Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme

Helen Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan]

Of course I do. At the outset, I set out the basic principles of the scheme. Of course it is the case that with 25 tariffs we cannot expect to compensate every single victim for every single injury they have suffered. It is compensation of last resort. Let me say this. What was the reward for the honesty and candour shown by those three Members for speaking up for vulnerable witnesses and for their constituents? They were sacked from the Committee, which subsequently reconvened on 1 November to debate the draft scheme, and now the ministerial team is peddling myths about the scheme. We have heard a couple of them already. I have the letter that the Justice Secretary wrote to Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs—not to Labour MPs, I hasten to add—on MOJ letter-headed paper claiming that only minor injuries will no longer be covered. That is nonsense: the criminal injuries compensation scheme at the moment makes payments only for injuries that have a disabling effect for at least six weeks. No payments are made for cuts and grazes, as has been suggested, unless they are serious enough to leave a permanent and visible scar.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have to explain why someone off work for six weeks—the minimum period under the scheme—who, even on the minimum wage, would lose £900, if they were on statutory sick pay, should then be plunged into further debt and poverty? Why should a victim of crime, as well as enduring the crime, be plunged into debt as a result?

[Sadiq Khan]

To be fair to the Government, I will assume that this is an unintended consequence of their obsession with cutting budgets without considering the consequences of legislation on blameless victims. We will hear shortly from the Minister, who will have to respond to my hon. Friend’s important example. We all have examples from our own constituencies of where blameless victims will suffer as a consequence.

Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs were also told in the letter that the scheme was financially unsustainable, but the Government’s own figures in their impact assessment do not back that up. The average cost of the scheme over the past four years has been £192 million—this out of a departmental budget of more than £8 billion. We also hear that the scheme is too generous and that the taxpayer can no longer afford it. Well, the tariff payments were not generous in 1996, when they were first introduced, and there has only been one 10% increase in the intervening 16 years, even though inflation has reached almost 50%. It is also worth remembering that, in 2010, 79% of all compensation paid out was for awards below £5,000. Nor is it right to accuse the scheme of being poorly policed. In 2009-10, only 57% of applicants received any compensation. Ineligible applicants are weeded out.

The Government also claim that the scheme is not needed, because people can get compensation elsewhere —we heard that said by the former Justice Minister—but that is also wrong. The scheme only makes awards to those who cannot receive compensation from any other source—for instance, if no assailant has been apprehended or claims on insurance are not possible. Also, we should not believe the propaganda claim—I am not sure whether you received the letter, Mr Deputy Speaker—that the scheme is collapsing under the weight of ever-growing numbers of applications. The data are clear: over the past 10 years, the number of eligible applications has remained broadly stable, at about 38,000 to 39,000 a year. Nor is it right when Ministers claim that this is about refocusing resources on the most serious injuries. There is no refocusing. This is a plain and simple cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I rise to oppose the motion. I should like to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) suggested, by outlining the overall context of services for victims of crime, of which the criminal injuries compensation scheme is just a part. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), has pointed out throughout the important debates on this subject that support for victims and witnesses is a high priority of the Government.

At the beginning of this year, the Government launched a consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, which set out a wide-ranging and ambitious reform package that will see us move from the previous one-size-fits-all model for supporting victims, with priority being given instead to the victims of serious crime, to the most vulnerable and to the most persistently targeted. Our reforms will also see police and crime commissioners using their local knowledge to ensure that victims get the services they need. There will, for example, be an increase in the use of restorative justice. There will also be a new victims code setting out clearly what victims should expect from the criminal justice system—not least that they should always be treated with dignity and respect.

[Helen Jones]

How is it treating a victim with respect if the children of a homicide victim, for example, could lose their compensation if the parent had worked all his or her life and then been out of work for a short period in the three years before the crime?

[Damian Green]

I shall come on later in my speech to the individual criticisms made of the changes, if the hon. Lady can be patient.

