Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Over the past 10 years, more than 3,000 prison places have closed and community sentences have halved, and the three new prisons planned will not open before 2027 at the earliest. No wonder we have a prison capacity crisis, with the Government having to commandeer police cells and judges being told to jail fewer people. How can the public have faith that they will be protected and that crime will be punished when that is the Government’s record?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is worth reflecting that the second biggest programme in Government after High Speed 2 is in prison building. I invite her to go and look at Five Wells or Fosse Way, or at the work taking place at Millsike. Those are modern, safe, rehabilitative, productive prisons. We make no apology for investing in our prison estate because, if we can bear down on the things that prevent individuals from getting back on the right side and putting crime behind them, that is good for society, good for the individual and good for the taxpayer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have listened to what the Secretary of State has said, but the Government have had 13 years to compel criminals to attend courts to hear their sentences. The Government’s failure to do that has meant that in the last year alone the killers of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa have all avoided hearing their sentences, and avoided hearing the impact that their callous crimes have had on the families left behind. Will the Government urgently make this simple change, and stop cowardly offenders from evading their sentencing hearings?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady raises an important point by referring to those three cases. What concerns me is that one defendant’s actions could be copied by others, who take the view that that is somehow a way of getting away from the consequences of their actions. She makes it a political point—we are in the House of Commons, so I totally understand that—but I could equally make the point that the legislation was not changed pre-2010 either. We have seen the anguish caused by these actions, so let me make the point that I want to know that when an offender is sitting in a cell, trying to get to sleep when the rest of the world is getting to sleep, the judge’s words of condemnation are ringing in their ears. There are victims who find it hard to ever recover, so why should that defendant ever be able to sleep soundly in their bed?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. Positive obligations are a cornerstone of the Human Rights Act 1998. They mean that the state must protect as well as refrain from restricting our rights. The victims of the black cab rapist John Worboys used these obligations to hold the police to account for failing to properly investigate more than 105 alleged rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by him. How can this Government be trusted on ending violence against women and girls when the previous Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) wanted to rip up that Act and those obligations? Will the new Justice Secretary commit himself to protecting them and the rights they give to victims?

[Alex Chalk]

The rights that the hon. Lady refers to derive from the European convention on human rights: the right to life, the privilege against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to a fair trial, the right to a family life, and so on. Those stand apart from the Human Rights Act, but she is correct to say that they are important rights. The only thing I would take issue with is where she talks about violence against women and girls. It is the Conservative party that made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence—Labour did not. It is this party that made stalking a criminal offence—Labour did not. It is this party that made non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence—Labour did not. And it is this party that passed Acts such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and will pass Acts such as the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure that victims are properly served.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. As always, he is absolutely right: we have to strike this important balance in respect of digital evidence to ensure that the evidence to put people behind bars is appropriately obtained without compromising the right to a fair trial. No one here wants to do that. He is absolutely correct about capacity as well. The Lord Chief Justice has made that point very powerfully and it is one to which we are acutely alive.

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

I also welcome the Solicitor General to his place. When asked by Sky News about rape prosecutions, the Prime Minister said that the CPS is not taking rape prosecutions seriously enough. He also refused to commit to the Government’s promise in their rape review to restore rape prosecution rates to 2016 levels by the end of this Parliament. Does the Solicitor General agree with the Prime Minister’s comments? Is this not just another example of victims being abandoned by this Government?

[The Solicitor General]

No, that is not the case at all. The really important thing is to look at the actions. One of the things that I was very heartened by in this year’s spending review is that the additional funding that is going into the CPS is extremely significant—it is £80 million. To put that into concrete terms, that means that there will be an additional 100 RASSO prosecutors. The ones I met in CPS west midlands were incredibly motivated, diligent, decent and determined individuals. The Prime Minister is very clear about wanting to see improvements, and he is getting behind it by providing pounds, shillings and pence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Mercifully, during the pandemic violence has come down in prisons, which we welcome. It is also important not to make false comparisons. For example, employee contributions for police officers are at 12%, and 14% for fire officers, and 5.45% for prison officers. Of course we keep such matters under review. We made a generous offer in 2017 to bring forward the retirement date when the taxpayer would pay the entirety of employee contributions, but I regret that that was rejected by the POA.

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

Our prison officers do fantastic work keeping prisons and communities safe, and they have gone above and beyond throughout the pandemic. However, the Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that more than 86,000 years of prison officer experience has been lost since 2010. These key workers are moving on to better-paid work that does not involve abuse and assaults on a daily basis. Why, then, did the Government reject the pay review body’s recommendation of a £3,000 uplift for band 3 prison officers? Should we not be giving these key workers a pay rise to recognise their vital work in keeping our country safe?

[Alex Chalk]

Where the hon. Lady is absolutely right is that retention matters, because having more experience in a prison leads it to be safer and more rehabilitative. However, it is disappointing that she did not note that last year there was a minimum increase in pay of 2.5%, and in fact some officers received up to 7.5%. That was much higher than wage inflation in the economy. We will continue to do everything possible to increase retention, including, by the way, among new officers, many of whom I met over the course of the summer, who would really benefit from increased mentoring on wings to improve morale and retention. We are absolutely committed to that very important agenda.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No.2) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Chalk]

Q Just on that point, is there a distinction, in that wild animals would feel more traumatised than domesticated animals?

