Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [ Lords ]

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 25th February 2019 General Committees

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate: the hon. Members for Erewash, for Mid Dorset and North Poole, and for Faversham and Mid Kent. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for sponsoring the Bill, and for his detailed speech and obvious commitment to the issue.

The debate has in many ways been quite traumatic to listen to, but the cause is one on which we can all work together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East made clear. The Bill addresses a barbaric practice that has no place in a modern society such as ours, but which unfortunately still exists. Female genital mutilation is a horrific abuse of children of all ages, particularly those who have not reached puberty. It can have a profound and devastating impact long into later life. In the short term, it causes severe pain, with the risk of excessive bleeding, infections and urinary issues, and possibly even death. In the longer term, it causes menstrual and vaginal problems, issues relating to sexual intercourse, and complications in childbirth.

According to overwhelming consensus in the medical profession, FGM has absolutely no health advantage. As the World Health Organisation puts it, there are “no…benefits”, but “only harm”. It is an abhorrent practice that constitutes a violation of the human rights of women and represents a stark reminder of the inequalities between sexes, with women cruelly and inhumanely discriminated against. Yet it still occurs. Some estimates suggest that more than 200 million women across the world have been victims of FGM. The World Health Organisation labelled it “A Global Concern”, concentrated in regions and communities across Africa, the middle east and Asia. However, as so many Members have said today, it happens right here in the UK.

Despite being illegal since 1985, statistics published by NHS Digital show that between April 2015 and March 2016, FGM was identified in 9,223 attendances at NHS trusts and GP practices, 6,080 of which were new cases. In the following year, 9,179 attendances included 5,391 new cases. The most recent statistics show 2,320 attendances in the first three months of 2018, of which 1,030 were newly recorded women or girls. However, given the known obstacles associated with reporting and recording FGM—the act is likely to be committed by a family member or an established and respected member of the community, for example—the real figure is likely to be even higher.

Female genital mutilation is occurring, yet prosecutions of those committing it are not. Clearly, the statistics paint a stark picture that shows that more must be done, which is what the Bill seeks to do by giving the courts the ability to include local authorities in protecting against FGM. Currently, female genital mutilation protection orders are the best device for acting against FGM. They allow a court to present prohibitions, restrictions or requirements, where it sees fit, to protect a girl who has already been or is at risk becoming a victim of FGM. Examples might be the prohibition of travel or passport surrender to prevent a girl at risk from being taken abroad for FGM. Use of such protection orders, however, appears minimal. Ministry of Justice figures show that only 205 FGM protection orders had been made up to the end of December 2017 since their introduction two and a half years earlier.

The Children Act, however, allows judges to make temporary care orders if they are concerned about a child’s health, with section 8(4) listing the areas in which that is applicable. For a child at risk of molestation, violence or a forced marriage, for example, judges can force the relevant local authority to intervene and to provide interim care to ensure the child’s safety, but FGM is not listed under that section, so judges cannot do the same for young women faced with that repugnant practice. The Bill seeks to amend that apparent oversight, listing FGM as one of the stand-alone statutes in section 8(4) of the Act and allowing judges to intervene directly and to involve local authorities in FGM cases.

That proposal, as many have said, is certainly no panacea for the widespread practice of FGM in the UK—much more needs to be done to eradicate it. Does the Minister agree that we need to tackle the cultural conventions in communities in which FGM is commonplace through education and awareness? Does she agree that confidence must be given to members of those communities to speak out against those who perform such operations? Will she tell us what steps have been taken to increase the number of prosecutions of those who are identified?

The Bill is certainly a welcome step in the right direction. As my colleague Baroness Kennedy said in the other place, at the very least

“it adds to the armoury of those who hear these cases”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 1420.]

That can only be a good thing. It gives judges and local authorities greater scope to address and, crucially, prevent FGM, by adding an extra tool.

It is incumbent on all in Parliament to do what we can to tackle the devastatingly damaging practice of FGM. In that spirit, the Opposition will certainly not stand in the way of a reasonable Bill such as this, which we welcome as it seeks to do just that.

Missing Persons Guardianship

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Do not worry, colleagues, I will not take up that kind offer. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate and to everybody who has contributed to it—the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). We have heard some powerful and moving speeches. To say that I enjoyed listening to them would be to use the wrong word, but certainly I have been moved by every speech I have heard today.

Let us take a moment to imagine someone we love dearly—a family member, spouse or child—going missing without a trace; how frantic and traumatised we would feel at losing them overnight and how we would cling to the hope that they might return, even as days, months or even years went by, all the while swinging between hope and fear of the worst. Let us imagine having to experience that rollercoaster of emotional turmoil while simultaneously battling with legal and financial institutions to save the home we shared, watching the life that we hope that loved one will return to fall apart. Let us imagine being stuck in legal limbo, unable even to grieve the loss of the missing loved one, who we still hope will return, unable to manage the finances and practical affairs of the absent family member, feeling helpless.

That is the reality for families of missing people, who are still waiting on Ministers to move on this vital legislation and allow them the legal right to become guardians of their loved one’s affairs 90 days after they have been declared missing. Without the legal authority to act on a missing relative’s behalf, families can face great difficulty engaging financial and legal institutions to keep their loved one’s affairs in order. Whether it is banking, mortgages or insurance, benefits or utilities, the list of foundational elements of their relative’s life that they are unable to manage due to bureaucratic barriers is endless.

Families find themselves unable to make changes to missing relatives’ mortgages or cancel direct debits that are clearly no longer needed. The worst-case scenario is that the missing person’s finances are damaged beyond repair and that their home is lost altogether, which, unless a presumption of death certificate is gained, is the only option for some families.

However, quite understandably, many people do not want to believe that their loved one is deceased. While the presumption of death route suits some families, it does not suit many others. Imagine having a missing person declared dead when firmly believing, or at least hoping against hope, that they are actually still alive. Forcing families to declare their loved one dead just so that they can take control of a spiralling financial crisis seems an almost dystopian level of cruelty. Where is the humanity in such a system? There are examples of people who have been missing for years later returning. Who are we to deny suffering families the hope that their loved one will one day be back to resume the life they left behind?

The simple solution, as laid out in the 2017 Act, is similar to arrangements that exist for appointing people guardian of the affairs of someone who is mentally incapable of managing their own affairs. This is a humane and practical route to giving families the peace of mind and the autonomy to deal with financial quandaries that they would otherwise face.