To return to the overall context, more victims will have the opportunity, through greater use of the victim personal statement, to tell the courts how crime has affected them. There will be compensation for victims of overseas terrorism and, following the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there will be a new victims commissioner—directly to address the point of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan)—who will present the views of victims clearly, with integrity and with force to Westminster, to Whitehall, to the media and to the public at large.

On top of all this—and more, such as putting funding for rape support centres on a sustainable footing and opening new centres, with more to come where there are gaps in provision; and such as ensuring better support for the victims of human trafficking through a contract let last year with the Salvation Army—we will raise up to £50 million extra from offenders to pay for more and better services for victims. The changes to the victim surcharge came into effect on 1 October, which means revenue will start to be received next spring, building on the success we have had over the past year in raising money for victims through the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996—some £800,000 so far, with more to come.

The consultation also set out proposals to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme. It announced that for victims of overseas terrorism, there would be a scheme for existing victims going back to 2002 and another scheme for future victims. We published the Government response to the consultation in July. In sum, this record demonstrates that we are determined, as we said in the consultation, to get it right and ensure that victims of crime get the help they need to cope with, and recover from, the effects of crime. That is the context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I have given way enough, and I know how many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Those who sustain injuries of a more permanent nature will generally still be able to claim, because if an injury has a lasting impact it usually appears again further up the tariff. Let me also restate the point I partially made to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): tariff awards for sexual offences and patterns of physical abuse will remain at their current levels wherever they currently apply in the tariff. That will enable better protection for victims of domestic violence, for example, who very often are subjected to more than one assault. We have certainly defined the eligibility more tightly so that only those direct and blameless victims of crime who fully co-operate with the criminal justice system process obtain compensation under the scheme, and I think that is right.

Various points have been made about dogs, but the one that cannot be repeated often enough is that under our charges the authority will pay only where the dog was set on the victim by its owner—in other words, where it was used as a weapon—because this is meant to be a compensation scheme for criminal injuries. As I explained, the ability of victims of sexual offences to apply for compensation needs to be preserved, and we have done that.

One point that I have not yet addressed relates to loss of earnings. The scheme has never compensated the actual value of lost earnings, but these payments still account for a large part of the cost of the scheme. The payments are intended not to put the applicant back in the position they were in prior to the injury but to provide a safety net. There are, of course, other benefits provided by the state for which applicants may be eligible, but in making our changes we are no longer reducing loss of earnings payments to take account of those other benefits.

I have briefly mentioned the hardship fund. We recognise that some very low earners, be they employed or self-employed, may, as a result of the removal of bands 1 to 5, find themselves in real and immediate financial hardship. They will need short-term assistance, so we will make payments for up to four weeks’ absence from work, which will enable those most in need to keep their heads above water while they recover from their injuries. The fund will be administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, at no additional cost, with a referral function provided by Victim Support. Applications will be processed quickly and payment made promptly, ensuring that debt is not accrued.

[Helen Jones]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I said that I would not give way again, but the hon. Lady has been very insistent.

[Helen Jones]

As I pointed out earlier, even those on low pay who are receiving statutory sick pay can be plunged into debt. In the past, their compensation in the lower bands has at least gone some way to relieving that debt. The Minister has to answer the question: why does he believe a victim of crime should be plunged into debt that they cannot get out of simply because they have been a victim? Offering them support services, however good, does not pay their bills.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I refute the idea that people will be given an injunction at some hearing in order to enable them to get legal aid, but people might apply. If the evidentiary tests are made too lax, there will be a tendency to fabricate claims or to bring in claims that are old and irrelevant, because it is worth thousands of pounds to the lawyer advising that person if legal aid is granted on that basis.