Daniella Dos Santos: Domesticated animals have come to be under the care of humans for generations, have been bred to exhibit traits that we find useful and find life under the influence of humans less stressful than a wild animal would.

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

Q You talk very compellingly about wild animals in circuses and their welfare. There is nothing in the Bill about domesticated animals in circuses. Do you have any views about whether that should be in scope, or whether there are welfare needs of domesticated animals that are not currently addressed?

Nicola O'Brien: Our organisation feels that those should also be banned from circuses. We feel that there are welfare needs of domestic animals that, again, are difficult to meet in a circus environment. The transportation—the loading and off-loading, and being transported—has its impact. A large part of the Bill is about ethics, and we feel that people are uncomfortable with animals being used in circuses, full stop, not necessarily with whether they are wild or domesticated. There is probably a difference: they are probably more concerned about wild animals because of their wild nature and freedom. There is definitely the argument that domestic animals are more suited to being around humans in the kind of environments that we house them in. However, we also recognise that the Bill is about wild animals. That was the question put to the public in the consultation—that is the focus for today—but this is something that we would also like to see prohibited in future.

Dr Ros Clubb: From the RSPCA’s perspective, we also have a position against the use of any animal in circuses. We have concerns because of issues such as the travelling, temporary enclosure and so on, of domestic animals. As Nicola said, in some cases the concern is probably less, because they are more adapted to a captive environment; nevertheless, concerns remain. We are very much minded that this legislation is focused on wild animals. That is where the opportunity lies to make change.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ellie Reeves and Alex Chalk

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

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about LASPO, because if I may say so he is on stronger ground on that territory and I look forward to attending his debate and making some observations. That debate truly is about a cardinal principle that we in this Chamber should all share: whatever a person’s circumstances, they should be entitled to access to justice. It would be quite wrong, though, to conflate that debate with the one we are having.

On the tariffs, I do not suggest that this is the case for the hon. Gentleman, but there cannot be synthetic outrage. If someone has suffered pain, suffering and loss of amenity to the extent that their symptoms endure beyond two years, they are entitled to get whatever the judge thinks appropriate. We are dealing with claims that, although not insignificant, are towards the lower end of the spectrum. That needs to be borne in mind.

[Ellie Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that special damages are not included in the tariff. However, the point that needs to be made is that under the tariff system someone could, as he rightly points out, be off work for a very, very long time, but because of the way that the tariffs are set, their claim would fall into the small claims track, meaning that they would not be able to have their legal costs covered, so would be unlikely to get representation for their claim. That is likely to mean that they could have a big special damages claim that is never recoverable because they will be unable to afford to pursue their claim. Does he agree?

[Alex Chalk]

No, I do not. First, in any event, as the hon. Lady knows, if the person’s claim extends beyond £5,000, it will go on to the fast track, so they will be entitled to get that cost. Secondly, the concern that a number of solicitors raise about this is to say, “The really difficult thing that you need to claim—the thing that is hard sometimes to prove—is the general damages element.” That is why they have become so indignant about it. In fact, the special damages claim is rather easier to quantify, and I do not think that people would, in effect, be frozen out of justice. Thirdly—if this aspect of the Bill had not been changed, I think I would be opposing it—for the really difficult claims where, for example, somebody has been injured at work and faces, as I accept entirely, the added burden of having to take on their employer, the threshold does not apply in the same way. It is absolutely right that the Government have moved on that to ensure that anything above £2,000 means that people go on to the fast track.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point about the tariff, is it right to say that this is an egregious departure from anything that we have known before in English law? That is putting it far too high. My hon. Friend the Minister has already indicated that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority sets that principle in any event. Furthermore, it is a principle adopted in plenty of other countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights, Italy for one.

It is also worth stepping back to consider the criminal law. Before the Sentencing Guidelines Council, as it was then called, started to set its guidelines in terms of tariffs for criminal penalties, there was a concern that it would be intruding on the discretion of the courts, but in fact it has worked very well. Defendants, lawyers and judges have really welcomed the guidelines, which set clearer tariffs, because that provides a degree of clarity. Of course, it is not a direct equivalent because judges still retain some discretion within the guidelines, but it does make the point that completely open-ended discretion does not exist everywhere throughout the legal system.

There are other mitigating factors that allow me, and people like me, to conclude that these are fair and proportionate proposals. First and most important is the exceptional circumstances uplift. Clause 5(1) says:

“Regulations made by the Lord Chancellor may provide for a court—

(a) to determine that the amount of damages payable for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of one or more whiplash injuries is an amount greater than the tariff amount relating to that injury”.

In other words, there is a safety net in circumstances where the law would otherwise do an injustice. That is really important and ought to give a lot of comfort to Opposition Members who might otherwise be concerned. The second reason I feel comforted is that the tariffs are clearly going to have the engagement and input of the judges. That is why Lord Brown concluded that there was nothing wrong in principle with a tariff system.

There are of course things that have to be got right. It is critically important that any savings that are derived from this are truly passed on to motorists. I want to ensure that constituents in Cheltenham receive the benefits. We need to ensure that young people who are setting out on their careers and need their car for work, for whom every last £10 is critically important, will be receiving these benefits. If they do, then my clear view is that these principles are sensible, proportionate and calibrated, and have a safety net. Even though—I probably ought to have declared this at the beginning, Madam Deputy Speaker—my wife is a personal injury lawyer, I feel confident that I can take on the domestic dispute just as I have taken on Opposition Members in this House.