Shoreham Air Show Crash: Access to Justice

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Shoreham air show crash and access to justice by families of the victims.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), as the last man standing in the Ministry of Justice. I will be easy in my comments and certainly not apportion any blame to him for the inadequacy of any answers he may be able to provide.

This is an important matter. On 22 August 2015, a vintage Hawker Hunter jet plane crashed at the Shoreham air show in my constituency. Eleven men tragically lost their lives, and many stories of the personal tragedies that accompanied that loss touched a chord across the nation. It represented at the time the largest civilian loss of life in the United Kingdom since 7/7, and the first fatalities on the ground at any UK air show since 1952. Those statistics will give little comfort to the victims’ families, and I am sure that I echo the feelings of the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and that the first priority remains to give them the support that they will need in these difficult times.

Those were the words that I used when opening a debate in this Chamber on 15 September 2015, just three weeks after that tragic accident. Twenty eight months on, the coroner’s inquest has still not happened and is not scheduled until November 2018 at the earliest, and no decision has been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service about whether any charges will be brought against anyone or any body. The lack of any decisions about prosecutions has already led to delay in the coroner’s inquest. Indeed, the West Sussex coroner, Penny Schofield, has written again just this week to families of the victims to postpone the third pre-inquest review hearing, due on 24 January, to 26 March. There is growing concern that the inquest may well not happen in 2018 at all, given its dependence on getting prospective criminal proceedings out of the way, despite the huge efforts being made by the coroner, which I know are greatly appreciated by the families of the victims. I want to pay tribute to the sensitive and sympathetic way in which the coroner for West Sussex, Penny Schofield, has dealt with the families in this tragic case.

I raised this issue directly with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 1 November 2017, and specifically the extraordinary decision by the Legal Aid Agency not to extend funding from the exceptional cases fund to the families of the victims at the coroner’s inquest when it eventually takes place.

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

I am sorry to learn about the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have experienced in trying to secure legal representation and legal aid. Legal aid is an issue that I take great interest in, and I previously tabled early-day motion 498 in relation to legal aid for inquests. Does he agree that the Government should review legal aid for inquests and ensure that legal aid is granted in all cases for bereaved families where the state is funding one or more of the other parties?

[Tim Loughton]

I do agree, and indeed the Government are doing that. I will come to that point later on.

I originally raised that decision in a letter to the PM in August jointly with other Sussex Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), but, alas, had not received a response directly from the Prime Minister at the time. The Prime Minister replied at PMQs that she fully understood the concerns of the families and assured me she was committed to ensuring that

“where there is a public disaster, people are able to have proper representation.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 814.]

Those were her words. The Lord Chancellor was asked to look at the problem, which is connected to the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) made. I appreciate that the Prime Minister takes a close interest in this tragedy. Indeed, in contrast with the apparent indifference of No. 10 under the previous Prime Minister to the magnitude of this tragedy, the now Prime Minister championed the outstanding role played by the police, especially in the traumatic days that followed the crash, and added her tribute and flowers for the victims.

It is deeply disappointing that since 1 November, all that has happened effectively is a confirmation from the Ministry of Justice that the Legal Aid Agency made its decision properly, that the application and subsequent appeal were considered in line with relevant guidance and that Ministers cannot intervene. The Prime Minister simply pointed out that, before I raised this issue, the Lord Chancellor had announced a post-implementation review of the legal changes made by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and I might consider making a submission to that review. That is the point that the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge made, and I will certainly be using the transcript of this debate to put that case.

The air accidents investigation branch produced a very thorough and comprehensive report on 3 March 2017, but it was not its job to apportion blame and instigate legal proceedings—that is not the way it is set up. A number of questions were raised by that report. The law firm Stewarts Law, which has been representing pro bono some of the families, has made a number of comments about that report. The AAIB report says that the investigation found that

“the parties involved in the planning, conduct and regulatory oversight of the flying display did not have formal safety management systems in place to identify and manage the hazards and risks. There was a lack of clarity about who owned which risk and who was responsible for the safety of the flying display, the aircraft, and the public outside the display site who were not under the control of the show organisers.”