Far from trying to narrow the scope, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and others where we have got to and where we are going this evening, by the time we have finished. We have a clear, wide definition trying to catch the variety of circumstances that will evidence recent domestic violence so that the argument that the victim should not have to face her abuser without having legal representation can be countered. But we do not want to shift the vast majority of private family law cases away from mediation into publicly funded adversarial litigation.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Does the Lord Chancellor not accept that the legalistic approach that he is adopting ignores the reality of domestic violence, which is that many women do not report it, sometimes for years on end, and do not go to court to get injunctions, or if they do, are often persuaded to withdraw the proceedings before they come to a conclusion? It is only when the whole situation explodes and they leave the home that the reality of that domestic violence is noted.

[Mr Clarke]

But women will get legal aid for seeking the injunction. The hon. Lady is falling into what has happened throughout these debates. The definition that we are talking about as the gateway to legal aid for all other private family law cases goes far beyond injunctions.

If I may move on, I will remind hon. Members how far we have gone since we started the Bill—far beyond where the Opposition were first urging us to go—and we will go further in response to the debate in the House of Lords. The first issue is reflected in Lords amendment 192—whether or not we should use the definition used by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we resisted in this House. The Government’s intent is to have a broad and inclusive definition and one that commands widespread agreement. To cut all the pressure, we are happy to support the spirit of the amendment and we are therefore adopting the ACPO definition. I half suspect that if we had offered that when the Bill was in the House of Commons—it was my mistake that we did not—we would have closed the discussion down in the House because that is what everybody was then pressing for.

In their amendment their lordships in their wisdom add words which are not in the ACPO definition. That rather goes against the arguments that have been put forward for one, single, cross-Government definition of domestic violence. We have therefore tabled further Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 192 which would define domestic violence in the same way as the ACPO definition as

“any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between individuals who are associated with each other.”

We think this should satisfy the concerns that have been expressed in both Houses on this point, so I shall ask the House to agree to this Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 192.

Amendments 194 and 196 concern the accepted forms of evidence of domestic violence. I have already said that when litigation is about domestic violence, the victims will always have legal aid. The issue is one of balance. Lords amendment 194, led by the learned Baroness Scotland and supported by a number of her colleagues in the other place, has prompted us to look again at other kinds of objective evidence to ensure that the test is as widely drawn as possible.

I have discussed that with colleagues in the House, and I am grateful to the colleagues with whom I had meetings, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is in her place, for advice on the subject because she knows far more about family law than I do, as I have never practised in this field, and in particular for making the point that we need to take care that the range of evidence does not force victims to take formal court action where it may not be suitable in individual circumstances. We do not want to force people to go to court who would not otherwise do so.

Therefore, in response to this House and the debate in the other House, we intend to accept as evidence—we will reflect this in regulations—the following matters: an undertaking given to a court by the other party in lieu of a protective order or injunction against that party for the protection of the applicant, where there is no equivalent undertaking given by the applicant; a police caution for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant; appropriate evidence of admission to a domestic violence refuge; appropriate evidence from a social services department confirming provision of services to the victim in relation to alleged domestic violence; and appropriate evidence from GPs or other medical professionals.

We are prepared to accept those matters and ask the House to accept them this evening. They are in addition to those forms of evidence that the Government already accepted in our earlier debates. Those are: that a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction against the other party for the protection of the applicant is either in place or has been made in the previous 12 months; that a criminal conviction for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant is still in place; that there are ongoing criminal proceedings for a domestic violence offence by the other party against the applicant; that there is evidence from a multi-agency risk assessment conference of the applicant having been referred as being at risk of domestic violence from the other party and action has been recommended; and that there is a finding of fact by the courts of domestic violence by the other party against the applicant.

For the best part of 12 months we have reviewed this rather narrow point in one piece of litigation, and that is a fairly formidable list of things we are prepared to accept as evidence of domestic violence. If their lordships consult the people who have been sending them all the e-mails for the past few weeks, I am sure that they will be able to add to the list, as will Members of this House, but if we are not careful we will forget what the objective is: we want more of these cases not to be conducted by lawyers, financed by the taxpayer, who are engaged in adversarial litigation about where the children will live, what maintenance should be paid by one party or the other or what share of the matrimonial home should be owned by one party or the other. The Government have responded pretty generously because of our concern about domestic violence and, as I have already indicated, in key areas we have moved beyond where we were. This evening we have to insist that that is where it will end.