The Government have dragged their feet on implementation of the 2017 Act, to the extent that they are still consulting on it, despite the Act receiving Royal Assent and the support of both sides of the House. This totally unnecessary consultation finishes today, with weary families watching as we continue to engage in a talking shop about the blatantly obvious and already agreed solution to their ongoing trauma. The legislation has been debated and agreed and has received Royal Assent. Why on earth are we making traumatised families wait any longer? Charities that work with the families of missing people are seriously concerned by the continued delays. Missing People says that families it works with currently face increased financial hardship, despite hoping that they would now be able to manage their missing relative’s affairs.

Claudia Lawrence is still missing after nearly 10 years. There is no evidence of any crime being committed against her, nor of her having made any contact with those close to her. Her father, Peter Lawrence, has spearheaded the campaign for changes to guardianship laws and has come so far, seeing Claudia’s law grow from a ten-minute rule Bill into a fully formed Act thanks to his brave campaigning. However, he and the rest of Claudia’s family still have no closure or ability to manage her affairs.

More people are going missing, and the latest figures show that fewer people than the Government expected have been declared as presumed dead, meaning more families being forced to face unnecessary challenges due to the Government’s slow progress on implementing the legislation. Claudia’s law passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords on 27 April 2017. It was welcomed in both Houses by all parties and passed through Parliament unamended in just over three months. It should have been fully enacted in May 2018, when we expected families of missing people to be able to start applying for guardianship powers.

However, despite initial assurances that the law would be brought into force one year after Royal Assent, in April 2018 the Government made the heartbreaking announcement that delays would ensue, preventing the necessary secondary legislation from being enacted. We are still waiting, nearly two years down the line, while families watch their finances fall apart and the burden of stress mount ever higher. All Members who have spoken have made the same plea: that we must not drag our heels any longer. Why do these delays persist? When will the Minister give these families the reassurance they need of a solid, immovable implementation timetable, and what does he have to say to them by way of apology for their prolonged pain and suffering?

Draft Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 General Committees

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. There is fierce opposition to these proposed changes, from legal experts, charities and legislative bodies. The Government plan a probate fee hike from the current flat fee of £215—or £155 if the application is made by a solicitor—to a sliding range between £250 and £6,000, depending on the value of the estate. The changes encompass fee increases to a level that is nearly 28 times what some people currently pay. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Law Society, among many others, have joined a chorus of condemnation of the proposals.

Apart from the staggering increase in costs, the proposed fees have no bearing on the actual cost of the service provided. The services involved in a grant of probate are fundamentally the same, regardless of the value of the estate. The proposals are clearly disproportionate and excessive, but they also make a mockery of the long-standing principle that fees for a public service should recover the cost of providing it, and no more. I am frankly shocked that more Conservative Members are not fighting to maintain that fiscal convention.

Combined with the Government’s conviction that funds raised through the changes can be reinvested elsewhere in the struggling justice system, the proposals represent what the Law Society identifies as

“a tax on grieving families”.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has likewise suggested:

“To charge a fee so far above the actual cost of the service arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’”.

It is true that Government cuts have left the justice system in crisis. Prisons are overcrowded, the probation service is overstretched, courts are closing and people across the country are excluded from access to justice because of devastating cuts to legal aid. It is also true that time and time again the Opposition have called for the investment and resources that the justice system needs to operate properly. It is unacceptable that, through these changes, the Government intend to place the burden of covering those costs on the shoulders of vulnerable, grieving people.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that all these problems began when the Ministry of Justice was led by someone known commonly in the press as “failing Grayling”—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

In the context of this SI only, please.

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is right and we have been warning about those very things, but our warnings appear often to have fallen on deaf ears. What is more, the fact that these fees amount in practice to a tax raises serious questions over whether the changes exceed the authority of the Lord Chancellor. The power to impose taxes lies with Parliament, yet in the eyes of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,

“cross-subsidised charges are normally classified as taxes.”

This order thus constitutes a misuse of the fee-levying power. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has likewise asserted that there is

“real doubt as to whether the Lord Chancellor may use a power to prescribe non-contentious probate fees for the purpose of funding services which executors do not seek to use”.

There are clearly concerns about both the nature of the proposals and their practical effect.

The charity sector has also warned of losses—a point my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South made—to the tune of nearly £10 million a year. Cancer Research UK has cautioned that the stealth tax will diminish donations made in wills. What assurances can the Minister provide to the charity sector that any changes will not have an adverse financial impact on charities? Can she confirm whether these increases in fees break convention? I have read the 2014 Act and conclude that it says something quite different.

Does the Minister acknowledge that grieving individuals will be footing the bill for cuts made elsewhere in the justice system, even in service areas that they do not use? Can she provide an estimate of the numbers of people affected by this change each year, and to what overall value? Does she recognise the concerns raised by a huge number of legal experts, parliamentary bodies, the public, the media and the charity sector that these charges amount to little more than a stealth tax on grieving people?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I can offer my hon. Friend the reassurance that we are working extremely closely with colleagues across Government to do that. We often see that some of the young people who end up in the criminal justice system have come from homes or families where they have witnessed domestic abuse. It is incumbent on us all to do all we can to tackle that.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Practice direction 12J requires that a court must be sure, when ordering parental contact, that neither the child nor the other parent is at risk of harm. The direction makes it clear that this is an obligatory requirement, but campaign groups and lawyers say that its implementation is patchy, as we saw in the Sammy Woodhouse case. Will the Government task the new domestic abuse commissioner with responsibility for monitoring its implementation, with annual reports of any breaches to be laid before Parliament?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question, and I should have said in response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) that I knew that the shadow Minister was concerned about this case and had done work on it. As I have set out, in the shorter term we have asked the president of the family division to look at that practice guidance to see whether it is working as it should. The hon. Lady mentioned the domestic abuse commissioner. In the context of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, the commissioner will have powers to investigate these matters. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady, as my opposite number, to discuss how that might work in practice.

Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This has been a fantastic debate from which I have learned a great deal.

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) secured the debate to shine a light on the case of her disabled constituent, who thought she was being burgled when debt collectors forced their way into her home without showing ID, and stole cash from her purse. As we know, that was not an isolated incident. The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) described a case where constituents of his suffered total humiliation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about threatening and intimidating behaviour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke of vulnerable constituents receiving threatening letters and living in fear and anxiety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) spoke about the tragic death of Jerome Rogers. That should concentrate all our minds on the importance of this debate. Jerome was a young man with plenty to live for when he took his own life, but it seems he felt that he just could not go on in the face of the stress and despair he felt after months of interaction with bailiffs. Looking at his story, it is striking how unfair and pointless his treatment was. He was struggling with debt and trying to get out of it, but the odds were stacked against him.