It goes on:

“The regulator”—

the Civil Aviation Authority—

“believed the organisers of flying displays owned the risk. Conversely, the organiser believed that the regulator would not have issued a Permission for the display if it had not been satisfied with the safety of the event…No organisation or individual considered all the hazards associated with the aircraft’s display, what could go wrong, who might be affected and what could be done to mitigate the risks to a level that was both tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable. Controls intended to protect the public from the hazards of displaying aircraft were ineffective.”

Stewarts Law notes:

“Further, there is a valid, proper and serious legal argument that the CAA failed as a regulator in properly implementing a safety recommendation made over six years ago by the AAIB from a previous fatal Hawker crash at Shoreham in 2007.”

As it stands, at the official coroner’s inquest, there will be 19 interested parties involved. All non-family properly interested persons will be legally represented. Only the families of the victims—surely those with the closest and strongest interest in the proceedings—will not have legal representation.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my right hon.—and very good—Friend for his comments. He is right; I believe that I do have advice on that very matter in my inbox, and I will want to look very closely at it.. He is absolutely right to say that it is important that the position of victims is properly respected. One of the first people I spoke to on taking office was Baroness Newlove, who has done some excellent work on the issue.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. It is right that the Parole Board carry out its work to continue to review the backlog of prisoners serving IPP sentences. However, the public must have confidence that IPP prisoners are being released safely and responsibly. The decision to release John Worboys has undermined that confidence, and given that 3,000 IPP prisoners have been released since their sentences were abolished, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that public safety has not been and will not be compromised?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady raises a fair challenge. It is important that public confidence is maintained. It is also right, though, that the Parole Board, as an independent body, makes the decisions; I do not detect a consensus in the House that this matter should be returned to the discretion of politicians. However, the Parole Board clearly needs to be very mindful of public perception. It is, I know, very mindful of the risks that could be created on somebody being released. That is the test that the Parole Board must meet in making these decisions.

Prison Reform and Safety

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It gives me great pleasure, as a newly elected member of the Justice Committee, to speak in today’s debate. Last Thursday, members of the Committee visited HMP Rochester. Rochester holds 740 prisoners and conditions in that Victorian prison have been described as deplorable by the independent monitoring board. In March 2017, the Government announced that the prison would be closed and replaced, but in October 2017 that was put on hold. Many of the facilities at HMP Rochester are in a state of disrepair. For instance, the classroom in which rehabilitation lessons take place has a leaking roof.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

On that point, and the point made a few moments ago about data, it is extremely important to have adequate data if we are to provide education and training. The Prisoners Education Trust and the Ministry of Justice have both reported that reoffending goes down by an average of five percentage points if education can be provided.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree that education is absolutely at the heart of the rehabilitation of offenders.

At Rochester, when it rains, lessons have to be cancelled because the roof leaks. These issues have to be addressed urgently if we are to reform our prisons and improve standards. Visiting cells there, we saw prisoners in cramped and unsanitary conditions. One cell that housed three men had a toilet that was screened by little more than plastic sheeting and had no toilet lid. In addition, the perimeter fence is low and not comprehensively covered by CCTV. This has led to drugs, particularly Spice and other psychoactive substances, frequently being thrown over the fence, with 47 drug-related incidents recorded in just one week. We were told it would cost £300,000 to install a fit-for-purpose CCTV system and that the benefits would be immeasurable. We also visited the drug rehabilitation wing, but the 12-step rehabilitation programme had to stop when the prison received its now rescinded closure notice. These are the conditions that the governor and staff at HMP Rochester are battling daily and I commend them for their work.

One of the key factors in rehabilitation and safety in our prisons is the prison population. It has been fluctuating around the 85,000 mark for nearly a decade and as of this month stands at 86,000. The Government have been asked repeatedly why the numbers continue to grow, and their answers usually follow the template that more people are convicted of sex-related offences and are serving longer sentences. Although that may be the case in part, we must also look at the wider picture to understand fully why our prison population continues to rise. We cannot look at offences and sentence length alone to answer this question.

