across the entire United Kingdom. We know there has been consistently strong public support for these measures. We will consult fully on our forthcoming proposals before introducing legislation, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will, as ever, bring to bear his considerable expertise and experience at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as we proceed with the Bill in the House.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be much more able to implement his agenda if we leave the European Union?

[Mr Raab]

The relationship between the convention and the EU is complicated; we risk shedding more heat than light on the subject by conflating the two. It is certainly true to say that if we pulled out of the convention altogether, it would be something of an open invitation to the Luxembourg Court to fill the vacuum.

Question put and agreed to.

Knife Crime (Sentencing)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 4th May 2016 Westminster Hall

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

May I say at the outset that it is a great honour to serve, I think for the first time, under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? I know you take a very close interest in these matters.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing this vital debate. I also note with interest the thoughtful interventions made by other hon. Friends. I think I can safely say that we collectively share a desire to stamp out the scourge of knife crime.

I am particularly privileged to be able to respond to this debate. I should say at the outset that the Government are committed to keeping our streets safe from knives, which includes sending a simple, uncluttered and clear message: if someone carries a knife, they are more likely than ever to get a custodial sentence.

Unlawful possession of a knife or offensive weapon is a serious crime, which carries a maximum four-year custodial sentence. If someone is harmed, there are a range of existing offences against the person, including—as my hon. Friends will be aware—wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, which reflect the seriousness of the behaviour and the harm that is caused. The maximum sentence available for grievous bodily harm with intent is up to life imprisonment, and the use of a weapon is an aggravating factor in sentencing. I note that 87% of people convicted of this offence receive a prison term and the average length of that term has risen by more than a third since 2010.

Within that sentencing framework, it is for judges and magistrates to decide the proper sentence in individual cases, and they must take full account of the harm to the victim and the culpability of the offender. As politicians, we may sometimes be tempted to try to second-guess judges or do their job, but we have to respect judicial independence in sentencing on the specific facts of the individual case before the court.

At the same time, it is quite right, and not inconsistent, to say that we must also address victims’ concerns and fears, and the concerns and fears of the wider public. In December 2012, we introduced new offences of threatening someone with a knife in a public place or a school and causing an immediate risk of physical harm, which carry a minimum custodial sentence. Under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, we banned the use of cautions for offenders convicted of serious offences, including those who carry knives. Consequently, more people face the full force of the law.

[Stephen McPartland]

In the sentencing guidelines that the Minister quite rightly referred to, is there anything that allows judges to take into account whether or not the individuals concerned are members of a gang?

[Mr Raab]

I need to check the specific guidelines, but I think there is enough latitude for the courts to address that issue and take into account any involvement in a gang, and the particular characteristics of that gang, in relation to the sentencing framework. Of course, whether the courts place the right weight on that factor is difficult to say; as politicians, we can sit here and second-guess individual cases. However, I do not think there is any question but that judges have the power to consider all the facts of a case.

To continue with the measures the Government have taken, in July 2015 we commenced the provisions introducing a minimum custodial sentence for anyone aged 16 or over who is convicted of a second or further knife possession offence—that issue was raised earlier. I pay tribute to the tenacity shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and Nick de Bois, the previous Member for Enfield North, in securing that change to the legislation.

That is the law, but often the real question is: how well is it being enforced? The latest figures show that an immediate custodial sentence is now the most common disposal for knife possession, compared with 2010, when most offenders could reasonably expect to receive a community sentence. In the fourth quarter of 2015, 31% of all offenders convicted of knife possession offences received an immediate custodial sentence, compared with 23% back in 2010.

The latest figures also show that 38% of adults were given an immediate custodial sentence, which is an increase of six percentage points from a year ago and an increase of 11 percentage points since recording began in 2008. Over the same period of seven years, the use of adult cautions for this offence has more than halved. Sentencing for young offenders has also become more consistently robust—that point was rightly raised earlier.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, 10% of young offenders received an immediate custodial sentence for possession of a knife, compared with 6% in the same quarter of 2007. The average length of custodial sentence for possessing a knife has also increased. In the latest figures, the average length was 7.7 months, an increase of almost two months on the same quarter in 2008. More people are being sent to prison, and for longer, for carrying a knife, which reflects the changes this Government have made.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Clearly, the sentencing that the Minister has been describing has been significantly tightened by this Government over the last few years, and I think all of us welcome that. However, does he agree that there is another side to this issue, which is about preventing knife crime in the first place? There is a real role for charities, county councils and police and crime commissioners to get together and ensure a serious education campaign in schools about the risks of carrying a knife and the devastation that knife crime can cause to the families who suffer losses as a result.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as usual, he hits the nail on the head. Of course, there is nothing inherently contradictory or inconsistent in saying that we want to send a very clear message from law enforcement and the criminal justice system, while also trying to do as much as we can through education and raising public awareness to prevent these awful crimes from happening in the first place—for the victims, but also for the offenders, who sometimes, through gullibility or naivety, get dragged into things that, with some education, awareness and nurturing, they could have avoided in the first place.

I want to refer to the Sentencing Council, because it is currently preparing a draft sentencing guideline on possession of knives and offensive weapons. It will be subject to full public consultation later in the year, which will provide an opportunity to inform the definitive sentencing guideline and the approach to be taken by the courts in dealing with these very serious offences. That will be another opportunity for us to consider whether we have got the balance right.

In relation to the question about gangs, having taken advice, I can confirm that if an offender is acting as a member of a gang, where two or more offenders are acting together to commit the offence, that is an aggravating factor in the sentencing guidelines and, of course, all courts must follow those guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) raised the important issue of gangs, and I am glad that I can provide some clarification about it.

The introduction of minimum sentences for offences of possession of a knife, blade or offensive weapon sends a crystal clear message: if people carry a knife, they can expect to face a custodial sentence. That message from the law enforcement community and the criminal justice system is crucial for victims, their families, the wider communities affected, the general public and those who might be tempted to break the law.

I am aware of the tragic murders by James Fairweather and the circumstances around that case. I note the interest and concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. He will know that I cannot comment on individual court cases, as sentencing is a matter for the judiciary, independent of us politicians. I send my deepest personal condolences to the families of his constituents Nahid Almanea and James Attfield. I note that this is a complex case, given the mental health assessment of the perpetrator. I note in particular that four separate psychiatrists were required to give expert evidence at the trial. James Fairweather was sentenced on 29 April to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure with a minimum term of 27 years. I also note that the critical learning report into James Fairweather’s earlier offence and referral order concluded that the subsequent murders were neither preventable nor predictable. Clearly that is zero consolation for the victims’ families, and I reaffirm that in such cases as this, we always seek to learn lessons for the future.

Tackling knife crime is an ongoing high-level priority for the Government. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, it requires a team effort across Government and law enforcement agencies. Knife crime offences recorded by the police remain 12% lower than in 2010, but I accept that there is more to do. In February, we supported 13 police forces to undertake co-ordinated action against knife crime. That involved targeting habitual knife carriers, weapon sweeps, test purchases of knives from identified retailers and the use of surrender bins. A new week of activity was held at the end of April, with 11 police forces taking part. That is exactly the kind of preventive work that we should be doing, and we continue to attach a high priority to it.

In February, the Home Office jointly hosted a meeting with the Metropolitan Police Service and the national policing lead aimed at retailers selling knives. More than 80 retailers attended. On 23 March, the Government published the “Modern Crime Prevention Strategy”, which sets out a range of measures to strengthen our response to knife crime, including: working with the police and industry to ensure effective controls on the sale of knives and other offensive weapons; identifying and spreading best practice; and delivering measures designed to deter young people from carrying knives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) called for, that will also include a ban on the sale and importation of “zombie-killer” knives, which so horrifically glamorise senseless violence.