Two unpaid £65 traffic fines spiralled to debts of more than £1,000 in a matter of months. Sky-high bailiff fees meant that there was virtually no cap on what they could take from Jerome. Knowing he could not cope with the debt and the eye-watering fees, he contacted the bailiff company and the individual bailiff dealing with his case, asking to set up an affordable repayment plan. He was met with a flat refusal and little to no human compassion. At least he could earn some money using his motorbike to deliver blood supplies to London’s hospitals—but no. It seems that the bailiffs were systematically cutting off every escape route he could think of. They clamped Jerome’s motorbike, despite the fact that its value fell far below the £1,350 threshold for seizing or taking control of goods. Not only did Jerome have no money and no agency to solve his problems, but he had the added pressure of the intimidating presence of a bailiff outside his home. The stress was unimaginable, and ultimately Jerome just could not take it anymore.

As many people have said, we are not talking about a one-off case, or a few rogue bailiffs and their firms. Recent research from Citizens Advice shows that one person in three has experienced bailiffs breaking the rules, and half of StepChange Debt Charity’s clients said their bailiff refused to accept an affordable repayment offer. This is a systemic failure in our society that must be dealt with.

The legislation covering bailiffs is complex and fragmented. It has failed to protect vulnerable people going through hard times from aggressive and intimidating behaviour. There were some positive measures in the 2014 reforms to taking control of goods, but they just have not worked. It seems that bailiffs are ignoring many of the provisions, as they did when seizing Jerome’s motorbike, refusing affordable payment plans or engaging in threatening behaviour. We cannot allow the bailiff industry to continue marking its own homework.

[Ruth George]

I have had similar problems in my constituency with the bailiffs hired by my local council. Bristow and Sutor—a company that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) mentioned—uses cameras to take photos of people’s possessions and threatens them with those possessions being sold off if they cannot pay a full demand up front, immediately. It also refuses payment plans. My constituents say its bailiffs have even visited elderly relatives, refused to leave their properties and made them feel intimidated. I am sorry to say that even where we have better practice, with directly employed agents, very serious complaints are still being made.

[Gloria De Piero]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Story after story shows why reform is necessary. Unlike similar industries dealing with vulnerable people, such as debt collectors, the bailiff industry is not overseen by an independent regulator. As Labour recognised with our successful payday loan campaign, self-regulation is just not suitable for industries with intrusive powers over vulnerable people’s lives, homes and finances. It is just too easy for unscrupulous companies to be greedy or to mistreat people when they are at their lowest. None of the main trade bodies for bailiff companies seems interested in enforcing the law or holding the industry to account, and even if they were, they do not have the teeth to do so, just as we saw with payday lenders.

There is also no simple, accessible complaints system for people to report the horror stories or infringements of the bailiffs they are dealing with. The only thing that will do, as so many colleagues have said, is to replace the broken system of self-regulation and piecemeal reform with independent bodies that will hold the industry to account and allow people’s complaints to be heard and dealt with. We need either a new regulator or to bring bailiffs within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority—that went a long way towards reining in payday lenders. It does not matter what body we choose as long as it is fully independent and has the teeth and the will to put a stop to unscrupulous behaviour.

We also need a simplified, free, independent complaints procedure, adjudicated by an independent body. We need to listen to the myriad voices calling for change—organisations that in many cases are working on the frontline of the effects of the broken bailiff system. They include AdviceUK, the Children’s Society, Christians Against Poverty, Citizens Advice, Community Money Advice, the Institute of Money Advisers, the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, the Money Advice Trust and StepChange Debt Charity.

Many colleagues said that the current system is not fit for purpose. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the current system of regulation not working because there are no sanctions, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who also brought a mental health angle to the discussions and suggested some practical solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) talked knowledgeably about how the law needs to change, and made a wider point about use of bailiffs being a symptom of increasing household debt. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) brought a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate and talked about how enforcement orders are used. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made a wider, and important, point about the need to be tough on bailiffs and tough on the causes of bailiffs. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) talked of desperate people chasing desperate people and brought her long-standing expertise to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) talked about how the complaints system is not working and is not fit for purpose, and the wider issue of poverty.

There really is no excuse for the Minister not to act. As the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) explained, some of the bailiff companies are themselves calling for independent regulation. I have a fundamental request. Will the Minister agree to enact a properly independent regulator, and will she set a timetable today to do so? Will she also urge other local councils to follow the example of Hammersmith and Fulham and not use bailiffs? Will she heed the call from the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) for councils to look at how they deal with repossession and rehousing? Every day that we wait is another day of stress and despair for too many people struggling with bailiffs.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that it is customary to leave a minute or so for the proposer of the motion to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are here to serve the people, and we are here to serve people who have claims. People can still bring their claims through a very simple process in our courts. I should also mention that the Ministry of Justice has brought forward and is progressing an online system for money claims, which is achieving a great deal of satisfaction among users.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

The Government have rightly exempted vulnerable road users from the proposed changes. However, two colleagues—say, two paramedics or two police officers—who are both injured at work on the roads could be treated quite differently, with one able to get legal advice and pay no cost to get compensation, and one having to fight insurers on their own, simply because one was injured on a motorbike and the other in an ambulance or squad car. Rather than hold working people to different standards, can the Government exempt all people injured in the course of their work?

[Lucy Frazer]

We are concerned about the injury that is suffered, not the person’s profession. As I said, this measure will help people to access courts. The small claims limit for other money claims is £10,000, not £2,000, and people will still be able to get justice.

Rape Myths and Juries

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered rape myths and juries.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.

In August, I submitted a freedom of information request to the Crown Prosecution Service about the conviction rates for rape. The answer revealed that less than a third of prosecutions brought against young men result in a conviction. Men aged 18 to 24 in England and Wales are consistently less likely to be found guilty than older men. Only 32% were convicted last year—the lowest of any age group. Successful prosecutions against men aged 25 to 59 were much higher at 46 %. The Guardian used those figures in its recent excellent series on rape.

Given that the vast majority of rapes are acquaintance or date rape, the conviction figures suggest a reluctance by juries to find young men guilty of rape. We need to explore the reasons behind that and how rape myths, stereotypes and attitudes affect juries. The rates may reflect the prevailing attitudes in society, and therefore of juries, towards young women, who are often blamed for their own rape.