Long-term cuts to mental health services, addiction support and housing have all played a part and had an impact on our prison population through reoffending rates. The Ministry of Justice’s latest figures show that 29.6% of offenders in the October to December 2015 cohort reoffended within a year. Cuts mean less support when these individuals require more than most. The Howard League’s “No Fixed Abode” study from 2016 estimated that a third of released prisoners have no accommodation to go to on leaving prison. The Combined Homelessness and Information Network’s annual report on rough sleeping in London showed that 33% of people seen sleeping rough had some experience of being in prison. Let me repeat that: a third of all prisoners are likely to be homeless on release.

[Jo Churchill]

Does the hon. Lady agree that that relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) about not being able to keep the data? It is well known that health outcomes for those who sleep rough are less good, and we find ourselves with a never-ending cycle of people bouncing between the street and prison, and in and out of the system, with little care and attention to find, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, the treasure in man’s soul.

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. One issue that has been raised with us is that people are imprisoned for short sentences of two or three months, and during that time there is no chance of any rehabilitation. We need to look more closely at community-based sentencing, so that people can get rehabilitation and come out of the cycle of prison and homelessness. That is an important point.

To reduce reoffending rates, we need to stop the spiral of prison services being eviscerated, leaving inmates with little help in their rehabilitation work. It is a commonly held view across the House that prison is not there merely to punish offenders, protect society and act a deterrent; it must also exist to rehabilitate and re-educate. Those aims can ultimately reduce the risk of reoffending by providing services to inmates that will provide them with the necessary skills that mean that on their release from prison they will be best equipped to fit back into society and mitigate their chances of falling into a cycle of criminal behaviour.

When prisoners are incarcerated, the state is responsible for their wellbeing. We must not view this responsibility lightly; if we are to reduce crime and, in turn, our prisoner population, we must fix the wider problem pieces of this complex jigsaw. Departmental figures released last Friday show that our prison system is operating at close to maximum capacity. This is not sustainable and it is not a simple case of longer sentences for more serious crimes. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that the system in which these prisoners are treated is comprehensive in its ability to provide rehabilitation; only then will we see our prison population decline.

In conclusion, it is clear that multiple things must be addressed for us to secure decent and sustainable prison reforms and to ensure that the prison population is manageable and kept at a safe level. I have been able to draw attention to only a small number of concerns, and I hope Members will touch on other issues. Until the prison population is under control, I fear that reform and safety standards will suffer. Three people to a room in a Victorian-era prison with limited sanitation, derelict and dilapidated amenities, little or no rehabilitation work, and an uncertain future for “imprisonment for public protection” prisoners both inside and outside prison; this is not where we should be in a 21st-century justice system.

We have by no means the worst prison services in the world, but we could and should do better. I look forward to furthering those aims with my fellow Committee members in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

These days, there are tens of thousands of families and businesses that live and operate across national borders within Europe. A comprehensive and ambitious civil justice co-operation agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU 27 will be very much in the interests of all parties.

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

T9. Last week, I visited Medway secure training centre for 12 to 17-year-olds which, in 2016, was the subject of a “Panorama” report that exposed widespread abuse while it was run by G4S. The centre is now run by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and things are improving. Young people talk positively about rehabilitation and staff are motivated. Many STCs and secure children’s homes remain in private hands. Given the lessons of Medway STC, will the Government now commit to reversing the privatisation of the youth justice system?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is not to be outdone by the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling). This Adjournment debate fetish is rather catching, I think.

Legal Aid

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. As a former employment rights lawyer, I am passionate about legal aid and access to justice. Many of my hon. Friends have made important points about the need for increased access to justice. Coincidentally, yesterday I chaired a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party’s Back-Bench justice group on this very subject, drawing particular attention to the measures outlined in the Bach commission report, which aims to redress the injustices caused by LASPO.

I am firmly of the view that the abolition of legal aid for early advice is a false economy. It means that far more cases end up going to court that should have been resolved earlier. My experience as a lawyer was that when I gave clients clear legal advice from the outset about their prospects of success, they were far less likely to pursue an unmeritorious claim through the courts. The removal of legal aid for early advice has caused a clear and undeniable increase in the number of people representing themselves in court.