When it comes to the sale of knives more generally, the law is clear that a retailer commits a crime if they do not take proper steps to ensure that they are not selling knives to under-18s, with the exception of smaller-bladed pocket knives. On 23 March, the Home Office agreed a set of principles with major retailers to prevent under-age sales of knives in their stores and on their websites. That point was made earlier. The Home Office will work with the British Retail Consortium to develop the principles and to encourage other retailers to sign up to them. We want retailers to buy into and be proactively engaged with them.

I am conscious of the time and, in particular, the fact that we have a vote coming up. In case others wish to contribute, I will quickly make a couple of points about the education of young people. That issue was rightly raised. We know that intervening early can stop young people becoming involved in the gang culture that fuels youth violence. On 17 November, the Early Intervention Foundation published a report setting out its research into the risks and protective factors that can lead to young people becoming involved in youth violence and gangs. It attached importance to early identification and intervention. The Home Office is working with the Department for Education to promote these messages to schools and children’s care homes, which are another important area.

I again take this opportunity to pay tribute to the vital work that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester does at a local level in Essex with the local charity Only Cowards Carry. That is incredibly important work. A lot of that localised work is as important, if not more important, than the stuff that comes out of central Government. We have a role to play in supporting and spreading awareness of that work. There is also Charlie Taylor’s wider review of youth justice, which provides a timely opportunity to assess the causes of youth offending and how better to respond to drive down reoffending.

Ridding our streets of the scourge of knife crime will remain a high-level priority for the Government and for future Governments. We can never be remotely complacent, not even for a moment. That means educating youngsters to steer clear of knives and gangs in the first place; preventing retailers from selling knives to youngsters; targeting the police response in the most effective possible way—that, I suppose, is the role of the Ministry of Justice—and continuing to send a clear message from the criminal justice system that carrying knives will not be tolerated and that those who do are more likely than ever to be sent to prison, and to be sent to prison for longer.

Question put and agreed to.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

In five minutes we are due to start the next debate. The Minister is not yet here—not unreasonably, because we are not due to start as yet. There will be a vote very shortly in the Chamber. Taking those factors into account, the sitting will be suspended until no later than 4.45 pm, after the vote has taken place. We will start back as soon as everyone else arrives. It is courteous to wait until the debate is scheduled to start, by which time there will be a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to personal injury law and whiplash claims on access to justice.

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

The Government remain concerned about the number and cost of whiplash claims, and in particular the risk that unmeritorious claims push up the cost of insurance for customers. New proposals have been announced. We will consult on them in due course, and they will be accompanied by an impact assessment.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

There still appears to be no independent verification of the fraud culture and pandemic of claims cited in the autumn statement as the reason to raise the small claims limit for personal injury. In fact, not one motor insurer even mentioned fraud as a material risk when reporting their annual returns to the stock market. What independent evidence does the Minister have of a fraud culture? Would it not be more effective to legislate to stop the ambulance-chasing claims management companies making unsolicited calls, rather than denying justice to those who have been injured through no fault of their own?

[Mr Raab]

We should address both angles. The Chancellor has already announced proposals to remove the right to claim damages for pain and suffering for very minor claims and to increase the small claims limit to £5,000. That is important, as it will help us cut the cost of resolving cases. As I said, we will consult on the reforms, but, critically, they will save the insurance industry £1 billion annually. The industry is committed to passing those savings on to customers, which will reduce premiums by £50.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

20. Does the Minister share my concern that car insurance premiums are £93 a year higher than they need to be thanks to fraudulent claims, and that claims here are orders of magnitude higher than in Europe? Does he agree that the new limit will go a huge way towards combating this costly and invidious practice?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we move forward to the consultation and take into account all the evidence, the key thing is to make sure that there is proper access to justice but also that we cut the cost of insurance premiums for consumers. That is what we intend to do.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

24. If these reforms are so positive, why is the president of the Law Society gravely concerned that they may undermine the rights of ordinary citizens to obtain compensation for negligence?

[Mr Raab]

The Law Society quite properly protects the professional interest of its members. We must consider all evidence that we receive and look at this in the round, rather than just take into account what the lawyers think.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Even if the number of fraudulent claims is as high as the 7% that some believe it is, given that courts already have the power to strike out fraudulent claims, why should the innocent majority of genuine claimants be penalised because of the potentially criminal behaviour of a few?

[Mr Raab]

Our reforms are precisely aimed at weeding out spurious, frivolous or trivial claims, and ensuring that we preserve access to justice for important and meritorious claims. At the same time we must ensure that people who pay their insurance premiums year in, year out, are not penalised by those who are taking the system for a ride.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Question 6, Mr Speaker.

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made on reviewing sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring that we have robust and consistent punishment for those who cause people to be killed or seriously injured on our roads, and we intend to consult on further proposals this year.

[Heidi Allen]

I was unnecessarily keen, as always, Mr Speaker. I asked that question on behalf of one of my constituents, 21-year-old Alex Jeffery, who was killed by a dangerous driver. The sentence given was only four years and three months, and we all know that it will probably end up being less than that. Will there be a time when sentences for causing death by dangerous driving are the same as those for murder? A car can be a weapon in the wrong hands.

[Mr Raab]

I am very aware of the tragic case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, and our deepest sympathies go to his family. Since 2010 the custody rate for causing death by dangerous driving has risen from 52% to 61%, and the average prison sentence has risen by around six months to just under four years. We will look again at that area, and my hon. Friend is right to say that there should be commensurable consistency with sentencing for homicide offences.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

The review of sentencing in this area was announced in May 2014, so simply to say that there will be “consultation” this year is not good enough. Will the Minister give the House a clear date, and will he consider ending the charge of causing death by careless driving, which denies families justice?

[Mr Raab]

As I have said, we will consult this year and consider the full range of driving offences. It is important to ensure that there is proper accountability, as well as consistency between bespoke sentences for offences in this area and wider sentencing, particularly for homicide offences.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

One key driver of deaths on the road, and indeed all dangerous driving offences, is alcohol. Given the enormous success of the pilot in Croydon, with 93% compliance, and the compelling evidence from the United States, will the Minister consider alcohol abstinence monitoring orders—otherwise known as compulsory sobriety—as a mandatory punishment for those who are convicted of driving offences when alcohol is involved?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that is grounded in practice from overseas, and we would certainly be willing to consider that during our consultation.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

7. What progress has been made on the modernisation programme to upgrade technology in the courts and tribunal estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

13. When he plans to publish a consultation on a British Bill of Rights.

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

We look forward to presenting proposals for a Bill of Rights in due course, and we will consult on them fully.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister will recall saying to me, on 30 June,

“the United Kingdom has a strong tradition of respect for human rights that long predates the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are proud of that tradition and will be true to it in delivering our reforms. As I explained…our plans do not involve us leaving the convention. That is not our objective.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 429WH.]

Is that still Government policy?

[Mr Raab]

The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said last month that the Human Rights Act was not the last word on human rights. I look forward to debating the proposals with him.

The Government’s position on the European convention on human rights remains clear. We cannot rule out withdrawal forever, but our forthcoming proposals do not include it, not least because we have been clearly advised that if we withdrew from the convention while remaining a member of the European Union, that would be an open invitation to the Luxembourg Court to fill the gap, which could have far worse consequences, and also because the convention is written into the Good Friday agreement.