The number of men charged with rape in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level in a decade—a 23% decline in 2017-18, according to the Crown Prosecution Service’s annual “Violence against Women and Girls Report”. Yet at the same time, the number of rapes reported to the police soared to more than 41,000 in 2016-17, with a massive 150% increase in the last five years. Despite fewer charges, there was a 13% fall in prosecutions and a 12% decrease in convictions.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend highlights some figures; according to latest figures, just over half the reports of rape resulted in a charge. Of the cases that were prosecuted, 42% did not result in a conviction. The most vital thing for women who report rape is that they are believed. Does she agree that those figures cause serious harm to that principle?

[Ann Coffey]

I agree; women must have confidence when reporting rape that they will be believed and taken seriously, and that they will have justice.

There has been a 72% increase in the number of cases that have been administratively finalised—meaning the police have closed them after receiving advice from the CPS. A Guardian article on 24 September quoted a whistleblower who said that prosecutors were being told to

“ditch ‘weak’ rape cases to improve figures”.

That advice could severely limit victims’ access to justice and lead to cases involving younger victims, students or those with mental health issues being less likely to result in a charge. The overwhelming majority of rape victims still choose not to report to the police for fear of not being believed, yet the prevailing narrative in some sections of the media is that lying about rape is common. The opposite is true. Only 17% of those who experience sexual violence report it to the police, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics for March 2017. The CPS estimated in 2012 that only 3% of the 1,149 cases heard may have been malicious.

Juries view evidence through the lens of prevailing stereotypes shared with the wider community. Rape myths still dominate in our culture, including that a woman who has drunk a lot cannot complain if she is raped, that it is rape only if someone has injuries, that real rapes are done by strangers in alleyways, that it is a crime of passion and that women invite rape by what they wear. Research shows that stereotypes about how rape victims are expected to behave remain prevalent in society and, by extension, in juries. There is still a lack of understanding about why a woman might not report an assault immediately or might not fight, or how a victim of a sexual assault might behave in the immediate aftermath of an attack. There are still huge gaps in the public understanding about what sexual consent actually means.

The End Violence Against Women Coalition commissioned YouGov research, which will be published shortly, that shows confusion among the public about what constitutes rape, particularly concerning the majority of rapes involving acquaintances. Almost a third thought it was not rape if a woman had flirted on a date but had not wanted sex. Juries take those attitudes into the court room with them. Defence lawyers play up those myths in an attempt to rubbish the character of the witness.

Dr Dominic Willmott, an academic at Huddersfield University, conducted a study in 2017 in which he replicated genuine trial environments to assess how attitudes and backgrounds had an impact on juries. The study found that nearly half of jurors in rape cases came to a verdict before deliberation, indicating a predictive relationship between juror demographics, personal experience and psychological make-up, with an impact on verdicts in rape cases. Dr Willmott said the research demonstrated

“that for all the best efforts of the courts, juries are not necessarily offering a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence, particularly within rape cases. Past experiences play a huge role in shaping the person you are, and inevitably affects your view on society. As well as the importance of demographic features of the jurors, attitudes towards rape were found to be the strongest predictor of high numbers of not guilty verdicts.”

We all saw how the culture at the time protected very well-known people such as Jimmy Savile. We saw how young girls who were victims of shocking sexual exploitation in Rotherham and Rochdale were seen as prostitutes who consented to their abuse. Language and how we talk about behaviour is very important; it shapes what we see. The Crown Prosecution Service has said:

“Addressing the low conviction after contest rate in cases involving young defendants represents a challenge for the entire criminal justice system.”

The Ministry of Justice responded to an open e-petition in July this year that called on the Government to produce compulsory training about rape myths for all jurors in rape trials by appointing Professor Cheryl Thomas to gather data from experienced jurors at a range of courts throughout the country. The Government response to the petition said:

“We know that rape myths exist within our society, and therefore jurors could believe these myths and that this could affect their interpretations of the facts of the case.”

In the light of the shocking figures on charging and convictions there should be a stronger response, because this situation can only get worse without action.

I would like an urgent independent inquiry that would include some controversial areas, such as a review of the use of juries in rape cases; jury vetting; specialist rape courts; current law; judicial directions; examination of the falling number of rapes charges by the CPS; low conviction rates for rape, especially date and acquaintance rape; the role of expert witnesses in rape cases; pre-recorded cross-examination; and sexual history evidence rules. I absolutely accept that the justice system needs to ensure that the innocent go free and the guilty are sentenced, but my concern is that conviction rates indicate that the scales of justice are tipped against the victim. The most common cause of unsuccessful prosecutions in rape cases is jury acquittal.

Other countries have been pondering this difficult question. The Law Commission in New Zealand published a report in December 2015 that concluded:

“The nature of sexual violence is such that, as a form of criminal offending, it is not well suited to fact-finding by a jury comprised of 12 laypersons.”

The German and French court systems have a collaborative court model in which professional judges decide cases with citizens. Sir John Gillen, who issued a report yesterday in response to serious concerns about low conviction rates for rape in Northern Ireland and the polluting effect of rape myths said,

“there is no doubt that there is a growing belief, particularly among young people, that a jury should be replaced by a judge or by a judge and two lay people such as we see in family courts and aspects of youth justice.”

Specialist domestic violence courts were introduced in the mid-2000s. At the time, the prevailing view was that it was the woman’s own fault if she did not leave an abusive husband. New specialist sexual violence courts could draw on experience from those courts of using specially trained staff, ensuring speedy access to victim support services and ensuring that the court is a physically safe space for the victim, for example by using separate entrances and special measures for giving evidence.

The roll-out of the successful pilots in Leeds, Liverpool and Kingston of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which allows pre-recorded cross-examination, has still not happened. Those pilots, which involved vulnerable child witnesses, were evaluated as very successful in improving the quality of cross-examination and stopping bullying attacks on the character of witnesses. I hope that the Minister can give us positive news about when pre-recorded cross-examination will finally be rolled out, and that she will consider offering it to victims whose access to a fair trial may be compromised by rape myths.

There is also controversy about the extent of the personal records and data that police request of rape complainants before going ahead with their cases. The nature and extent of the information requested from complainants varies widely across police forces. There is concern that intensive examination of a complainant’s communication and behaviour to establish their “credibility” is too often a proxy for rape myths and discriminatory assumptions. The new Director of Public Prosecutions addressed that issue in his first major speech, saying that rape complainants must have their personal privacy, including their mobile phone records, protected.