National Audit Office figures and research by the Law Society show a staggering 30% increase in litigants in person in family court cases. In that emotive area of law, litigants in person often result in longer hearings and in victims of domestic violence having to face their abuser in court. Moreover, the failure to provide early legal advice can have significant knock-on effects for other departments and the public purse. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) said, the cost of someone being evicted because they have not had access to housing legal advice at an early stage is far greater than the cost of the advice itself. That is not to mention the societal impact.

However, I want to use this opportunity to talk about legal aid for inquests. A number of my hon. Friends will be aware of, and indeed many of them have signed, early-day motion 498 on this important matter, which I tabled. It calls for legal aid to be provided to the family of the deceased in all cases in which the state is funding one or more of the other parties. Inquests have never fallen into the main body of legal aid provision. Legal aid for inquests is available only at the discretion of the Legal Aid Agency under the “exceptional case funding” provisions introduced by LASPO. Exceptional case funding is available for categories of law that are not ordinarily in scope of legal aid, and where failure to provide legal services would breach an individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights, or other enforceable EU rights relating to the provision of legal services.

However, exceptional case funding applications are complex and time-consuming. Lawyers receive payment for an ECF application only if it is successful, and although the Legal Aid Agency will accept applications from applicants in person, very few are made and even fewer are successful. In addition, the definition of exceptional case funding does not provide an adequate safety net for inquests, as an applicant has to show that there is an article 2—right to life—issue, or a wider public interest in legal aid being granted.

The Law Society’s “Access Denied?” publication drew attention to the case of five-year-old Alexia Walenkaki, who died of head injuries while playing on a swing in the children’s play area in a London park. The swing was suspended from two tree trunks when one of them toppled over on to the child. Alexia’s mother applied for exceptional case funding in order to be represented at the inquest. However, the application for legal aid was refused by the Legal Aid Agency on the grounds that it did not meet the LASPO requirement that the representation be in the public interest, despite the fact that the case involved consideration of a local authority’s responsibility to ensure safety in a public area.

Legal aid for inquests is even more important, as most bereaved families will not be able to afford private legal representation, particularly for lengthy inquest hearings. Most recently, the Hillsborough inquiry shone a light on this important issue, calling for families to be fully involved in inquests, and for equality of arms, so that no one is under-represented in these critical types of cases.

The Bach commission report acknowledges that access to justice is lacking in this area and that reform is urgently needed. I tabled early-day motion 498 on legal aid for inquests as I believe the Government should take urgent action in this area, and provide access to justice for bereaved families by providing crucially needed legal aid to the family of the deceased in all cases where the state is funding one or more of the other parties. I urge Members from across the House to sign the early-day motion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chairman (David Hanson)]

Order. I have no power to impose a time-limit in Committee, but I do have the power to advise. We have 20 hon. Members who wish to speak, and if we continue to have speeches of the current length, we will disappoint at least half of them. I therefore advise Members to try to keep the length of their speeches to between 10 and 12 minutes; that is a voluntary instruction.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 79, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties.

First and foremost, I recognise that the UK has voted to leave the European Union. It is an outcome that I did not vote for, but it is the position in which we find ourselves. It is now incumbent on us to strengthen this legislation ahead of our exit from the Union. We can only achieve this fully by recognising what European integration has done for us over the past 40 years, and the ways in which we can help one another.

Before entering Parliament, I was an employment rights lawyer for many years. I represented trade unions and their members for 10 years. More recently, I ran my own business providing advice on maternity discrimination and flexible working to mums and families. So I know at first-hand how many of our employment rights come from Europe. As my explanatory statement points out, my new clause would ensure that Parliament was kept abreast of changes in EU provisions regarding family-friendly employment rights and gender equality, as well as committing the Government to considering their implementation.

It is clear that working parents and carers in the UK are struggling. The Modern Families Index 2017, which examined the lives of 2,750 working parents and carers, found that more than a third of working families say that they do not have enough time or money for their family to thrive. Half of parents agreed that their work-life balance was increasingly a source of stress. A third said that work had a negative effect on their relationship with their partner, and a quarter said that it led to rows with their children. One in 10 parents would consider resigning from work without having another job to go to. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows that 54,000 new mothers in Britain may be forced out of their jobs each year as a result of pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The Fawcett Society, Working Families—the work-life balance charity—and trade unions, among others, continually fight to protect against these types of discrimination.