I should also point out that, on the time limits, where I do not think any history of domestic violence can be remembered and invoked, it is a question of ensuring that victims of recent or ongoing violence are protected, drawing a line so that Government regulations do not result in a permanent opening of access to legal aid. We will double the time limit we originally proposed from 12 months to two years, except in respect of a conviction for a domestic violence offence, where the only limit is that the conviction should not be a spent one.

Having moved on all those issues, the Government do not agree that the evidential requirements for those cases should be set out on the face of the Bill; the evidence I have described will instead be set out in regulations. The benefit is that that will allow greater flexibility to amend the scheme if required in the light of experience. If we set it all out in primary legislation, we would find that we had set things in stone for our successors.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

Let me repeat what I said: this is not a question of whether the person making a claim has a valid claim but of how much his lawyer gets paid. That is what we are looking at, and that is where the system needs reform. To be clear—I say that because I have heard that some hon. Members are not clear about this specific point—I emphasise that under our proposals the client’s lawyer’s costs will still be recoverable from the losing other side.

However, clauses 46 and 48 abolish the recoverability of the success fees and insurance premiums that have pushed up prices for everyone.

[Helen Jones]

Is the Minister aware that the lead asbestos case was very complicated and took six years to get to the Supreme Court? Does he really think that lawyers will take those kinds of cases without an assurance that their costs will be met?

[Mr Djanogly]

As I have just said, lawyers’ costs will be met in the usual way. What we are talking about is the success fee. That is where the problem has come into the system.

[Helen Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Djanogly]

No; if the hon. Lady listens, I will answer the question.

Our reforms are intended to redress the unfairness that exists in our civil litigation system between claimants and defendants. They will move conditional fee agreements back to the position that they were in before the Opposition’s disastrous reforms in the Access to Justice Act 1999. Our proposals are premised on the similar treatment of classes of cases, based on the costs or difficulty of bringing a claim. The Lords amendments would introduce a new unfairness between claimants, based only on the type of disease or illness, and essentially dependent on whether it was caused in the workplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Djanogly]

I am actually saying quite the opposite. I am saying that damages are going to be increased, not decreased.

The aim of our reforms is to end the current situation whereby legal firms can get away with charging what they want because the claimants do not have a stake in keeping an eye on the bill. At a time when the cases in question are becoming easier to bring, we should not accept amendments that would reduce pressure on legal firms to cut their fees. Instead, our focus should be on cutting inflated margins, not making exemptions for one type of disease.

I understand claimants’ fear of being left liable for high defendant’s costs should they lose, but under our reforms, we are protecting personal injury claimants from the risk of paying such costs, including in industrial disease cases, by introducing qualified one-way costs shifting.

[Helen Jones]

Even if I accepted the Minister’s argument about plaintiffs keeping an eye on fees, which I do not, how would someone with no legal training who was dying of mesothelioma be supposed to keep monitoring their lawyers’ fees?

[Mr Djanogly]

People entering into a conditional fee agreement have a relationship with their lawyer, and it is quite right that someone who employs a lawyer has some idea of what is on that lawyer’s clock and what they are charging. That is very important. If someone is sick, they will have family who can help them through their sickness.

The Government are determined to see more proportionate costs in civil litigation, with greater fairness in the risks borne by parties. Without our reforms, high and disproportionate costs in civil litigation would continue. Moreover, if the Lords amendments were accepted, claimants in mesothelioma cases would have an advantage over others who may be suffering from equally debilitating conditions. That cannot be justified.