Dr Willmott has called for the vetting of juries for preconceived bias. He argues that although judges can tell jurors to disregard certain things, that does not make any difference:

“Our study highlights that even before the case has begun, jurors’ psycho-social make up predisposes them towards particular verdict decisions, making a vetting system for juries increasingly important. By implementing such a system we can reduce existing bias from juries, which should result in a greater number of fairer outcomes.”

There have been calls for experts to be allowed to give evidence about rape myths. There is a case for updating judicial directions to take into account the impact of social media and how it can feed into rape myths—another issue taken up by Sir John Gillen. Baroness Stern raised the impact of rape myths on juries in her 2010 review, quoting a specialist rape prosecutor who said:

“You can forgive juries for finding it hard to convict given the burden of proof and when the defence works so hard to discredit the victim’s case. There is a lot of general misunderstanding about trauma.”

In Scotland, section 275C of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 allows prosecutors to call expert evidence at trial. That would help jurors to understand typical psychological responses to rape.

Currently, UK law does not differentiate between stranger rape and acquaintance rape, which both carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Juries understand the evidence for stranger rape, but complex issues about consent in acquaintance rape are not so well understood. A senior police officer said that

“at the moment we are asking juries to do something incredibility difficult.”

That is true. We ask jurors to make judgments about consent to sex where the victim and the accused are known to each other and the victim may have consented to some sexual activity but not to penetration. It is challenging for juries to judge whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that consent was given, especially when drink was involved. That is where myths and stereotypes kick in.

The consent elements of rape, as outlined in CPS guidelines, are that

“B does not consent to the penetration and A does not reasonably believe that B consents”.

The CPS guidelines go on to state:

“Proving the absence of consent is usually the most difficult part of a rape prosecution, and is the most common reason for a rape case to fail. Prosecutors will look for evidence such as injury, struggle, or immediate distress to help them prove that the victim did not consent, but frequently there may be no such corroborating evidence.”

Sir John Gillen called for a

“discernible shift towards a requirement for some measure of affirmative or participative expression of consent and away from a focus on resistance as a means to prove the absence of consent.”

I have the greatest respect and admiration for members of the public who do jury service, some of whom have to sit through evidence of the most horrifying and brutal crimes inflicted by one person on another. Serving on a jury is indeed a public service. However, I return to my original figures. Juries are reluctant to convict young men of rape. It is no use wringing our hands about that. We cannot have a situation in which young women who have been raped feel that they have no access to justice, because that undermines the whole justice system.

Ministers need to take strong action, including a fundamental review of the whole system. They must take the lead to forge better public understanding of rape myths and what constitutes consent. Sir John Gillen, who suggested a large-scale publicity campaign and training for juries, said:

“Jurors don’t just land from the moon, they are people like you and me.”

A perfect storm is developing in which juries are reluctant to convict young men who are charged with rape, so the CPS is reluctant to prosecute and the police are therefore reluctant to refer. The result is that victims will stop coming forward and young women will be denied justice. The danger is that we will be thrown back to the dark days, when victims of abuse were silenced and dared not speak out.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

All parents’ rights are incredibly important, but in the family court the heart of every case is the child’s best interests. That is the basis on which judges make their determination. There is a presumption that contact with both mother and father is in the child’s interests, but each case depends on its own facts.

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

Women’s Aid has long been concerned that although the experiences of victims of domestic abuse are taken seriously in the criminal courts, they are diminished or even ignored in the family courts. That is exactly what is happening to a woman with whom I am in touch, whose spouse is serving time for attempting to murder her. She has been asked to provide pension and bank statements, payslips, proof of the valuation of her home, and even evidence of the medical toll on her health. It is wrong. Will the Minister work with me to change the law to stop those who attempt to murder their spouse reaping any financial benefit?

[Lucy Frazer]

Domestic violence is a huge issue on which the Government have taken several steps, including by widening the scope of abuse that is caught by the law on coercive control and by the requirements for legal aid. I am pleased to have met the hon. Lady already to discuss the issue that she mentions, and we are looking into it.

Future of Legal Aid

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this important debate. He pointed out the key target of those legal aid reforms—that those who were most in need would get legal aid. That is why we are having the debate—because we do not believe that that principle has been upheld. He put three key asks to the Minister, and I hope that she will respond to them.

It is essential that, regardless of someone’s wealth or background, our justice system should be easily accessible so that everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to the law of the land. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) gave us a historical perspective on how that principle came about. Government cuts of a third in overall spending on legal aid since 2012 have, however, made a mockery of that principle. To quote the words of the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the pendulum has swung “too far” the other way.

There are many reasons why people may find that they need legal aid, unfortunately, and we have heard many of them today from speeches and numerous interventions, in particular from Opposition Members. Very real problems have been addressed, to do with issues including housing, benefits, those with disabilities, and immigration, where people simply feel as though they are on their own. Like me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does not come from a legal background, but as a constituency MP he gave a perspective on what is happening on the ground and why reform is needed.

When people have fallen on hard times, the last thing that they can cope with is a lengthy battle to get legal representation or, worse, learning to represent themselves in court, and yet that is exactly what the Government are forcing people to do. Legal professionals have warned of a sharp rise in the number of people forced to represent themselves in court to access the justice that they deserve. Will the Minister tell me what the rise in litigants in person has been?

Recently, we learned that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is launching an official inquiry into whether legal aid cuts have left victims of discrimination barred from justice, after BuzzFeed News revealed that not one person with a discrimination complaint against an employer or business had been referred to see a legal aid lawyer in 2016-17. The number of people receiving any publicly funded legal advice at all in discrimination cases has fallen by almost 60% since the Government’s changes. Will the Minister tell us whether there been a 60% drop in discrimination? I sincerely doubt that.

A particularly pernicious aspect of the Government’s attacks on legal aid is the impact on victims of domestic violence. It is well known that abusers often use the legal system to continue their abuse. There are a number of issues with the Legal Aid Agency’s assessment of women’s financial eligibility for legal aid via the means test. Such tests too often result in women making unaffordable contributions, or even having to sell their home to pay legal fees. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), from Plaid Cymru, talked about the re-traumatisation process that that puts survivors of domestic violence through.