We are confident that we can replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights and reform our relationship with the Strasbourg Court, and that is precisely what we intend to deliver.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

A condition of entry for new applicants to join the European Union is that they must be signatories to the European convention on human rights. Would putting into practice the Home Secretary’s welcome announcement yesterday of what I presume is now the Government’s policy to withdraw from the convention require us to leave the European Union?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is tempting me—coaxing me, I might say—down a route that I am not going to take. I have set out the Government’s position very clearly, and our current plans, at least, do not involve withdrawing from the convention.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Minister says that he and the Government want to stay in the convention, but we know that he wants to leave the European Union. The Home Secretary told us yesterday that she wants to leave the convention, but she wants to remain in the European Union. Should we understand that the Government are as divided on the question of ECHR membership as they are on the question of EU membership?

[Mr Raab]

No.

[Joanna Cherry]

SNP Members have been asking for a long time when the Government will publish their consultation paper on repeal of the Human Rights Act. Does the Minister understand that the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday has caused particular concern in Scotland, because in Scotland the convention is embedded in the devolution settlement, as it is in the other devolved Administrations? Does he appreciate that the convention could never be withdrawn from without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and that there is no question of that consent ever being given?

[Mr Raab]

I hope that I have reassured the hon. and learned Lady by reiterating the Government’s position.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The European convention can be implemented in UK law, but we have to trust the Supreme Court to apply it. It is odd that the Labour party, which set up the British Supreme Court, is so keen to subordinate it to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister confirm that when the Government bring forward their plans for a British Bill of Rights, they will restore power to the British Supreme Court and British common sense to the human rights debate?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes that point powerfully. It is precisely one of the issues that we want to address.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

T6. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was also in Strasbourg last week and heard testimony from representatives of countries that do not enjoy the tradition of stable democracy and human rights that we have in this country. Their message was clear: Britain provides leadership and inspiration in a troubled world. What kind of message do Ministers think they are now sending by providing such confusion and ambivalence over Britain’s commitment to the European convention on human rights?

[Mr Raab]

The Government led the world on human rights before the Human Rights Act and will do so afterwards.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

T5. Too many prisoners enter and leave prison without qualifications. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that prisoners get recognised qualifications in prison, so that they can have a second chance and a second career when they leave jail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) highlighted the division between Government Members on membership of the European convention on human rights and the European Union. Does the Minister agree that that sends a message to my constituents that a single, stand-alone Bill of Rights would not be fit in a 21st-century system of legal governance? Does he also agree that we need something more, which is to remain part of the European Union and the ECHR?

[Mr Raab]

I have set out the position on the ECHR clearly. When it comes to a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, we will consult widely, including the devolved Administrations.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T9. Last year, 15 teenagers were tragically stabbed on the streets of London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we elect a Mayor of London on 5 May with an action plan to drive knives off the streets and to ensure tougher sentences?

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Having represented many innocent drivers who have been caught up in fraudulent low-velocity impact claims, I have seen how rackets are operating to exploit the low thresholds, and the technical and legal loopholes. I therefore welcome the rise in the small claims threshold. Will the Minister confirm whether there are any plans to explore reform of the standard of proof, evidential requirements and causation to make it even more difficult for such unmeritorious claims to succeed?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will have a proper consultation on that in due course, and she raises the kind of issue I imagine we can incorporate and consider at length.

Tribunals

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2016 Written Statements

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

The Government have today published a consultation paper proposing new fees for proceedings in the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) and upper tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber).

In the spending review the Government announced that we were investing £700 million in Her Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). This will transform our courts and tribunals, reducing complexity in language, processes and systems; helping people reach the best resolution for them; minimising the steps that people need to go through to obtain justice; and improving access to justice. We will invest in better facilities and use technology to reduce paperwork, so that we create a courts and tribunals service fit for the modern age.

At the same time, we must reduce the burden on the taxpayer of running our courts and tribunals. In meeting our spending review settlement, all parts of the Ministry of Justice must contribute to the national effort to reduce the deficit and restore the Government’s finances to surplus. The courts and tribunals service cost £1.8 billion in 2014-15, but only £700 million was received in income. This leaves a net cost to the taxpayer of around £1.1 billion in one year alone.

Our consultation proposes increasing fees in those immigration and asylum proceedings where a fee is payable so that the fee meets the costs of those proceedings in full. We have previously consulted on plans to raise fees for proceedings in the first-tier tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) in order to recover around 25% of the £84 million annual costs of that chamber. Having re-assessed the Ministry of Justice’s financial position following the spending review, we need to go much further.

In the light of the challenging financial circumstances we face we have already had to take difficult decisions. We have implemented enhanced court fees, above the cost of the proceedings to which they relate, for money claims; possession claims; general applications within civil proceedings; and divorce petitions.

In these financial circumstances, we have concluded that it is no longer reasonable to expect the taxpayer to fund around 75% of the costs of immigration and asylum proceedings. We therefore propose increasing fees in the first-tier tribunal from £80 to £490 for an application for a decision on the papers and from £140 to £800 for an application for an oral hearing. We also propose introducing a new fee of £455 for an application to the first-tier tribunal for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal.

We also believe that the same principles should apply to appeals to the upper tribunal (immigration and asylum chamber) so the consultation also seeks views on introducing fees, set at full cost recovery levels, for these proceedings. The consultation proposes a fee of £350 for an application to the upper tribunal for permission to appeal, where permission has been refused by the first-tier tribunal, and a fee of £510 for an appeal hearing where permission is granted.

We are mindful of the fact that some applicants will face difficulties in paying these fees, so to make sure that the burden of funding the system is shared as fairly as possible we will continue to exempt from fees those in particularly vulnerable positions. This includes those who qualify for legal aid or asylum support; those who are appealing against a decision to deprive them of their citizenship; and those children bringing appeals to the tribunal who are being supported by a local authority. We will also extend our exemptions to protect children being housed by the local authority and the parents of children receiving local authority support. In addition, we are consulting on further extensions to the exemptions scheme in this consultation to make sure we continue to protect the most vulnerable.

Higher fees are never popular but they are necessary if we are, as a nation, to live within our means. These proposals would raise around an additional £37 million a year, which is a critical contribution to cutting the deficit and reducing the burden on the taxpayer of running the courts and tribunals.

Full details of the Government’s proposals are set out in the consultation document which has been published on the gov.uk website.

[HCWS691]

Draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2016

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.

It is a great pleasure, Mr Davies, to serve under your chairmanship for what I think is the first time.

The draft regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State under the power in section 19 of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015. They can be made only if they have first been approved by both Houses of Parliament. They were considered and approved by the other place on 22 March. The purpose of the power in section 19 is to make provision adding or removing circumstances in which a person is potentially within the scope of the 2010 Act.

The draft regulations will add to the list of circumstances in which the 2010 Act may apply to corporate and other bodies that are subject to certain sectoral insolvency regimes or, with limited exceptions, have been dissolved. When the changes have been made, the 2010 Act will be able to be brought into force without adversely affecting people who are within the scope of the 1930 third parties legislation that is to be replaced by the 2010 Act, but are not within the scope of the 2010 Act. The reforms to be introduced by the 2010 Act are supported by insurers and claimants alike. The benefits of the legislation apply to insurance of all kinds and will be particularly beneficial in cases of long-tail industrial diseases, such as mesothelioma. To set the draft regulations in context, let me explain briefly the principles underlying the third parties legislation.

Third parties legislation has existed since the 1930s. It is so called because the claimant is a third party in relation to the contract between the insurer and the insured. The current legislation is the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930, which applies to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1930, which applies to Northern Ireland. The purpose of the 1930 Acts and indeed the 2010 Act is to protect the interests of claimants against insured persons who have a liability to the claimant, but who no longer have effective control of their assets. Typically, this occurs if the insured person is insolvent.