--- Later in debate ---

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Helen Jones]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the last debate, many of us were dismayed by the conduct of the Minister, who giggled and grinned through descriptions of people dying of mesothelioma and what they suffered. I have to say that in almost 15 years in this House, I have never seen conduct that so demeans a Minister of the Crown and is so damaging to the reputation of the House. Is there anything that you can do to ensure that in future Ministers pay proper attention to such serious debates and conduct themselves as would be expected from a Member on the Treasury Bench?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Minister is welcome to respond if he wishes, but he is not under any obligation to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to promote and protect the rights of victims in the justice system.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

15. What recent progress he has made on his proposed changes to support for victims of crime; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

On 30 January, in a statement to the House, the Justice Secretary launched a three-month consultation, “Getting it right for victims and witnesses”, on our far-reaching proposals to improve the support provided to victims and witnesses of crime.

In addition, as was enthusiastically pre-announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities when responding to the debate on international women’s day, I can now formally announce the next five new rape support centres to be developed by the Ministry of Justice and the voluntary sector. Over the next 12 months, the MOJ will provide nearly £600,000 in funding to develop new centres in mid-Wales, Northumbria, Leeds, Southend and Suffolk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

Does the Minister accept that moving from a national system of provision for victims to one of local commissioning, as he is suggesting, will have a particular effect on vulnerable victims of crime, who often have to move home? What does he intend to do to protect them in the new system he is introducing?

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, because she raises an issue of considerable importance to Victim Support, the principal organisation providing victims services at the moment. Of course it is the Government’s view that these services would be better commissioned locally by the new police and crime commissioners. We are consulting on our proposals, and I will take her views into account as we consider the responses to that consultation.

Police Detention

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I have answered questions about when it became clear that this case was of concern. There was undoubtedly increasing concern among ACPO representatives and, when they met Crown Prosecution Service and Home Office officials, the full implications of the judgment became clear. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not do more, but, as I have explained, Ministers were not alerted to this by officials until 24 June, which was last Friday, and that followed deliberations that officials had been having with ACPO after it, in turn, had received its written advice. I am confident that ACPO has been working properly both in talking with officials in order to understand the implications and also in taking formal legal advice not once, but twice, about what those implications were. I am also confident that it was right for us then to come to the House once we had established a course of action, so that we could inform the House of the right way to proceed.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Minister’s comments have revealed an extraordinary degree of complacency in the Home Office about this very serious situation. Did Home Office officials know about this judgment in May? If so, why did they not alert Ministers, and when Ministers first found out about the judgment, why did they not immediately come to this House and make a statement and talk to the Opposition about how to get emergency legislation through to rectify the situation? Why has the Minister waited for so long?

[Nick Herbert]

I answered those points in terms in my previous answer, and I have nothing to add. It was important for us to establish what the implications of the judgment were first at official level, working with ACPO, and then on the basis of proper legal advice. It was only when officials received the written judgment of the High Court that it became clear that the original judgment might have an implication beyond that which was initially understood. There have been discussions during the course of the week about the appropriate way to proceed, and I have sought to update the House once we knew the course of action, so as to bring clarity. I repeat that I do not regard this as a matter for partisan difference. We are grateful to the Opposition for adopting a sensible approach to this matter and for supporting emergency legislation. We do not need to disagree on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

As we made clear in the Green Paper, we will, with the Department of Health, have invested £50 million by 2014 in establishing a liaison and diversion service, both in the police stations and in courts, to ensure that people who should more appropriately be treated in the health service do not go to prison. Of course prisons and secure mental hospitals will remain the appropriate place for offenders who have committed serious offences and pose a risk to the public. Prison health services will continue to provide care and treatment for the majority of prisoners with mental illness, with the additional support of specialist mental health inreach teams.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

T7. On the planned national diversion service, will the Minister tell the House who will provide the mental health assessments in police stations and courts that will be necessary for that service to work? Have the necessary provisions to provide that service been included in the budget?

[Mr Blunt]

Those assessments are a matter of health rather than justice, so the Department of Health is leading on establishing the liaison for diversion services.