Justice is being denied not only in those areas of law that have been specifically removed from the scope of legal aid. According to the Law Commission, advice deserts have appeared throughout the country, because the huge legal aid cuts have had the knock-on effect of forcing providers and law centres to shut up shop, providing a barrier to legal aid even for those who are eligible. That point was made particularly forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) talked about the shortage of reliable legal advice and about the danger of unqualified organisations giving advice. She discussed the impact of court closures on access to justice. As a fellow—sister—Member of Parliament who represents a town, I know about the public transport challenges and all the other difficulties that court closures will create in constituencies such as ours.

Charities such as Shelter have warned that thousands of people a year are being made homeless because they cannot find lawyers to help them to prevent eviction. Vulnerable people are being left to fend for themselves, which is totally unacceptable. The human cost of LASPO is clear, but surely there should be some benefit from the Government’s decisions. One might assume that the Government are saving money through the cuts, which could be reinvested in other worthy causes. Yet, as is so often the case with the Tory austerity agenda, the cuts are economically short-sighted. As a result, the taxpayer is footing a huge bill.

The Government recently revealed that the justice budget has, in real terms, fallen by 40% since 2010-11. The Law Society, however, has found that the restriction on access to early legal advice and the sharp rise in litigants in person mean that many more cases end up in lengthy court hearings, rather than being resolved elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) brought in her experience as a former trade union lawyer of how early legal advice can help the system to run smoothly and economically. Mediation starts have fallen by 55% since 2012, forcing into the courts more cases that previously could have been settled.

Does the Minister agree with the President of the Supreme Court, Lady Justice Hale, who said that LASPO cuts are likely to provide a “false economy” because of increased pressure on courts? The charity Citizens Advice estimates that every £1 of legal aid spent on housing advice could potentially save £2.34 for the public purse, and that lack of support to resolve a case early means potentially far more costly court proceedings down the line. Those hidden costs must be factored into any assessment of the savings made from legal aid cuts. Will the Government, as part of their review of legal aid, publish their own cost-benefit analysis of the wider impact of reducing early legal advice?

A Labour Government will return all funding for early legal advice, because we know that prevention is better than cure. We will re-establish early advice entitlements in the family courts, restore legal advice in all housing cases to protect 50,000 households a year against rogue landlords, and review the legal aid means test. We will change the rules for legal aid at inquests, so that bereaved families are not left to fend for themselves against an inequality of arms. That is a fitting proposal, given that it is a year to the day since the chair of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and adviser to the Home Secretary called for legal aid to be granted to families who lost loved ones in the disaster, so that they can be represented at inquests. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have any plans to do the same?

There have been changes this year to the advocates’ graduated fee scheme by which legal aid criminal barristers are paid, provoking a backlash both from lawyers and in this House. Labour forced a vote against those measures. The Government responded to the threat of further action from lawyers with a Ministry of Justice announcement of £15 million to go into a new criminal Bar funding scheme. There are now complaints that that deal could be reneged on, and many are concerned that the funding will be more like £8 million. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will honour the letter and spirit of that deal, and confirm a date for the implementation of the new scheme?

We welcome the review of the impact of LASPO, but for many victims it comes far too late and without a clear timetable or commitment to act on any recommendations. Will the Minister confirm when the review will conclude, which organisations the Government have consulted and when they plan to introduce any recommendations? For the sake of the thousands of people harmed by those measures, the Government must take seriously the concerns of service providers, legal professionals, court staff, the chair of the Justice Committee and victims themselves, and act to restore access to justice for the most vulnerable in our society.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)]

I understand the Minister has an enormous number of points to respond to, but if she could give Mr Andy Slaughter a chance to wind up the debate, I am sure we would all appreciate it.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Gloria De Piero Excerpts

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

[Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Small Claims Track: Children and Protected Parties—

‘(1) The Small Claims Track Limit in relation to claims made by children and protected parties for whiplash injuries may not be increased unless the increase is to an amount which is not more than the value of £1,000 on 1 April 1999 adjusted for inflation, computed by reference to the consumer prices index.

(2) In subsection (1),

“children” means any person or persons under 18;

“protected parties” means any person who lacks capacity to conduct the proceedings;

“lacks capacity” means lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005’.

This new clause would limit increases in the small claims track limit for those suffering whiplash injuries to inflationary rises only, for people who are either children or people lacking capacity to make decisions for themselves (as defined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005).

[Gloria De Piero]

We are again confronted with the reforms in the Bill, which will cost the NHS at least £6 million a year and taxpayers at least £140 million a year, the Government admit. Even they accept that it will result in more than 100,000 injured people not pursuing a legitimate claim that they could pursue now; we say the figure is far higher. Insurers, meanwhile, will get an extra £1.3 billion of profit every year. The Government say that they will hand 80% of that to consumers in the form of reduced premiums, but they have said that before, and insurers have saved over £11 billion since the last Government reforms in this area, in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Despite a brief dip in 2012-13, premiums are now higher than ever.

The Government have moved a little on the Bill, and in Committee the Minister confirmed what he intimated on Second Reading: that vulnerable road users will be exempted from both the Bill and the small claims limit. That is welcome. As Labour has done repeatedly throughout the process, we will attempt today to make the Bill fairer still by setting out some key amendments.

New clause 1 would ensure that the whiplash small claims limit could be increased only in line with inflation based on the consumer prices index, and it follows Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendation that increases should come in £500 increments and only when inflation justifies them.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this package of reforms is the Government’s attempts to sneak through key changes to the small claims track limit through the use of statutory instruments. Today we want to give those changes the scrutiny they sorely deserve and put them in the Bill.

Whereas the threshold for getting legal representation for personal injuries is currently £1,000, the Government are trying to raise it to £2,000 or £5,000, which will make a massive difference to someone injured through no fault of their own. That position is supported by a raft of experts, including some in the Minister’s own ranks—the Tory Chair of the Select Committee on Justice for one. The White Book, which I took the trouble of sharing with the Minister in Committee, shows that there was an effective 20% increase in the small claims limit in 1999 when special damages were removed from the calculation of the limit. I note that the Lord Chancellor conceded in his letter to the Chair of the Justice Committee dated 15 August 2018 that 1999 is the correct date from which to calculate an increase.

It is worth pausing at this point, since the Government now accept that there was a significant change in 1999, to understand what that change meant. An example is given in paragraph 26.6.2 of the White Book:

“a claim for £4,000 for loss of earnings and other losses, plus a claim for £800 for damages for pain and suffering, is a claim which would be allocated to the small claims track”.