The basic effect of the third parties legislation is to transfer to a third party to whom an insured has incurred a liability the contractual rights of the insured against the insurer as regards that liability. This has the effect that the proceeds of the insurance policy are paid to the claimant not the general creditors of the insolvent insured, which is particularly important when insurance is compulsory otherwise the purpose of having compulsory insurance would be negated. To put it crudely, the aim of the legislation is to prevent creditors from trumping victims. That is the basic point: a dry technical detail that is difficult to get one’s head around.

To trigger the application of the 2010 Act, an insured must both incur a liability to a third party against which it is insured and undergo an insolvency or analogous event specified in the 2010 Act. Unfortunately, following enactment of the 2010 Act, it was found, at least in some respects, to have a narrower scope than the 1930 legislation. This was partly a result of the terms used in the drafting of the 2010 Act and partly because of developments in insolvency law following the financial crisis of 2008.

The operative provisions of the 2010 Act have therefore not yet been brought into force and will not be until these defects have been remedied. It is this remedial process that is so essential to realising the benefits of the 2010 Act, which is intended to extend and improve the protection conferred by the 1930 legislation. That is the point of the regulations. Part of the remedial process was effected by amendments to the 2010 Act made by the Insurance Act 2015 and the draft regulations will complete the process.

Let me now describe the working of the amendments to be effected by the draft regulations. First, they extend the list of circumstances where the 2010 Act may apply by adding the sectoral insolvency or administration procedures listed or referred to in the provisions to be inserted in the 2010 Act by regulation 3 of the draft regulations.

Those additions cover the possibility of insolvency or administration under special legislative regimes that generally follow, but are distinct from, procedures under the Insolvency Act 1986 in a wide range of important business sectors where company failure has the potential to damage the public interest or cause market contagion, for example, the kind of things that might follow the collapse of a financial services, postal or energy utility company.

Secondly, regulation 4 extends the scope of the 2010 Act in relation to dissolved bodies, which do not have effective control over their rights and assets. The 2010 Act currently applies to dissolutions under sections 1001, 1002 or 1003 of the Companies Act 2006, but not to other types of dissolution. Regulation 4 broadens the scope of the application of the 2010 Act to include those other kinds of dissolutions, to ensure they are all covered.

The proposed coverage of dissolutions generally will, however, not extend to the dissolution of unincorporated partnerships. Our view is that that exception is sensible, as technically at least a partnership dissolves each time a new partner leaves or is added.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am sure that in relation to regulation 4 my hon. Friend was coming on to explain the point made in paragraph 7.9 of the explanatory memorandum.

“Unincorporated partnerships are excluded from the dissolution provisions in regulation 4 and the provisions of regulations 5 and 6 because they dissolve whenever there is a change in membership (for example the retirement of one partner).”

The provisions are supposed to cover dissolutions in the sense of bankruptcy. The question I put to my hon. Friend is: what happens if an unincorporated partnership goes bankrupt? He will probably tell me that partnerships are jointly and severally liable, which they are, but what happens in the event that the partners themselves go bankrupt?

The explanatory note says:

“Regulation 4 inserts new section 6A in the 2010 Act, extending its coverage to all dissolved corporate and unincorporated bodies except when the body in question is an unincorporated partnership or is treated as not having been dissolved as a result of subsequent events (the latter may still be “relevant persons” by virtue of another provision).”

That last part is what makes the situation unclear. What is the position with unincorporated partnerships?

[The Chair]

I call the Minister, after that very long intervention.

[Mr Raab]

That was almost worthy of a separate speech, and perhaps my hon. Friend might wish to give one.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Do not encourage me.

[The Chair]

No. That was quite enough.

[Mr Raab]

The primary objective in relation to partners, as my hon. Friend mentioned, is that the insured would be required to proceed against the individual partners. I will take advice on the consequential effects of that in relation to the specific technical points he raised and perhaps deal with those in my closing speech. The principal answer to his question is that someone would have to proceed against the individual partners, and therefore the usual caveats that apply to partnerships also apply here.

The other qualification that I should mention is that bodies that have been dissolved but are no longer being treated as if they were dissolved, perhaps because they are companies that have been restored to the register, are not included within the scope of the new provision for so long as they are no longer treated as being dissolved. That qualification follows the treatment of dissolutions already in the 2010 Act.

The remainder of the draft regulations deal with ancillary matters and I will touch on them briefly. Regulations 5 and 6 amend section 9 of the 2010 Act and paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act respectively. Section 9 of the 2010 Act provides that a third-party claimant to whom the 2010 Act applies does not have to satisfy a condition of the insurance policy regarding provision of information or assistance to the insurer by the insured, if the condition cannot be fulfilled because the insured has died or is a body corporate that has been dissolved.

Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act gives a claimant a right to request information from officers, employees, insolvency practitioners or official receivers of a defunct body corporate. The draft regulations extend section 9 of the 2010 Act and paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the 2010 Act to all dissolutions, other than those of unincorporated partnerships, irrespective of whether subsequent events result in the body in question being treated as if it is no longer dissolved, or as if it had never been dissolved.

The reason for the wider application of these provisions is that most situations of this nature involve reversing a dissolution—for example, restoration to the register of companies—and they are therefore temporary and unlikely to result in there being a person who is responsible and able, on behalf of the body in question, to assist the claimant by being able to fulfil the condition or to supply the information in relation to the liability.

Before concluding, may I express my Department’s thanks to all those who have contributed to the preparation of the draft regulations, including the Insolvency Service, the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the commercial and common law team at the Law Commission, who have worked very hard on a lot of the fine detailed points that have gone into the regulations? Finally, I want to thank the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission more generally for their continuing support for the reform of third parties legislation.

As the draft regulations have not yet been approved by both Houses the date for commencement of the 2010 Act has not yet been set, but the Government’s intention is to bring the 2010 Act, as amended by the Insurance Act 2015, and these regulations into force as soon as reasonably practicable, subject to allowing no less than three months from the making of the regulations to allow those affected to prepare for the coming into force of the new legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds for his intervention. I will touch briefly on one or two of the points that have been raised.

My hon. Friend asked how an unincorporated partnership could be sued. I understand his concern about partnerships. It is possible for third parties to bring claims against partnerships, for example, partnerships that are wound up under part 5 of the Insolvency Act 1986 are a “relevant person” for that purpose. In addition, a third party could bring a claim against a single partner and rely on the principles of joint and several liability, to the extent that they apply.

The hon. Member for Neath was supportive of the regulations, which we welcome. I agree with her that it is rare and welcome to get support from insurers, the legal profession and the claimants. There is cross-party support for the idea that we can fix some of these problems in that collegiate manner.

The hon. Lady raised a particular point about the impact assessment. We would normally expect the impact of regulations to cross a threshold of £1 million for that provision to be invoked, and we estimate that these regulations will fall substantially below that.

I think that deals with the two substantive points that were raised. To sum up, the draft regulations will extend the scope of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, to include the specific sectoral insolvency and administration regimes, and most dissolutions of corporate and non-corporate bodies.

Of course, that sounds dry legal stuff, but the regulations will allow the benefits of the 2010 Act, which will implement and realise the recommendations of both the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, without removing some of the categories of claimants who are currently protected by third parties legislation and who would otherwise miss out. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Legal Guardianship and Missing People

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. May I start by expressing, on behalf of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, our condolences to the people of Belgium? It goes without saying that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them at this very difficult time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government on this important issue. It is a technical issue when it comes to how we respond and reform the system, but one of heartfelt agony for the families who have to endure the predicament that my hon. Friend expressed so eloquently.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to those who have done so much to put and keep the subject on the agenda. They include, in the House, the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults, and the Justice Committee, which has called for reforms consistently in 2011 and 2012; and the charity Missing People, which has steadfastly campaigned on behalf of missing people and their families. I personally acknowledge the deep heartache of the many families involved, which lies beneath the technical details of the proposals that I will outline. It would be remiss of me to pass up the opportunity to pay particular tribute to Peter Lawrence and his family, who are constituents of my hon. Friend. I know that Mr Lawrence is here today, and I extend that recognition and tribute to him and his family.