Police

Helen Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. There are examples throughout the country—and I intend to provide some—of police forces that are making significant efficiency savings, and working in a smarter way that improves the service to the public even when funds have been reduced. It is clearly possible to achieve that.

It has been said that the profile of the cuts is front-loaded so that forces must find the biggest savings at an early stage. The profile reflects the need to make early progress on reducing the deficit, and it is set, but we must view the grant reductions in context. The biggest cut does not fall in the first year. The average cash reduction in grant is 4% in the first year, 5% in the second, 2% in the third, and 1% in the fourth.

It is also important to remember that a 20% reduction in Government funding in real terms does not mean a 20% reduction in force spending power. Forces do not receive all their funding from central Government; on average they receive about a quarter of it from the council tax component of precept, which is determined locally. If police authorities and, thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners choose to increase precept at the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the settlement represents a 14% real-terms reduction in overall funding over four years. Of course I recognise that the local contribution to police spending varies considerably between forces, and I shall deal with that aspect shortly.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Why does the Minister think that a force such as that in Cheshire should lose 200 front-line police officers while the Government are spending money on an unnecessary switch to political police commissioners? My constituents would much prefer that money to be spent on putting officers on the beat.

[Nick Herbert]

I have explained this to the House before, but I am happy to do so again for the benefit of the hon. Lady. If she looks at the allocations that we have made, she will see that the additional cost of holding an election for police and crime commissioners will not come from force budgets, but has been provided separately by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The argument that, because a cost is involved in the holding of an election, that election should not take place is a very foolish one, and a particularly odd one for an elected Member of Parliament to advance. When the Labour party proposed five different referendums in its manifesto, I did not notice its advancing the argument that a cost would be involved. I should also point out that it is now Labour’s policy for police authority chairs to be directly elected, and that the cost of holding those elections would arise every four years. Perhaps the hon. Lady should remonstrate with those on her party’s Front Bench if she considers that that is not money well spent. There is now agreement on both sides that there should be direct elections, and a cost is involved in that policy. If the Opposition did not believe that a cost was involved, they should not have advanced the policy and voted for it, as they did in Committee just a few weeks ago.

Let me return to the real effect of the funding reductions on forces. Humberside’s force raises the average 25% of its revenue through precept. If we assume that it chooses to adopt the freeze in council tax next year, its total funding will then fall by £5.5 million, or 2.9% of its total income of some £190 million. That is challenging, but it is not unmanageable. As Opposition Members have pointed out, the reductions in years three and four will be smaller.

Some forces, and some Members, have argued that the amount that each force raises in precept should be taken into account in the determination of funding reductions. I understand their argument, because forces that raise very little from precept will face a larger cut than those that raise a great deal. After careful consideration, however, I decided that there would be a number of objections to such an adjustment. First, it would be said that we were penalising council tax payers in other areas who already pay far more for their policing services, and who have experienced a big increase in council tax in previous years. That would certainly be unfair. Secondly, by subsidising forces in that way—including large forces with greater capacity—we would be asking others to take a larger cut in central grant than 20%, and that too would have been regarded as unfair. The fair solution, and the one that was expected by forces and authorities, was to treat all forces the same by making equal cuts in grant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I would be happy to look at those projects. Our aim, assuming that the pilots are successful, is for all such schemes to be paid for by results. If they work, they will receive the funding. In spite of the prison population’s reaching record levels and despite funding, reoffending rates have risen. We therefore need to institute a new system, whereby we pay for what works.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of mental health care for offenders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

We have worked closely with the Department of Health and the Home Office on providing mental health care for offenders. The sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper highlighted our commitment to identifying individuals with mental health problems at an early stage of the criminal justice process to ensure that they have access to effective treatment. An across-Government mental health strategy is due to be published early in 2011, which will focus on achieving improved outcomes for all people with mental ill health, including offenders.

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but if more offenders with mental health problems are to be dealt with in the community, exactly what funding will be available to support them? Will the NHS, which is already being subjected to cuts, be left struggling to cope, and offenders left more likely to reoffend?