In layman’s terms, a claim may be made for under £1,000 for pain and suffering, but when losses and expenses are added in it could be considerably greater. The example in the White Book suggests that, if an £800 pain and suffering award has a losses and expenses claim of £4,000, although the total value of the claim is £4,800, it still falls into the small claims track. We are talking about claims far in excess of the small claims limit.

Lord Justice Jackson, in his review of civil litigation costs, all the recommendations of which the Government accepted and implemented in the 2012 Act, said in paragraph 1.3 of chapter 19 of his 2009 review:

“Personal injuries litigation is the paradigm instance of litigation in which the parties are in an asymmetric relationship.”

In words that we all understand, this is David versus Goliath. Sir Rupert Jackson went on to say that

“the only reason to increase the Personal Injury small claims limit would be to reflect inflation since 1999”

and that

“I propose that the present limit stays at £1,000 until inflation warrants an increase to £1,500”.

He could not have been clearer, yet the Government appear to have plucked the proposed £2,000 limit out of thin air.

The new clause states that the CPI, which is used for the uprating of pensions and benefits paid to injured workers, should be used to calculate the small claims limit. Even the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agrees that CPI is the way to go. She said earlier this year to a House of Lords Committee:

“CPI is a much better measure of inflation…we are seeking to move away from RPI”.

The Governor of the Bank of England agrees, too. He has said:

“We have RPI, which most would acknowledge has known errors. We have CPI, which is what virtually everyone recognises and is in our remit.”

It is perfectly clear what we need to do: enshrine CPI as the key measure in the Bill.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Government to admit that the increases are arbitrary and not linked to inflation in any way. Is it not the case, therefore, that the only reason for the increases is to prevent injured people from getting representation and thereby preclude people with meritorious cases from getting the damages that they deserve?

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Even if we use RPI, the Government still do not get to their proposed £2,000 new small claims limit. Instead, using the flawed RPI from 1999 would take the £1,000 to roughly £1,700. That is what we on the Labour Benches suspect is going on here.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an argument about whether RPI or CPI should be used, but is there not a bigger point here? For almost all claims generally, outside this area, the small claims track limit is £10,000. If we are to be consistent, is there not a case for making it £10,000, the same as everything else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gloria De Piero]

We are talking about physical injuries.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Surely the only gainers here are the insurance companies. Most people, because legal aid has been reduced, cannot afford solicitors.

[Gloria De Piero]

Exactly. I do not think anybody in this House will want to shed a tear for those insurance companies whose profits are going up and up. In 2017, profits for Direct Line went up 52% to £570 million and Aviva recorded a profit of £1.6 billion—and I have not even talked about the packages that some insurance company bosses take home.

The Government appear to have rounded this figure up. We say base the figure on the advice and recommendations of countless experts and follow the evidence. Even if the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) does not listen to me, I wish he would follow the evidence of the experts. New clause 1 does just that. It would increase the limit only by CPI since 1999 and limit any increase to £1,500. That way, injured people with significant injuries and potentially even more significant losses will get the representation they need and deserve.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of an accident at work it is even more important that an injured employee is able to get legal representation to take a case against their employer? The employer will be armed with lawyers and their employers’ liability insurance company. That is stacked up against an individual whose task will be hard enough. They will be feeling victimised enough as it is.

[Gloria De Piero]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not an easy thing to take a case against your boss. You need a lawyer to hold your hand, an expert to talk you through, and the Government’s proposals are going to make that so much more difficult. She makes an appropriate point.

New clause 2 would ensure that children and protected persons, for example those lacking mental capacity, are treated the same as other vulnerable groups by excluding them from the small claims limit increase for whiplash injuries. Having made a welcome concession on Second Reading, and clarified in Committee that they would exclude vulnerable road users from the impact of the Bill and secondary measures on the small claims court limit, the Government appear to have forgotten others. Horse riders, pedestrians, motorcyclists and cyclists are rightly to be excluded from the changes, but some of the most vulnerable in our society, who are currently recognised by the courts as requiring special status, will be left, with everybody else, facing a new small claims limit of £2,000 or £5,000. As it stands, any settlement awarded to those who lack capacity to conduct their own proceedings, such as children or someone suffering with a mental disability, must be rubber-stamped by a judge because of the claimant’s recognised vulnerabilities. That will continue to be the case after these changes are introduced.

The law requires children and other protected people to have a litigation friend to conduct proceedings on their behalf. In the small claims court, those who provide this required representation are not and will not be paid for their time. Yet by increasing the small claims limit, there will be a significant increase in the number of people coming through the small claims court with higher-value and more complex cases, where they need a lawyer more than ever. We are asking a litigation friend to take on potentially complicated matters for those most in need, on their own, in their own time, for no pay. Injured horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians and motorcyclists will not be subject to a tariff. The small claims limit for them will remain at £1,000, meaning that they will get a lawyer to act for them for free in any case over that value.

Can the Government not see that children and protected persons need this support, too? How on earth can the Government justify protecting one vulnerable group but not another? Why is the horse rider worthy of exemption, but not a child or a person without the capacity to conduct proceedings? Are we really willing to let some of the most vulnerable people in our justice system be left simply to hope for the good will of others to protect their interests because we in this House have failed to do so?

I know that the Minister is aware of this issue from discussion in Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). The Minister suggested returning to this point and that he would be very interested to see an amendment tabled. So here is his chance: a ready-made amendment that makes a simple correction and is an opportunity for the Government to rectify what I presume is an oversight. It simply extends the exemption already provided to others. It removes children from the changes being made to the small claims limit or tariff, and ensures that protected groups are excluded from the increase, the same as horse riders, cyclists and pedestrians. It removes the double standard of some vulnerable road users being granted an exemption and others not. Ultimately, it does little more than extend the protections already afforded to some and allow the Government to show that they care for all.

[Chris Philp]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me so early in this debate. I rise to oppose the Opposition’s new clause 1, which seeks to prevent the Government or any other public body from increasing the small claims track limit in relation to these personal injury cases, particularly road traffic personal injury cases, above £1,500.

I strongly oppose the measure. I touched on one of the reasons for doing so in my intervention on the shadow Minister earlier. For the vast majority of general commercial claims and indeed personal claims, the small claims track limit is £10,000. The reason it is as high as £10,000 is that some level of materiality is applied to the claim in question. The view taken by Parliament in the past, rightly, is that matters below the £10,000 limit should be sufficiently simple for a small claims track procedure to be used without the involvement of often very expensive lawyers.