Claudia Lawrence has now been missing for seven years, and I am pained every time I see or read about the case. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for her family and, of course, for others in the same position. I know that my hon. Friend and Mr Lawrence will be disappointed that we have not legislated sooner. I acknowledge that. All I can say is that we will do everything we can to progress the proposals into legislation. I am inspired by the example that Mr Lawrence and my hon. Friend have set in that regard. It is important, and I give an undertaking, to keep the case of Claudia and the many others like her whom I have learned about—and the human toll of those cases—at the forefront of my mind as we take forward the technical legal proposals.

At present, as has been recognised, the common law rather pragmatically assumes that a person is alive until proven dead. It can therefore be slow to enable control of a person’s property and affairs to be given up to another person following an unexplained disappearance. The truth is that that gives us all a degree of protection, but it also means that when a person disappears with no explanation, their friends and family are left to face the practical difficulties of protecting the interests of the missing person and carrying on with their lives, on top of the deep emotional and personal shock and the challenge of coping without that person at the heart of their lives.

Those left behind may have access to funds, perhaps in a joint account that was previously controlled by the missing person. However, without the good will of third parties, the chances are that they will not have access to, or the ability to control, the missing person’s assets, whether in cash or in kind. They may find themselves effectively in a legal vacuum or void. In practical terms, that may mean being unable to adjust standing orders with a bank, or something as simple as that. It may mean being unable to ensure proper care for dependants, or it may create complications for businesses that have to get on with their daily and monthly work. Joint mortgages may be rendered, in practice, effectively unmanageable. Lots of basic daily things become increasingly difficult to keep a handle on and to keep control of in such a legal vacuum.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing the debate. The Opposition wholeheartedly support the campaign by Mr Lawrence and Missing People. I have been through this myself. My uncle disappeared many years ago. He just walked out of our lives, and to this day we do not know what happened to him, which has made it very, very difficult to handle matters. This debate is close to my heart. I urge the Minister to proceed with the proposals as soon as possible and end the heartache.

I cannot imagine what you have been through, Mr Lawrence. My heartache pales into insignificance compared with yours.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing her personal insight and for her expression of cross-party support for the proposals, which certainly helps. The Government acknowledge the very real predicament of families such as the Lawrence family.

[Chris Evans]

I have known the Minister a long time, and he will focus on this like a laser beam. When I was campaigning for a presumption of death Act back in 2011, Missing People said that the law is like crazy paving—that was the best way of describing it. There is no certainty, and people are looking to the Government for some form of certainty. I look for that assurance today.

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has highlighted the problem with which we are grappling. I understand that people want to hear assurances today, and I will do my level best. Of course, we acknowledge people’s predicament, and we want to do everything we can to help the families of missing people address the administrative problems that can make life even more piercingly difficult at such a traumatic time. It is estimated that there are a significant number of cases of disappearance each year in which there are sufficiently serious problems to make the appointment of a guardian a worthwhile option to have on the legislative table, so to speak.

The coalition Government consulted on the proposals to create a status of guardianship, and the response was published shortly before the 2015 general election. I reassure all Members that the Government are committed to pursuing the measure and getting it into law.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will give way briefly, and then I need to make some progress.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate. I understand that some 2,500 people could be helped by the proposals. I pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Lawrence—Mrs Lawrence is a constituent of mine. They have kept hope alive for Claudia and they hope to help thousands of other people, and today they are hoping for a clear timetable. I know it is a question of finding time, but it is now time to make time for Claudia’s law.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has been a steadfast campaigner for this reform, and it is because of efforts such as his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that I believe we will be able to make progress.

I have mentioned the Government response to the consultation proposals, and the Government are committed to pursuing the measure. It is not, however, solely about creating a new status in law. We also need to be sure that, when the new system is introduced, there is a judicial and supervisory structure to support it. Putting someone in control of another person’s property is a significant and sensitive legal step that is not to be taken lightly. I am sure there is acknowledgment on both sides of the House that we need to get the detail of the proposals right, accurate and tailored in the right way to protect the interests of those directly affected—the families, first and foremost—and to preserve the integrity of the law as a whole. We need a framework in which the interests of the missing person, the families left behind and the third parties who deal with them are correctly calibrated and balanced.

It is wrong to say that progress has not been made. We are making progress, and I will briefly outline some of the key features of the proposed scheme on which we are actively working. First, guardians would be required to act in the best interests of the missing person. In that respect, there would be fiduciary-style duties. Secondly, guardians would be supervised by the Office of the Public Guardian and required to file accounts in much the same way as a deputy appointed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Thirdly, guardians would be appointed by a court on application by a person with a sufficient interest. That is important, because the appointment may be general, in which case the guardian would be able to do what the missing person could have done—they would effectively have a free hand, for want of a better technical term—or it could be limited in certain respects. It is right to have those options on the table.

Fourthly, anyone should be able to apply for appointment as a guardian, provided that he or she has a sufficient interest, which obviously would need to be carefully defined. We are looking carefully at that. We would also need to make sure that their interests did not conflict with those of the missing person. I suspect that we would envisage close family members, or professionals such as a solicitor or an accountant with the requisite familial support, being able to apply.

Fifthly, we envisage that a person should have been missing for a period of, say, at least 90 days before such an application could be made. I am interested in other thoughts on that, but we think 90 days is probably a broadly reasonable period. Finally, the appointment of a guardian should be for a period of up to four years, with the possibility of applying for an extension of another four years. That is a significant period but, ultimately, it would be a temporary provision.

There is obviously a lot of technical detail buttressing the bones of the proposals, and we will need to define in further detail the scope of the guardian’s responsibility, the imposition of appropriate duties on him or her, and the appropriate court procedures for the appointment of the guardian and for redress if the guardian’s conduct falls short of the required standards. There will need to be an adequate supervisory regime over the whole structure, capable of commanding public confidence as well as the confidence and buy-in of the families affected.

As has already been mentioned, there are precedents for such a status and model in legislation in other countries, including in Canada and Australia. Ireland is also currently considering legislation in this field, and we are carefully considering the different models on offer. Obviously, we want to tailor the proposals to ensure that we have the right regime for the legal system, the particular nature of the problems and the administrative aspects in this country. Our development and drafting work is not yet complete, but we are working to complete it as soon as practicable. Given the details that I have talked about, it is important to get it right. We are consulting parliamentary counsel, and we would not go down to that level of detail unless we were serious. I hope that gives some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly to the campaigners and the Lawrence family.

We understand the importance of completing the legislation and getting it right, and it is worth saying that guardianship status is not the only measure that we are proposing to help those affected by the disappearance of an individual who is close to them. The Government are also reviewing the missing children and adults strategy, which was originally published in 2011. We are engaging with stakeholders, including Missing People, to update the guidance on cases of children and adults who go missing. That updated strategy will be published later this year and will include measures to help prevent people from going missing in the first place and to improve the response of all the relevant agencies.