[Mr Clarke]

Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is in the lead on the strategy. He is looking at ways in which to redirect his budget to get more effective community and other treatment for mental health problems. Offenders will be taken into account in the course of that, but it is important that we ensure that it is done within the available resources, and that those resources are used to the best positive effect for the community as a whole, not just offenders.

Defamation Law

Helen Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton.

We have had an interesting debate. I congratulate the members of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on their contributions to the debate; they have done an enormous amount of work on this issue. I was pleased to hear the Minister set it out clearly that, although he wants to take action to reform the libel laws, that is a complex matter and a delicate balance that has to be struck. He set out clearly the need to protect academic and scientific debate and investigative journalism, and the problems in respect of the costs in civil proceedings, particularly libel proceedings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) also stressed the need to get the change right, and I think all hon. Members would agree. He also touched on the role of corporations in defamation cases and the possible damage to investigative journalism that can result from that.

The Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), set out clearly the state of the law and the damage that can result from that, particularly the problems that we are dealing with in respect of success fees and costs.

All the contributions to the debate reflect the real concern about the state of the law and the complex nature of the reforms that are needed. The Select Committee report on press standards, privacy and libel made a useful contribution to the debate. Others have made useful contributions, too. For instance, a number of early-day motions have been tabled in the House, and English PEN and Index on Censorship produced reports, leading the then Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to set up the Ministry of Justice working group on libel, which produced a report last year.

We all face the problem that any reform of the law needs to do a number of different things: protect the right of free speech, particularly following the Singh case; protect that right in free scientific debate and inquiry; and protect the rights of campaigning investigative journalists who publish articles that are in the public interest. But it also needs to ensure that those who are defamed, particularly those of modest means, have recourse to the law to protect their reputation. The hon. Member for Maldon mentioned the libels suffered by Mr and Mrs McCann. I do not think that any hon. Member in this Chamber would suggest that people in such a position ought to be debarred from having recourse to the law because they are not wealthy.

We face difficulties in drawing up a new law, but I am pleased that all parties are now committed to doing so. The Labour party manifesto for the election committed us to changing the law to protect the right of defendants to speak freely. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats also committed themselves to reform. I genuinely do not believe that this is a party political issue and I say that as someone who is normally a tribal politician. The House needs to scrutinise this issue carefully to get the balance of the law right.

It is clear that so-called libel tourism is causing real concern. In fact, English PEN and Index on Censorship argued that English libel law imposes unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on free speech, and that the effect reaches throughout the world. Many of us might not go as far as that, but it was clear when the Select Committee considered the matter that restrictions may be necessary on claimants whose primary place of residence or business is not in the UK, and that they should perhaps face additional hurdles before being able to bring a case here.

It is also clear that the scope of the defence of public interest set out in the Reynolds and Jameel cases needs clarification. I hear what hon. Members have said about the risks of putting that defence into statute—I am minded to go down that route—but we must consider the rule on multiple publication, particularly in the age of the internet. The Select Committee suggested a limitation period of one year, with the courts having discretion to extend that. Again, it was clear that a balance must be struck between allowing individuals to protect their reputation, and ensuring that newspapers and other organisations are not forced to remove articles from the internet simply because the passage of time made it difficult and costly to defend them.

The report for the Ministry of Justice set out two options: a one-year limitation rule, or retaining the rule on multiple publications but allowing exceptions—perhaps the extension of qualified privilege or a similar freestanding defence.

[Paul Farrelly]

Lord Lester’s Bill addresses qualified privilege. Does my hon. Friend agree that the law on qualified privilege is not now working to provide protection as it should and was intended to do, particularly of the work of non-governmental organisations? They often feel constrained, for example, in referring to United Nations reports or reports from overseas bodies that make allegations because they fear a libel suit in which they must prove all the allegations themselves rather than relying on the report of otherwise august bodies?