We have a collective responsibility to ensure that we help to protect the rights of workers and employees amid the cut and thrust of the Brexit negotiations. People voted to leave the EU for many varied reasons, but they did not vote to be worse off. Our laws on these matters must be no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU beyond exit day. Indeed, the EU may well go on to legislate in ways with which we do not agree. The wording of new clause 79 is clear; it is there to inform, not to commit.

As many of my hon. Friends pointed out during the previous Committee sitting, we must make every effort to keep this House fully aware of the advancements that occur in Europe. To be clear, the new clause is not about binding the UK into implementing future EU directives in the family-friendly employment and gender equality space. Rather, it would ensure that Parliament was informed of any developments and would commit the Government to considering their implementation.

In the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, she signalled that the UK and the EU will continue to support each other as we navigate through Brexit. I have much to say on the work that we have collectively achieved in Europe, strengthening workers’ rights, maternity rights and employment practices. For example: the 1976 equal treatment directive established the principle of equal treatment for men and women in access to jobs, training and working conditions; the 1992 pregnant workers directive provided for statutory maternity leave, protected the health and safety of pregnant workers and breastfeeding mothers, prohibited dismissal due to pregnancy or maternity, and introduced paid time off for antenatal care; the 1993 working time directive provided a maximum 48-hour working week, and the right to rest periods and paid holiday; the 1996 parental leave directive provided for the right to unpaid parental leave, as well as time off for dependants; and the 1997 part-time work directive prevented part-time workers from being treated less favourably than full-time employees. All these measures have helped to improve the work-life balance and family-friendly employment rights in the UK, and it is vital that we do not fall behind Europe in the years ahead. To dismiss the last four decades of progress without looking to the future would set a dangerous precedent, which fills me with deep concern.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The rule of law is at the heart of this country’s constitutional traditions and is expressed in the oath that I and every Lord Chancellor has to take. My hon. Friend will recall that the manifesto on which he, I and other Conservative colleagues stood earlier this year committed us to remaining party to the European convention on human rights for the remainder of this Parliament.

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

The recently published Bach commission report highlighted a number of serious issues relating to access to justice, including representation at inquests. In the light of tragic events such as Grenfell Tower and Hillsborough, will the Minister commit to providing legal aid for inquests in all cases when the state is funding one or more of the other parties?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question on this pertinent and salient point. Legal aid remains available for inquests through the exceptional case funding scheme. Although those decisions are obviously decided independently, I reassure her that more than half the applications in relation to inquest cases in 2016-17 were granted.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I start from a simple premise. An assault on anyone is wrong, but an attack on any emergency worker—whether that is a police constable, a paramedic, an ambulance driver, an accident and emergency doctor or nurse, a fire officer, a prison officer, someone working in search and rescue, or someone working on a lifeboat—is an attack on us all. And when we are all attacked, we all stand firm together.

It is not just that many of these people show daily acts of bravery; they put their lives on the line. We know that here in Parliament, where PC Keith Palmer was murdered earlier this year. We owe him a phenomenal debt of gratitude. London knows it. A brave British Transport police officer was stabbed when he faced the London Bridge attackers with nothing but a baton earlier this year. That same day, a Met officer was also stabbed when he came to defend the public, despite being off duty. The whole country knows it, too, as we have seen horrific instances, week after week, of emergency staff who have been stabbed, strangled, bitten, repeatedly punched, kicked when down on the ground, and threatened with knives and acid. It is incomprehensible that people should attack our national heroes like this. It is amazing that those staff still go the extra mile on behalf of the British public. It is time that we did everything in our power to protect them.

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

I was taken to hospital by ambulance last month, having fallen ill. It was a horrible experience, which was made much better by the ambulance staff, who showed such kindness and professionalism to me and my two-year-old son. I got talking to them in the ambulance and they told me that they faced abuse on a daily basis. I told them about this Bill, and they wanted to pass on their thanks to my hon. Friend. This legislation is long overdue.