Although I am sorry to disappoint anyone here today, I cannot give a specific date that is firmly etched in stone for introducing the legislation. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer and the whole House will recognise that the Government are committed to delivering the reform and are actively working to that end. It is vital to get the reform right, given that it creates a legal power over another’s assets. We are committed to proceeding as swiftly as we can, never forgetting for a moment the scope that it offers to ease, if only by a modest degree, the pain and suffering endured by the families who have lost loved ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on steps to remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons to their home countries. [R]

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

The Justice Secretary and the Home Secretary have regular bilateral meetings in which they discuss progress on removing foreign national offenders from UK prisons and more generally. It remains a top priority for both Departments.

[Bob Blackman]

In London, we welcome people who come here to study, be tourists or add to our economy, but not those who commit crime and are then imprisoned. With 40% of crime in London committed by foreign nationals, what more can my hon. Friend do to ensure that those responsible are deported at the end of their sentences and not allowed back into this country?

[Mr Raab]

The number of foreign national offenders in the prison population went down by 1,240 between June 2010 and December 2015, but my hon. Friend is right and we strive to do better. Further action is being taken. As the Prime Minister announced on 8 February, we have introduced in the Policing and Crime Bill a new clause that requires defendants appearing in court to provide their name, date of birth and nationality. That is an important tool, backed up by a criminal offence for failure to respond that will help us to remove even more FNOs. That is vital for public protection and vital to saving precious taxpayers’ money.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable for the British taxpayer to be paying for foreign criminals?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. We have a range of existing measures, as well as the new action I have just described. The early release scheme allows for the early removal of foreign national offenders. We remove about 1,800 prisoners per year under that scheme and there are also prisoner transfer agreements. Overall, 29,000 FNOs have been removed between 2010 and 2015.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Suella Fernandes. She is not here. I call Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What efforts are made to ensure that EU national foreign offenders who have been returned to their countries are banned from returning to the United Kingdom—or is that sort of sensible precaution not possible while we are a member of the European Union?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes, if I may say so, a predictable but powerful point. There clearly are restrictions as a result of free movement, but we try to exercise the powers we have as strenuously and as vigorously as possible.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

My constituent was stabbed by a criminal who was given an indefinite hospital order. In my view, he should be deported. If I write to the Minister, will he look at the case to see that justice is done for my constituent?

[Mr Raab]

Those kinds of cases are very serious and very traumatic for the family. I am very sympathetic, and the hon. Lady should please feel free to write to me. All I would say to Opposition Members is that when we come to consider human rights reform, I hope that on the substance we can enlist as much support across the House as possible.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that 25% of the foreign national offenders in our prisons come from three EU countries: Ireland, Poland and Romania. What is the reluctance of other EU countries to take back their own citizens who have been committing crimes in our country?

[Mr Raab]

We try, through our prisoner transfer agreements and residual national powers, to exercise powers as robustly as possible to remove as many people as possible. The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the EU free movement rules and of the Human Rights Act 1998 and human rights regime—which is, in fairness, separate, albeit related to some degree—there are restrictions. As I said to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), when it comes to looking at human rights reform I hope sensible people with experience, such as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, will look very carefully at the substance and not just take a purely political stance.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

In July 2012, when the Government signed a compulsory transfer agreement with Albania, the then prison Minister said he hoped it would be the first of many. How many have there been since then, and how is the arrangement with Albania going?

[Mr Raab]

We have more than 100 bilateral prisoner transfer agreements, as well as Council of Europe and Commonwealth schemes. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I can write to him in due course on the particular numbers under the Albanian agreement.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the deportation of foreign national offenders is in some cases inhibited by the operation of the Human Rights Act? If so, will the Minister update the House on plans to repeal it and replace it with a British Bill of Rights?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One specific issue we want to look at in some detail is the scope to which our Bill of Rights can facilitate the removal of serious offenders, particularly when they have relied on their rather elastic, opaque and ever-expanding rights under article 8. The removal of serious offenders is made even more difficult because of the Human Rights Act. Our proposals will be coming in due course.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

There are many convicted criminals in our prisons who, after committing crimes in the UK, fled the UK and were then returned here to face justice, thanks to the European arrest warrant. Will the Minister explain to the House how the interests of victims of crime can be protected if we leave the EU and, as a result, the scope of the EAW?

[Mr Raab]

I think the hon. Lady is slightly confused about the difference between extradition and deportation. As a result of European law, it has become harder and harder to deport foreign national offenders, while unfortunately the fast-track extradition of innocent British citizens has become easier and easier. That balance should be addressed, and in that I hope we can enlist her support.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to improve mental health treatment for young people serving custodial sentences; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

21. What steps his Department is taking to increase public understanding of the law. [R]

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

The Ministry of Justice is working to increase public awareness of the law and of important initiatives in the criminal justice and civil law system. We do that by disseminating information to the media, by using our website and digital channels, and through bespoke campaigns of particular importance, such as on access to victim services.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I welcome the efforts made by the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. May I encourage my hon. Friend to do more to broaden public legal education? Having just set up a new all-party parliamentary group on the subject, I urge him to work with us to provide such education not just in schools and through adult services, but perhaps in prisons. Although it may not reduce the inmate population, it may reduce the future conviction rate.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right. I commend him for his efforts and his initiative. One illustration of the things we are doing is the victims information service, which provides information on the criminal justice system, on what a victim can expect and on restorative justice. He is right—we need to strive to bring the law and its operation closer to the citizens it serves.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[Jeff Smith]

The director of Amnesty UK has said:

“The UK is setting a dangerous precedent to the world on human rights.

There’s no doubt that the downgrading of human rights by this government is a gift to dictators the world over and fatally undermines our ability to call on other countries to uphold rights and laws.”

In the light of that advice, is it not time to drop plans to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998?

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

Absolutely not. Frankly, it is irresponsible of any of our critics to weigh in with that kind of scaremongering before having seen the substantive proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Government have given strong support to the idea of creating a new legal form of guardian, to help with the property and affairs of the 3,000 people who go missing every year in the UK. Will the Minister confirm when that might be brought into effect?

[Mr Raab]

I know that my hon. Friend has a family in his constituency who have been through the ordeal he mentions. We are absolutely committed to helping families of missing people to deal with the administrative problems they face over and above the heartache that is involved. We are working on creating the new legal status of guardian of the property and affairs of a missing person, and we will introduce measures to the House as soon as parliamentary time permits.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

T6. On International Women’s Day, it is truly shocking that one in four women will experience gender-based violence. On 4 February, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), stated that primary legislation was required to ratify the Istanbul convention to try to tackle that disgrace. When will that legislation be brought forward?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The last Government signed the convention in 2012. We have already implemented almost all its provisions, so the purpose would be to promote it abroad. There is a specific issue, as she may know, about extraterritorial jurisdiction under article 44. We are looking carefully at how that might be addressed.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I apologise for my absence earlier, Mr Speaker. In the recent case of Kiarie and Byndloss, the Court of Appeal roundly upheld the deport first, appeal later policy, which prevents foreign national offenders from extending their leave to remain in the UK while their immigration appeals are pending—the two men in the case were convicted of serious drug offences and had leave to remain here. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the judgment of Lord Justice Richards, which highlights the need for more clarity in the guidance given to caseworkers so that the policy can be better applied?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend brings considerable experience from her time as a barrister. We welcome this decision. This is an important area of policy. It is also a Home Office lead, but I can reassure her that the relevant guidance for caseworkers was updated following the decision back in October.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T7. Today is International Women’s Day, as other Members have noted. A recent survey by Women’s Aid of women survivors of domestic abuse who have attended the family courts regarding child contact found that a quarter reported being directly cross-examined by their abuser. Does the Minister agree that that is completely unacceptable? What action is being taken to address it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

In 2013, my constituent Adele Bellis was the victim of an acid attack. There has been a significant increase in such attacks in the past three to four years. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm that the Government will bring forward a strategy to address this, particularly the need for tougher sentences. Adele has shown great courage, but she has to live with that attack for the rest of her life.