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I hope that we can examine the issues in detail when the draft Bill is before us. I want to state clearly that by focusing on, for example, libel tourism and cases brought by wealthy individuals, we are sometimes in danger of forgetting that others must also have access to the law. We all agree that justice is not justice unless everyone has access to it.

That leads me to what is frequently described as the elephant in the room—costs and conditional fee agreements. The Constitutional Affairs Committee considered the matter in the previous Parliament, and received a large number of submissions from media organisations indicating that they are particularly affected by the use of CFAs. The Committee said that one of the main issues for defendants in libel cases is costs. When Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers gave evidence to that Committee, he highlighted the problem of costs in defamation actions, and expressed many people’s concern that fighting and winning a case could incur substantial costs that a defendant might not be able to recover. That is a valid point, but the Committee pointed out and we must bear it in mind that while it received many submissions from media organisations, it is much more difficult to receive submissions on behalf of claimants because they are not in organised groups that can give evidence to Select Committees.

We all know that the balance is delicate. The previous Government sought to deal with the costs of defamation actions before taking action on Lord Justice Jackson’s report by limiting the uplift in CFA cases to 10%, but that did not find favour with the Committee that scrutinised it in the House. I remember that very well because I was the Whip on the Committee, and it was the only one I have ever lost. Since then, some wise heads have suggested slightly higher limitations and other ways of capping costs.

[Paul Farrelly]

As other hon. Members have said, we made a distinction between limiting the uplift in defamation cases and limiting recoverability. Does my hon. Friend agree that in such cases the issue is reputation, and that damages should be secondary? It should be possible for claimants to share damages with solicitors in part to contribute to their costs. That would not be limited by capping recoverability from the other side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend highlights an interesting suggestion by the Select Committee, but the issue that we must grapple with is whether solicitors’ firms would be prepared to take cases in those circumstances. That is why I welcome the Minister’s commitment to publishing a draft Bill, and to having pre-legislative scrutiny of the issue. I do not believe that there is a debate between us about what we want to achieve, but there is and must be a debate about how we achieve it. The law in this area, as has been said many times, is extremely complex and difficult, so it is right that the House examines it in detail, goes through the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—the previous Government also intended to do that—and comes to a proper conclusion.

We certainly want to protect the media’s right to publish articles that are in the public interest—we all know that that is slightly different from being interesting to the public—and we all want to protect the right of scientists to engage in proper scientific debate and discussion. That is vital. It is also important that people can protect themselves from malicious and untrue attacks. I was pleased to hear the Minister and others accept that we must get the balance right.

[Dr Lewis]

I totally agree with the hon. Lady’s measured approach. On a couple of occasions when I was defamed, I knew that the sources were malicious opponents, and in a recent case a political opponent at a general election. Such people do not have the guts to publish the libel; they go to a newspaper, which then publishes it, and the malicious source is protected by the newspaper, which says that it must guard its sources and never reveal them. Before we lose too much sleep over the plight of newspapers when attacking individuals’ reputations, let us remember that, to some extent, they bring much of it on themselves by happily recycling malicious falsehoods put forward by people who do not have the guts to say it for themselves.

[Helen Jones]

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has far more personal experience of defamation actions than me. It is important to stress that it is fundamental to free society that we protect the rights of investigative journalists to publish comments that may be uncomfortable for people and which they may not want published, but which it is in the public interest to publish. At the same time, we must protect individuals from malicious and untrue attacks. How we engage with the draft Bill when the Government publish it will be a test of the House’s seriousness. It is true—we have experience of this—that pre-legislative scrutiny improves legislation. This time, we have a chance to get the laws on defamation right for a generation.

Hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and the various Select Committees that have looked at this subject have made valuable contributions, and I look forward to discussing the issue further. The House should engage in that complex process and draw on the valuable experience that is provided by a number of hon. Members, either through the Committee or, as was unfortunately the case for the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), through personal experience. I am sure that there is good will in all parts of the House to ensure that the legislation works.