[Chris Bryant]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She makes her point extremely well. It is worth saying that the Bill is supported not only by the Royal College of Nursing and all the trade unions that represent staff in these different lines of work, but by the Metropolitan police, the Police Federation and nearly every part of civil society. I hope we do not end up with a vote later today, but the lack of a vote will not show a lack of assent by this House. Indeed, I think it will show the unanimous assent of the House to change the law in this regard.

It is a depressing fact that the number of assaults on emergency workers has dramatically increased in recent years. The Home Office’s own figures—these are frightening—suggest that there were 24,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales in 2016-17. The Police Federation reckons that there is an unarmed assault on a police officer every four minutes, and that is even without including police community support officers. The Ministry of Justice says that there were 7,159 assaults on prison officers last year—up a third on the previous year.

Dangerous Driving involving Death: Sentencing

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Obviously, that is a horrendous case and a great deal needs to be done on our prisons policy. It is not for us to debate that here today, but there is much to be done to improve the current state of affairs in our prisons, and I sympathise with her constituents and their families.

I want to talk about Sophie Taylor, a 22-year-old constituent of mine; she was a young woman in the prime of her life, with much to look forward to. She was described by her distraught mother, Jackie, as a loving and caring individual. I pay tribute to Jackie for somehow finding the strength to come and talk to me about the case, and to talk to the media about her horrific loss and her subsequent experience of the criminal justice and court system.

During the early hours of the morning of 22 August 2016, Sophie and her friend, Joshua Deguara, were chased through the streets of Cardiff by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Wheeler, and another driver. I will not comment on the case of the second driver, because elements of that case might still be sub judice, but I will focus on the actions and sentencing of Michael Wheeler, who entered a guilty plea and whose case is not subject to appeal.

During the chase, Sophie called 999 because she was scared and felt unsafe. She was on the phone, talking to an operator for 24 minutes. As that duration shows, the chase was a sustained and deliberate action by Mr Wheeler. During that time, his car reached speeds of up to 56 mph as he chased Sophie and Joshua into narrow residential streets. Then, he turned his car to the left into Sophie’s, causing her car to crash into a block of flats. The collision caused Sophie a catastrophic brain injury, which led to her death. Joshua suffered life-changing injuries, including a brain bleed, a shattered pelvis and an injury to his leg that has since led to its amputation. News reports stated that Mr Wheeler drove away after the crash before parking nearby, where he was arrested.

The judge who heard the case at Cardiff Crown court described what happened that night as

“nothing more than a pack chasing its prey”.

He added:

“You were trying to ram her off the road and you did”.

It is also worth noting that Sophie had made several reports to the police and visited the police station in the weeks leading up to her death about the problems she was experiencing with Mr Wheeler. The chase was an act of decisive, prolonged and co-ordinated aggression, and in my view, one which should have led to an even more serious charge than causing death by dangerous driving, but the judge was clear, saying

“you were consumed by a self-righteous and jealous rage, chasing her down to frighten her and teach her a lesson”.

We can only imagine Sophie’s family’s loss and the stress and torment that they have endured throughout the legal process. As I said, I met her mother, Jackie. Understandably, she is absolutely devastated by what happened, but she is equally determined to do what she can to prevent other families having to go through what her family has suffered.

As I said, I completely understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases. However, the details of the case that I have outlined are extremely pertinent in discussing the sentencing of cases of death by dangerous driving.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Members might know of an incident that happened in Penge last year, when two of my constituents, Makayah McDermott—a 10-year old boy and aspiring young actor—and his aunt, Rozanne Cooper, were killed when a stolen vehicle was travelling at 55 miles per hour in a residential area just opposite a playpark. That case is particularly close to my heart because I was at school with the mother of the boy and his aunt, both of whom died. Does my hon. Friend agree that the disparity between sentences for manslaughter and sentences for death by dangerous driving has long been unjust?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes I do, as a matter of fact, and I extend my sympathies to my hon. Friend and her constituents in relation to that tragic case. The case I will try to develop in my argument is that it is not enough just to get parity of sentence. We need to look at what sentences are being handed out and why, and whether justice is being served by the system, whatever ultimate maximum tariff the Government decide is appropriate for this offence.