[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?

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

In 2009, Walter Scott and Ross, a solicitors firm in my constituency, was closed down by the Solicitors Regulation Authority due to financial irregularities. Since then, the SRA has systematically failed in its duty of care to former clients of the firm, leading to at least one bankruptcy. Will the Minister agree to investigate that case as a matter of urgency so that we can at last secure some closure for my constituents?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend will know that the regulation of the legal profession is independent of Government. It would be wrong and improper for a Minister to try to intervene in any individual case, but there is an ombudsman service that allows for review of complaints against the SRA, and I encourage her to consider that possibility.

Human Rights Framework: Scotland

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the first time, I think. We have stood shoulder to shoulder on many issues and you have steered us wisely thorough this debate.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members on their stimulating contributions. In particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for sharing his fantasy of a British Bill of Rights with us. The serious point that he made is that the Human Rights Act is not the last word on human Rights: it is not the perfect incarnation of human rights in this country, and therefore it can admit of change. I sensed agreement on that point, so the real bone of contention is what that change might look like, rather than the principled question of whether the Human Rights Act has become untouchable.

The Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights across the UK. This debate is an important opportunity to reflect on what that protection looks like now, what it might look like in the future and how it might be improved. The Prime Minister made it clear that the Government will work in the interests of all four nations of the UK, and it goes without saying that I share that commitment. One of the things that unites us as a country is our shared commitment to liberty and the rule of law. Although that commitment has evolved though different instruments, from Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights in England and Wales, to the Scottish Claim of Right, the nations of the UK have evolved with a shared commitment to the common values that underpin human rights and, indeed, the Union.

As an Englishman, I am proud to pay tribute to the Scottish landmarks on Britain’s long road to liberty. I mentioned the Claim of Right, to which can be added the Criminal Procedure Act 1701, which established and entrenched the principle of habeas corpus in Scots law. Scotland has produced some of our very finest thinkers on the subject of liberty and the rule of law. I would single out David Hume and his essays on the liberty of the press and civil liberty. He regarded Government not as the enemy of liberty but as a necessary condition for liberty. As hon. and right hon. Members will know, his work came in the context of the period after the Act of Union, so it was part of the intellectual fabric that binds this United Kingdom.

We share not only the values, but the things that emanate from them—the practical products of a commitment to liberty, such as free elections, a ban on cruel and unusual punishment, free and fair trials, and free speech. Those values and their product found voice and strength in Scotland as in the rest of the United Kingdom and are shared across the UK. At the same time, we must reflect on the pluralism within the UK and that the UK is a union of diverse interests, history and legal traditions. Notwithstanding our shared commitment to rights and liberty, there are areas where we diverge. We can look, for example, to the right to trial by jury that exists in England and Wales. Jury trial is practised in Scotland, but it is not there as a strict right, which is perfectly legitimate and respectable. There is room for different applications of fundamental freedoms across the UK. That diversity is not merely to be expected; it is to be welcomed. It would be odd were the SNP, which is effectively committed to secession, not to think that that pluralism was a good idea.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will just make a little progress and then I will certainly take interventions.

The balance between shared values and the different application of those values finds voice today in Scotland’s human rights framework. The protection of rights and liberty remains at the heart of Scotland’s devolution settlement—a point made well by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway. The compatibility of devolved legislation with fundamental human rights is central to the competence of the Scottish Parliament. While competence for the UK’s human rights framework remains with the UK Government and this House, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are responsible for the application of human rights in devolved areas and are free to act on human rights issues within devolved policy areas. The core substantive rights are common across the UK, but we have an element of pluralism in our approach to the procedural mechanism for protecting human rights. That variable procedural geometry means that the application of human rights admits some measure of variation across the UK.

We had lots of theoretical considerations of the human rights position as it applies in the UK and in Scotland, but let us discuss some tangible illustrations. Unlike in England and Wales, for example, the Scottish Government do not provide for mandatory fatal accident inquiries for unnatural deaths of persons detained under mental health laws, despite some criticism from the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Another example is the hourly rousing of detainees in police cells, which takes place in Scotland but applies only to vulnerable detainees in England. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in Scotland recommended reform in that area. A third example—again, this list is illustrative, not exhaustive—is the notification period for demonstrations in Scotland, which is 28 days compared with six days in England. That has been the subject of criticism by the UN’s special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. It is also highlighted in “Is Scotland Fairer?” the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s latest report, along with other areas that the commission concluded required improvement, such as violence and harassment against children and young persons and hate crimes perpetrated on grounds of disability or sexual orientation.

I should make it clear that the Government support the principle that Scotland should have the freedom to take action on rights in devolved areas, in line with its own priorities for implementation, and to decide how it balances fundamental human rights with the need to implement practical and sensible policies for the people of Scotland.

[Joanna Cherry]

I mentioned in earlier that the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights recently visited the UK. Is the Minister aware that the commissioner complimented the Scottish Government on the fact that they are looking to go beyond the European convention on human rights by implementing other international human rights treaties directly into Scots law? Is the Minister aware that the commissioner also said:

“The Scottish National Action Plan for Human Rights is also a good example for”

the rest of the United Kingdom?

[Mr Raab]

I read the remarks of the commissioner. Indeed, I met him in person and he seemed satisfied with the assurances I gave him that our reforms, proposals and what we have in mind will not see us turn into the basket case of Europe or become like Belarus, which is nonsense that is bandied around frankly rather irresponsibly. I did meet the commissioner and did read his comments about Scotland, and it is right to pay tribute to the improvements and to what the rest of the Union can learn from Scotland. Action plans and the theoretical stuff is fine, but it is what we do in practice that really counts for the citizens of Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK.

In addition, the more powers that the Scottish Government assume for the implementation of human rights for the people of Scotland, the more they can be expected to be questioned and evaluated on the degree to which they live up to the responsibilities that they acquire. We hear an awful lot from the SNP in this House about how the UK Government and Parliament are threatening human rights in Scotland, but I hope that that is not being used as a distraction from considering the degree to which the Scottish Government meet their commitments in reality in Scotland. It is not about brandishing action plans, to which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway referred, and making pious policy statements about human rights in theory instead of focusing on delivering in practice. Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady would like to respond to that point.

[Joanna Cherry]

I would not, because the Minister is here to answer questions put to him by us in this debate. I am conscious of the clock and that there is about three and a half minutes left. He has been asked a number of questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) that he has not yet answered. He has also been asked some important questions by the spokesperson for the official Opposition about the purdah period. Will the Minister answer those questions?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady. We have given answers to all those questions before.

[Richard Arkless]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. It is usually customary to let the Minister respond to the question being asked.

[Mr Raab]

I am happy to give way, but if we have a Gatling gun salvo of interventions, that rather eats into my time and opportunity to address such matters. I will, however, give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is his debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

Tell us!

[Mr Raab]

We have made it clear that the Human Rights Act can be revised only by the UK Government, but the implementation of many human rights issues is devolved. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland neatly summed up the position on the Sewel convention and legislative consent motions. Scotland cannot responsibly take a decision on such things until it has its package. In relation to the European convention on human rights, which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway also asked about, I do not know how many times I have said it in the House, but our current plans do not involve our withdrawal from the convention. If the hon. Gentleman has been in for Justice Question Time once over the past six months, he will have heard me say that.