In response to my intervention, the shadow Minister, before she was distracted by another intervention, drew attention to the fact that these are personal injuries. I accept that point, of course. However, the fact of their being personal injuries is not germane, in my view, to the question, which is: is the matter sufficiently simple to be adjudicated via the small claims track rather than through lawyers? That is the question—not whether the matter is serious or not serious but whether the matter is sufficiently simple to be dealt with properly by the small claims track rather than through lawyers. That is why I think there is a strong a case, on the grounds of consistency, for a £10,000 rather than a £5,000 limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gloria De Piero]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 3, line 14, leave out clauses 3 to 5.

This amendment would remove the creation of tariffs for whiplash injuries and retain the existing system where judges decide compensation levels with reference to Judicial College Guidelines.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 1.

[Gloria De Piero]

Amendment 2 gets to the heart of our issues with the Bill and would remove the whiplash compensation tariff system altogether. We are dealing with human beings who experience pain differently, who have different lives and who will all be affected by a similar injury in a slightly different way. We would not accept a pricing of insurance premiums that did not take account of whether we drove a Mini or a Maserati, and we would not accept a standard payment for damage to a car, regardless of its state after an accident. Where is the justification for using such a blunt instrument as a tariff to calculate pain?

We all want to stamp out false whiplash claims, but why should HGV drivers, firefighters or parents driving their kids to school be treated like fraudsters claiming falsely for whiplash, left with tariff compensation and no legal help? As Lord Woolf, the eminent former Law Lord who carried out a review of civil justice after being commissioned by a previous Conservative Government, pointed out in the Lords:

“The effect of whiplash injuries, with which we are concerned, can vary substantially according to the physical and mental sturdiness of the victim. This means that the appropriate amount of damages for a whiplash injury can vary substantially... I suggest that they are not suited to a fixed cap, as proposed by the Government.”

He went on to say that a tariff

“offends an important principle of justice, because it reduces the damages that will be received by an honest litigant because of the activities of dishonest litigants.”

The Government’s proposals will punish the honest based on the behaviour of the dishonest, but how big is that dishonest group? The ABI said in 2017 that insurers paid out in 99% of all cases and that fraud was proven in only 0.22% of cases. Woolf decried the Government’s move to

“interfere with the Judicial College guidelines by substituting tariffs or a cap, which lack the flexibility of the guidelines.”

He went on in speaking against the proposed dismissal of a tried and tested system of justice to say that the Lord Chancellor

“is motivated, at least in part, not by the normal principles of justice as I understand them but by saving insurers money, in the belief that this will result in a reduction in premiums for motorists who are insured when they come to pay for their insurance.”

Later, he put it as strongly as simply saying:

“There is no precedent for this intervention in the assessment of damages in civil proceedings.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1593-1595.]

He went on to quote Sir Rupert Jackson, who said:

“It is the function of judges (not Parliament) to set the tariffs for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in respect of different categories of personal injuries”.

Lawyers who deal with such issues all the time have pointed out how people who are already suffering, and perhaps unable to earn a living due to their injury, will be worse off under the proposed tariff. They include experienced legal practitioners from the Tory Back Benches, such as Baroness Berridge, who said:

“I have met many a claimant for whom the difference in damages now proposed by the introduction of the tariff, taking some damages from four figures—£1,200 or £1,400—down to the likes of £470 is a significant matter for many peoples’ incomes up and down this country. I cannot have it portrayed that this might not make a great deal of difference to many ordinary people in the country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1611.]

That is from a Government Back Bencher.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is making fair points, but it is important to take into account that the claim may consist partly of a general damages component and also a special damages component. Does she agree that if the individual had, for example, been required to take time off work and had incurred costs—or losses—in the process, he would still be able to litigate and seek to recover those damages?

[Gloria De Piero]

The tariff system would mean that somebody who today was entitled to £1,200 or £1,400 would be compensated with far less. I am quoting Baroness Berridge.

[Alex Chalk]

We have to be really careful in this debate to draw a distinction between general damages, which are for pain, suffering and loss of amenity, as with whiplash, and special damages, such as the cost of taxis or lost employment. Does the hon. Lady agree that special damages will still be recoverable in the normal way and that we should not be confusing the two?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gloria De Piero]

I am choosing to focus on the injuries incurred. For a soft tissue injury lasting six months, an individual would today get between £2,150 and £3,810 but, if the Bill passes, they would get £805. I am choosing to focus my speech on those huge differences. That is the practical reality of what this tariff system will mean.

There is another important principle. It is a significant step to mess with the proud tradition of an independent judiciary in this country, and the Government should not take that lightly. The Justice Committee, too, could not have been clearer in its criticism of how the tariff system will harm access to justice. We hope the Government will listen to the Justice Committee and eminent judges—and, yes, us—and accept this amendment to remove the tariff system.

[Mr Simon Clarke]

It is a pleasure both to speak in support of the Bill and, unfortunately, against the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero). It is really important that the Bill is proportionate in achieving the outcomes we want of ensuring that the public get the protection they need from injuries that can be so devastating, while at the same time compensating them in such a way that we do not burden the wider consumer with unsupportable bills. Earlier, I spoke about the fact that premiums need to remain affordable.

Amendment 2 would remove the ability to set a fixed tariff for whiplash compensation in regulations. As I mentioned earlier, the tariff system will ensure that claimants receive a proportionate level of compensation. This will significantly reduce and control the spiralling cost of whiplash claims and disincentivise unmeritorious claims. As with any such tariff system, I can understand the concern that it may not provide the flexibility necessary to ensure that compensation accurately reflects the true nature of someone’s injuries.

However, the Government have taken a number of important steps to ensure that such flexibility still exists. First, the tariff would not be flat for all cases, but staggered, depending on the severity of injury. Secondly, in addition to a tariff payment, all claimants will continue to receive special damages covering compensation for any actual financial losses suffered as a result of their accident. Finally, clause 5 gives the court discretion to deviate from the tariff in exceptional circumstances and when it is clear that a higher level of compensation would be appropriate.

This therefore seems to me to be exactly the type of Bill we should be bringing forward. It is sensible, and it does indeed allow us to provide the protection that people need, without the risk of putting up premiums. I do not believe that amendment 2 would achieve very much, other than wrecking the central point of the Bill, which as I say is to achieve such an upsurge in affordability.