The details of this case are pertinent. As hon. Members know, the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving has been raised in recent years to 14 years in custody. I note that in its guidelines, the Sentencing Council characterises a level 1 conviction for causing death by dangerous driving as

“a deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others.”

Given that Sophie was deliberately and persistently chased through the streets of Cardiff and forced off the road in a way that ultimately led to her death, it seems to me that a level 1 sentence would have to apply in this case. However, although the starting point for a level 1 conviction is eight years in custody, Wheeler was sentenced to seven and a half years, which is just over half the maximum sentence available. My constituent Jackie Taylor’s understanding is that the guidelines available to the judge did not allow for the maximum sentence to be given, despite the obvious aggressive and aggravating factors in this particular case.

The Justice Secretary said in reply to a letter that I sent to him about this case that the courts must follow sentencing guidelines

“unless it is not in the interest of justice to do so”.

That leads to an obvious question: how could it be in the interests of justice to opt for a shorter sentence in a case such as the one that I have outlined? The sentence following Sophie Taylor’s death poses questions about the current frequency and circumstances of use of the maximum sentence that are particularly timely, given the Government’s announcement that they intend to increase the maximum sentence from 14 years to life in cases of death by dangerous driving.

The first issue is how often the maximum sentence is used. In my previous correspondence on the matter with the Justice Secretary, I asked how many maximum sentences for causing death by dangerous driving had been handed out in recent years. I noted that the Government press release yesterday containing the announcement on the maximum sentence said that 157 people were sentenced in 2016 for causing death by dangerous driving. In his response to the question I asked in my letter, the Justice Secretary—it is not like him not to respond to my direct question—simply said that the maximum sentence was rarely used. When the Minister responds, can he give us that figure? I looked carefully at the Government’s press release to see whether it was there, but it was not.

I say gently to him that such sensitive matters should be carefully proofread. The final point of the notes to editors in the press release says:

“The government will give further consideration to increasing minimum driving bans for those convicted of causing serious death.”

I know that that is an error, but an error so crass is not really acceptable in something so sensitive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Reeves Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The right hon. Gentleman, as a former prisons Minister, is well aware that the job of tracking down and arresting criminals is one for the police service, not the prisons Minister. In response to his other question, we are looking at various types of technology to disrupt drones flying into our prisons to deliver contraband.

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

9. What assessment his Department has made of the reasons for recent trends in the number of employment tribunal cases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)]

In 2014, the Government introduced a requirement for potential claimants to consider conciliation before starting proceedings at the employment tribunal. The number of cases going to conciliation quadrupled, rising to 92,000 in 2015-16.

[Ellie Reeves]

In the year after employment tribunal fees were introduced, sex discrimination claims fell by 67% and pregnancy discrimination claims by 37%. The Supreme Court made it clear in its recent judgment that fees disproportionately affected women. The Minister has outlined plans to reimburse those who have submitted claims, but what steps will be taken to compensate people who were denied access to justice because they could not afford to pursue a claim in the first place?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady is right to refer to the ending of the fees and the proposals for reimbursement that we will bring forward shortly. If there were potential claims that should have been made but were not, anyone who was unable to bring a claim can submit to the employment tribunal to have their case heard outside the usual time limits. The judiciary will consider those applications case by case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

We are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to improve the treatment of victims in the justice system. In relation to the practice direction to which my hon. Friend refers, we expect to receive the revised version from the president of the family division for ministerial agreement by the end of this month.

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

T6. Since the election, hundreds of constituents have contacted me about our current animal cruelty laws, which are not fit for purpose. A maximum prison sentence of six months for some of the most appalling crimes, including torturing a dog to death, is completely unacceptable. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the sentencing guidelines are rigorously reviewed and strengthened?

[Dominic Raab]

I share the hon. Lady’s desire to see the most robust sentences for animal cruelty. The Government keep the sentencing framework under regular review, and I am not sure whether she is aware that in January the Sentencing Council published new guidelines on relevant aggravating factors in animal cruelty cases.