In fact, the Scotland Bill, which is currently completing its passage in the other place, serves as a reminder of the Scottish Parliament’s role in deciding the right balance for Scottish people in Scotland. To take just one example, when competence for the franchise in local and Scottish parliamentary elections is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it will be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to determine whether the current ban on convicted prisoners voting ought to remain, as in the rest of the UK. The SNP has made it clear that it did not want the franchise extended to prisoners for the Scottish referendum. Nicola Sturgeon made that clear in May 2013.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not because I have so little time left.

Under the Human Rights Act, however, once Scotland has devolved responsibility for the franchise, the only way that the Scottish Government will be able to retain the ban on prisoner voting is by relying on the nationwide ban enacted by the UK Parliament here at Westminster. It is one of those things that SNP Members should remember, ’fess up to and be a bit more honest and straightforward about when they hurl around the suggestion that we are attacking human rights.

There is actually widespread support in Scotland for replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, which has been borne out by all the YouGov polling.

[Joanna Cherry]

Nonsense!

[Mr Raab]

The hon. and learned Lady does not like the facts.

The truth is that the UK’s history of respect for human rights predates the Human Rights Act in all parts of the United Kingdom. That protection will continue to be totally central to our human rights framework in the years ahead. I look forward to many more opportunities to discuss the substance and detail of the framework with hon. Members in due course.

Question put,

That this House has considered the future framework for human rights in Scotland.

The Chair’s opinion as to the decision of the Question was challenged.

Question not decided (Standing Order No. 10(13)).

Dog Theft: Sentencing

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on his habitual tenacity, which enabled him to secure this very important debate. The truth is that many people become very attached to their pets and treat them like family—sometimes better than family. I know at first hand that the distress caused when a pet disappears is heightened if it is suspected or found that the pet has been stolen for nefarious purposes of one sort or another. That can only aggravate the fear that the pet may come to some form of harm. As I say, I know this at first hand, because I grew up with dogs. I had a dog that I loved very dearly, so I know the worry when dogs go missing. In my case, the dog was a Rhodesian Ridgeback. Anyone who knows the breed will realise that it is unlikely to be stolen. None the less, we fretted every time he jumped the gate or the back garden. I know what the feeling is like.

Sadly, the truth is that we are seeing a growing trend of disappearances and thefts of pets, with all the distress that can cause to individual owners. We in government have to make sure that the criminal justice system is able to respond to these incidents, that we have the resources and expertise to investigate the cases, that there is the will to prosecute them, and that the courts—this is the key to my hon. Friend’s debate—have the necessary criminal and sentencing powers to ensure that we punish offenders and, let us not forget, deter offending.

I hold ministerial responsibility for sentencing, so I need to be assured that courts have the right framework and the right powers in place. I would like to talk a little about deterrence, if only because it is not necessarily always talked about, yet it is an important part of the matter, preventing offences from happening in the first place. I will return to that in a moment, if I may.

Let me say a few words about the available offences and the sentences connected with them. First, we have offences of animal cruelty and failure to meet an animal’s basic needs. These are set out in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Those offences carry a maximum of six months imprisonment or a fine, or both. The courts also have the power to ban an offender from keeping animals in the future. It is not always the case that a stolen pet has been mistreated, but where it has been, this offence may apply.

Where the offence charged is theft, under the Theft Act 1968, the maximum penalty is seven years. That applies to domestic animals, just as it does to any other goods or chattels. My hon. Friend has made the point that animals should not be treated just like some kind of inanimate object or chattel, and I think he is absolutely right. When it comes to the criminal law, we have to think carefully about how those concerns should be properly reflected.

Of course, justice must be more than the dry letter of the law. The courts will always take into account the circumstances of a case, but that does not necessarily mean that they will need definitions of separate and bespoke offences relating to every possible variation of the crime of theft or every possible contingency. I am slightly worried—I suppose I say this as a Minister, but also as a Conservative—about the creation of specific penalties for behaviour that is already covered; I am not sure that that achieves very much. We need to enforce the penalties that already exist. Creating new offences applying to every conceivable situation risks complicating the law, and making it less transparent and less accessible. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friend was calling for, but I think that the point is worth making. The rule of law requires clear, consistent, predictable rules for victims and for citizens in general, and the sending of a clear message of deterrence to offenders.

It is for the courts to decide the right sentence in individual cases, within the maximum set by Parliament. The courts hear all the circumstances of a case, and are best placed to make that decision. They are helped by the sentencing guidelines that are issued by the independent—I stress the word “independent”—Sentencing Council. They must follow those guidelines, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. Even then, there is some wriggle room. The guidelines are there to ensure that sentencing is more consistent, and to identify sentencing ranges and aggravating and mitigating factors. There must be a balance between ensuring that rules are fair and consistent, and doing justice to the particular facts of a case and, in the case of a dog theft, the impact on the dog’s owner.

The new sentencing guideline on theft came into force at the beginning of last month. I understand that my hon. Friend may be disappointed that it does not specifically mention pet theft. If he has not done so already, he may wish to check out the Sentencing Council’s website, where he will see that the council’s consultation on the draft of the new guideline elicited responses and suggestions relating to this specific issue, including the suggestion that there should be a separate guideline on pet theft.

The council’s response to the consultation is available on the website. Having carefully considered the views of respondents, it concluded that the aggravating factors already in the guideline would enable the courts to sentence appropriately for pet theft. Aggravating factors in the guideline include emotional distress caused to the victim, and the fact that the stolen item may be of particular subjective value to the owner regardless of its strict monetary worth. I think that that was one of my hon. Friend’s key points. Judges are human beings, and many have a strong sense of empathy. Moreover, they have all the powers, and, most important, the discretion, to take account of the full range of impacts on individuals of this very serious offence, including the emotional impact on owners and, indeed, dogs.

The guideline mentions the following aggravating factors: the offender is acting as part of a group or gang, so that there is an organised crime element; there is significant planning of the offence; or the goods are stolen to order. Unfortunately, all those factors are often present when a dog has been stolen. The courts have adequate criminal powers, and I believe that they have adequate sentencing powers at their disposal, as well as recent and substantial guidance to help them to reach balanced, proportionate and consistent sentencing decisions, all the while taking account of all the facts of the case. It is precisely because we want them to take account of the individual impact in an individual case that we must allow judges to retain that measure of discretion.

Let me say a little about deterrence. The sentences passed by the courts are partly aimed at deterring other prospective offenders, but people can, of course, take action themselves to prevent their dogs from being stolen. Improvements in technology are one of the major reasons why we have managed to reduce the incidence of crime in recent years. Microchipping of dogs has been available for more than 25 years, and I am told that about 83% of dogs are now voluntarily chipped by their owners. My hon. Friend was, of course, one of the tenacious campaigners for the compulsory microchipping of dogs, and I congratulate him on his efforts. He, like me, will have been pleased to learn that the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to introduce compulsory microchipping in England on 6 April this year. Similar arrangements will also be in place in Scotland and Wales.

This measure is to be welcomed because it is an important step for animal welfare more broadly. It will make it easier to identify dogs and reunite them with their owners. It will also make it easier to prove that a dog has been stolen, which is important for prosecutions, and I know that my hon. Friend wants to see more of those. Most importantly, however, it can act as a deterrent. A prospective criminal who knows that a dog is microchipped is significantly less likely to target that animal for theft. The fact that all dogs must now be microchipped is as important a factor in reducing these distressing offences as the effective and flexible sentencing response, which I believe is already available.

I congratulate my hon. Friend again on securing the debate. He has been tenacious in raising this important matter, and we will always keep these issues under review, but I believe that on balance we now have the right powers, criminal offences and sentencing discretion in place to deal with this very serious crime.

Question put and agreed to.